‘ MSU LIBRARIES “— RETURNING MATERIALS: Piace in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINE§ will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. W435 7 PICKUP m 1937 If)! 1 - “—4 CHINESE STUDENTS AND SCHOLARS AT AMERICAN COLLEGES, UNIVERSITIES, AND RESEARCH INSTITUTES IN SEPTEMBER 1981: AN INQUIRY INTO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ADVANCED ORIENTATION IN CHINA AND SUBSEQUENT INTERACTION WITH U.S. CULTURE By Mary Kay Hobbs A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University . in partiai fulfilIment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Curriculum 1982 Copyright by MARY KAY HOBBS 1982 ABSTRACT CHINESE STUDENTS AND SCHOLARS AT AMERICAN COLLEGES, UNIVERSITIES, AND RESEARCH INSTITUTES IN SEPTEMBER I981: AN INQUIRY INTO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ADVANCED ORIENTATION IN CHINA AND SUBSEQUENT INTERACTION WITH U.S. CULTURE By Mary Kay Hobbs This study investigates the role and effect that advanced preparation in languages and cultural orientation have on the inter- action of students and scholars from the People's Republic of China with the American culture and people after their arrival in the United States. The primary research question formulated that: Chinese nationals who receive prior preparation in language training and cultural orientation to America will have more varied and extensive ties with the American populace than those Chinese nationals who did not have such preparation. A survey questionnaire was distributed to over 700 Chinese citizens studying in 40 selected American colleges, universities, and research institutes. Two hundred thirty-three returned questionnaires formed the data base. Descriptive information was obtained concerning the profile of Chinese students and scholars in the United States, the nature and variety of predeparture programs in China, and the nature and variety of their contacts in the United States. Much of this is new information able to be documented at this time because of the Mary Kay Hobbs recent resumption of educational exchanges between the United States and China after a virtual absence of contact for nearly 30 years. The data were analyzed through a series of cross-tabulations of variables to determine which items or clusters of items in a prep- aration for study abroad related significantly to the amount and kinds of interaction the respondents had with U.S. culture and the American people. The findings revealed that Chinese nationals who had more back- ground preparation also tended to rate higher on the factors indicating intercultural interaction in the United States. However, closer examination of individual variables showed that such interaction was not necessarily the result of advanced preparation in China as much as it was the result of their living situation in the United States and the efforts of university or community groups to provide opportuni- ties for interaction. Finally, the study looked at the exchange program at Michigan State University, including a description of its development and interviews with Chinese students and scholars at that location in order to obtain additional information about their experiences. To my mother and father, Donald and Louise Hobbs, whose belief it is that education opens the mind to the world and all it has to offer. ii AKNOWLEDGMENTS The completion of this dissertation owes a great deal to a number of people who have gratuitiously supplied the encouragement, expertise, and milieu that brought it to fruition. I'd like to thank them here: Or. David Heenan, my doctoral committee chairperson, for his steadfast support and continuous nudging, his availability, and prompt responses to matters both academic and administrative; Drs. Ted Ward, Kenneth Neff, and Joseleyne Tien, doctoral committee members, whose criticisms and comments on various aspects of the dissertation proposal helped me to avoid some pitfalls in the research process, and without whose generosity in the granting of needed extensions the project could not have taken place; . the 233 Chinese students and scholars who so willingly and promptly took the time to complete the questionnaire even if it did come from a stranger in a strange culture; those foreign student advisors, colleagues, and personal friends who agreed to serve as distributors of the questionnaires because they believed the project had merit; the Chinese students and scholars at Michigan State University who participated in the interview sessions and shared so freely their first-hand knowledge of the exchange process and how it has affected them; iii Dr. Frank Steinhardt of North Park College, Wendel Lepic of Copy Group, and the Chinese scholars in Chicago who contributed time and valuable expertise in the formation and layout of the survey questionnaire; Kahlil of the Office of Research in Teaching at Michigan State University, who introduced me to the whole new world and mental frame- work of computer programming; Alice Kalush, SPSS program analyst at the Michigan State Uni- versity Computer Laboratory, whose prompt service, professionalism, and patience endured through all my questions and several computer runs to obtain the needed statistical analyses; Sue Cooley for her proficient typing of the final manuscript on a tight schedule; the U.S.-China Peoples Friendship Association, my employer, for their interest in the topic and generosity in granting time off to assure its completion; and especially to Sally Shear of Lansing, Michigan, who literally gave me a home away from home during the months in which this disser- tation was written. Although the completion of this research project is truly a cooperative venture, the responsibility for its final content, errors, limitations, and conclusions is my own. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ......................... Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ...................... Research Inquiry and Nature of the Problem to Be Studied ..................... Why a Study of Chinese Scholars and Students in the U.S.? ...................... The Need for This Particular Study .......... II. BACKGROUND AND NATURE OF U.S.-CHINA EDUCATIONAL EXCHANGE ....................... The Door Opens .................... Profile of the Chinese Students and Scholars in the U.S. ...................... Establishment of an Information Agency ........ Obstacles and Problems ................ The Interaction of Chinese Nationals With U.S. Nationals ...................... Summary ........................ III. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................ Historical Setting .................. s? Selected Cross-Cultural Learning Theories ....... ,IReview of Selected Studies Using Data From Foreign Students .................. Meeting the Needs of Foreign Students in the United States .................... Recent Comprehensive Needs Study by NAFSA ...... The Role of Orientation in Preparing for Study Abroad . Summary ........................ IV. METHODOLOGY ....................... Methods of Inquiry ................. Design and Development of the Written Survey Questionnaire ................... Page viii The Selection of the Survey Sample Population . . . . Method of Distribution ............... Examination of the Exchange Program of Chinese Scholars and Students at One Institution ..... Methods of Analysis .................. The Development of a Scoring System ......... Data-Analysis Procedures Frequency Computations of the Data Cross-Tabulation of Variables ............ Other Types of Analysis ................ Summary ........................ V. FINDINGS OF THE SURVEY The Respondents: Who They Are ............. Preparation to Come to the U.S ............. English-Language Background and Training Orientation and Introduction to U.S. Life . . , . . . Evaluation of Preparation .............. Arrival and Living Situation in the United States . . . U.S. Orientation Programs .............. English-Language Skills ............... Contact With American Media, Culture, and People Summary of Descriptive Data .............. Scores Frequencies Range of Scores ................... Findings of the Cross-Tabulations ........... Nonrelated Variables Related Variables Survey Findings and the Research Hypotheses ...... VI. A CLOSER LOOK: CHINESE STUDENTS AND SCHOLARS AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ............... OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ‘ The Re-establishment of Institutional Ties Between Michigan State University and Chinese Institutions Chinese Students and Scholars at Michigan State University Profile of the Chinese Nationals at M.S.U. Respondents to the Questionnaire at M.S.U. Interview Sessions With Two Groups of Chinese Students and Scholars Studying at Michigan State University Settling In: Impressions and Expectations ...... Academic Experience ................. Internal Organization/Network Among the M.S.U. Chinese ...................... Interaction With the Lansing-East Lansing Community . Summary ........................ vi 181 186 188 190 192 193 ° 197 198 201 203 Page FINAL OBSERVATIONS, COMMENTS. AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........ 207 APPENDICES ........................... 210 A. "UNDERSTANDING ON THE EXCHANGE OF STUDENTS AND SCHOLARS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA" .................. le B. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA ON COOPERATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ...................... 2l4 C. SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE SENT TO CHINESE STUDENTS AND SCHOLARS IN FORTY U.S. INSTITUTIONS .......... 218 D. LIST OF AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS THAT PARTICIPATED IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ....... 234 E. COVER LETTER TO U.S. CONTACT PERSONS IN COLLEGES, UNIVERSITIES, AND RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS ........ 238 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................... 240 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Foreign Students in the United States by Major World Regions, 1954-55 to l978-79 .............. 5l 2. Comparison of Prepreparation + Scores and Postarrival - Scores ........................ l67 3. Comparison of Prepreparation - Scores and Postarrival - Scores ........................ l68 4. Comparison of Prepreparation + Scores and Postarrival - Scores ........................ l69 viii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Research Inquiry and Nature of the Problem to Be Studied The study in this dissertation investigates the experiences of a group of persons about which little is known at the present time: the students and research scholars from the People's Republic of China (hereafter referred to also as the PRC or as China), currently studying in U.S. universities and research institutes. After a lapse of nearly 30 years, China once again is sending students and profes- sional people, particularly those in scientific fields, to the United States for advanced study and research. This new situation is pri- marily the result of changes in government policies in both countries: the launching, in l977, of a major campaign in China to modernize science and technology, and the establishment of diplomatic relations with the United States on January l, l979. These policies have opened up opportunities for the exchange of teachers and students between the two countries. In particular, the study investigates the role and effect that advanced preparation in the areas of language study and cultural orientation have on the interaction of PRC nationals with the American culture and people after their arrival in the United States. Through the use of a written survey questionnaire sent to nearly lOOO students and scholars from China in 40 U.S. institutions, the study gathered information in order to assess the formulation that: Chinese students/scholars who had some initial preparation in language training and cultural orientation to America will have more varied and extensive, active ties with the American populace (academic and nonacademic) than those Chinese students/scholars who did not have such preparation. The study also elicited data concerning secondary areas of research objectives formulated thus: 1. Those Chinese scholars/students who come to the U.S. as individuals with private sponsorship will have more varied and extensive contacts with Americans than do those who come under the sponsorship of the Chinese government. 2. Those Chinese students/scholars who have more interaction with U.S. culture will express more overall satisfaction with their stay than those who have less. The second of these hypotheses is suggested‘flnctesting by previous research done by Hull and Klineberg in l979 into the area of adjust- ment factors which affect students who study in a foreign university. Their thesis stated that those who are satisfied with their interac- tions with local people and the local culture during their stay abroad will report broader and more general satisfaction with their total experience abroad, not only nonacademically, but also academically. A closer examination of this hypothesis is to be found in Chapter III, "Review of the Literature." Another intention of the study is to identify a profile for the respondents of the questionnaire to corroborate and compare with the profile prepared by the U.S.-China Education Clearinghouse, the only agency known to be currently active in compiling data on this group of foreign students. The findings of the survey conducted for this dissertation will add to that profile by providing information not solicited by the Clearinghouse. Why a Study of Chinese Scholars and Students in the U.S.? Several reasons warrant a study of this subject at this time. First, China is a third-world country seeking to industrial- ize and modernize its economy. It is the world's most populous nation with nearly a billion people in l980 and, as such, must find solutions to meet the basic needs of its citizens. China's problems require political and economic solutions, a setting of priorities based on the overall objectives for national development. Not unique to China, these needs clearly place China in a world setting with problems similar to those of other third-world nations: low average per capita income, a subsistence standard of living in most areas of the country, limited development of potentially rich natural resources due to lack of industrialized technology and expertise, and lack of capital to develop institutions to train such expertise as fast as it is needed and desired. Second, what is peculiar to China vis-a-vis many other third- world countries in similar conditions is her relative lack of inter- action and association with the industrialized nations, especially the United States, over the past 30 years. Official government policies established by the Chinese Communist Party under the leader- ship of Chairman Mao Zedong focused China's development as a socialist nation on gaining internal stability and on pursuing a policy of isolation and self-reliance in regard to the rest of the world. Internal changes in structure were made in the areas of land owner- ship, access to health and educational services to assist in the transition from a feudal agrarian society into one in which existing resources were to be distributed more equitably. The country main- tained limited exchanges and foreign relations with other third-world countries, but (not always out of choice) did not have extensive rela- tions with or influence upon the more industrialized nations of Europe, Japan, the United States, or, after the early l9605, the Soviet Union. The result is that today China is a country whose peOple as individuals and whose nation as a whole are relatively unpracticed in personal contact and interaction with people and systems whose habits, values, goals, and socioeconomic objectives are different from its own. In this respect, China, whose population constitutes nearly 25% of the world's people, has a recent history that sets it apart from many other third-world countries who have had ties and experiences with the industrialized nations. Third, because of the isolation that existed between the United States and the People's Republic of China from l949 until the early l9705, there was very little first-hand or accurate informa- tion about the United States in China, and few channels existed through which the people of China could come into contact with Ameri- can society and culture. There was virtually no exchange of people, products, or dissemination of American books, magazines, newspapers, radio broadcasts, or movies that would reflect American culture and values. Until the late l970s, most information about America came through carefully controlled Chinese sources and often was hostile. Since l976, dramatic changes have taken place in China. That year witnessed the deaths of Zhou Enlai, Ju De, and Mao Zedong in addition to other national tragedies such as the devastating earth- quake in the major industrial area of Tangshan. A few months later, in the spring of 1977, four prominent figures in the central govern- ment, categorized by the Chinese as the notorious "Gang of Four," were arrested. China then launched a series of campaigns to alter a number of the policies and directions promulgated in the preceding decade during the movement of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolu- tion. That period is now being assessed in a negative way, and a new set of guidelines, priorities, and directions for the country has been instituted under the broad entitlements of the New Long March or the Four Modernizations. The new directions include major changes in China's relationship to other countries and in particular to the industrialized countries and to the United States. The cam- paign to achieve modernization concentrates on four areas: agri- culture, industry, science and technology, and national defense. Both domestically and internationally, China is pursuing the goal of modernization with great intensity. Internally, the entire educa- tional system now gives greater emphasis to academic achievement, as well as increased respect and status to intellectuals and basic research, particularly in the sciences and mathematics. Increased production to enhance the standard of living is being stressed. Externally, China is seeking increased trade and exchange with the West, believing that the country can borrow from outside those things that are beneficial, such as scientific and technological know-how, and reject those influences and values not suited to its socialist development, such as individualism and capitalist ideology. The Chinese admit they are in an experimental stage and that they may make mistakes in trying to maintain the balance between their own national integrity and socialist values and the desired "goods" from elsewhere. One consequence of China's drive for modernization by the year 2000 is the establishment of diplomatic relations with the United States and the resultant exchanges in the areas of trade, culture, and education. While China has had such exchanges for a number of years on a small scale with other industrialized nations with whom they have had diplomatic relations, China's leadership, even after the death of Chairman Mao and the arrest of the Gang of Four, maintained that such exchanges would not take place with the U.S. until diplomatic relations were established. Ping-pong diplo- macy in l97l, Richard Nixon's visit to China in l972, and a trickle of American tourists and select delegations to China elicited an improving climate of curiosity about each other's countries, but very little exchange to the U.S. came from China. The Need for This Particular Study_ On December l6, l978, President Carter and Chairman Hua Guofeng issued joint statements calling for the establishment of full diplomatic relations between the two countries as of January l, l979. This official act led to the initiation and execution of a multitude of exchange ventures from all sectors and levels of both countries: increased tourism to China, increased exchanges in both directions of cultural delegations, resident journalists and business representa- tives in both countries, and others. Sister cities are being estab- lished, andindividual exchanges arranged directly between institutions as well as through government channels are proliferating. The increase in such exchanges alone warrants an assessment to document what is happening, how, and to what degree. In the area of educational exchanges, China's goals are clear: the country seeks to upgrade its level of knowledge and expertise in order to meet its objectives of modernization in science and tech- nology. The Chinese talk of "catching up" for a generation of students and youth "lost" during the decade of the Cultural Revolution, a time when the educational system was severely damaged. Many universities were closed for periods from three to six years in the late 19605 and early l970s. The investigation and inquiry undertaken in this study are, of necessity, related to the broader topic of the adaptive factors and processes pertinent to all foreign students as they undertake to live in a country that is not their own. Part of the motivation for a study on the Chinese scholars and students in the United States at this time comes from seeing them as part of, yet distinct from, the flow of international students who have come to the U.S. in recent years. The specific inquiry in the study, that of looking into the relationship between predeparture preparation and orientation toward a host country and the subsequent interaction with the host culture, could add to the body of knowledge in the field. Examination of the literature to date revealed that few studies have investigated this area. In the more practical sphere, many American institutions, , organizations, and programs that engage in cross-cultural exchange proceed on the basis that there is such a relationship, and they offer predeparture orientations to ease the adjustment of those who will spend time in another culture. The results of the primary inquiry, therefore, may lead to new information and assessment concerning the importance of advanced preparation prior to study abroad. The case of the Chinese students and scholars now in the U.S. is an interesting and unique one because of some of the background factors already mentioned. At the present time, the exchange programs between the two countries are in the initial stages with the exchange mechanisms and procedures not yet fully determined or standardized. Some researchers come for short stays of three months to one year, while others are enrolled in graduate programs of two or more years. In addition, concerned persons in Chinese universities and institutions have become aware of the gaps in culture between the two countries and have begun to initiate special programs for those preparing to come to the United States. These are also in the initial stages with little systematic content. Therefore, such a study at this time is useful and significant. The several chapters of this dissertation explore various aspects of the question being investigated. Chapter II introduces the setting for this particular study by providing information on the background and current status of the recently resumed exchanges in education between the United States and China, including the mobilization and preparation of American institutions for their arrival. Chapter III is a review of the literature, which is divided into several parts: (l) an investigation of the theories relating to cross-cultural learning and interaction, (2) studies done with foreign students to determine the nature and importance of various factors related to their stay in a foreign country, (3) literature concerning the responses of U.S. educational institutions to the needs of those coming from foreign countries, and (4) a look at the role that orien- tation has played in the success of a stay in a foreign country. The review of the literature examines and establishes the results of previous studies in these areas in order to place the case of the students and scholars from the People's Republic of China into a broader framework. Chapter IV describes the methodology undertaken in this dis- sertation. It includes the development of the written survey ques- tionnaire to solicit information from Chinese students and scholars in 40 different U.S. institutions and a description of the analytical procedures used to interpret the data obtained. Chapter V discusses the findings of the survey, both descrip- tive and inferential. Some findings supported the hypotheses raised 10 in this dissertation; others showed significant relationships between factors pertinent, but not inherent, to the primary hypotheses. These suggest areas where further research is needed. Chapter VI takes a look at the nature and experiences of the Chinese scholars and students at one U.S. institution, Michigan State University. Several interview sessions were conducted with groups of PRC nationals to obtain a better understanding of areas of the exchange that could not be solicited through the written questionnaire. In addition, the Foreign Student and Admission Offices were consulted, along with the Asian Studies Center, the English Language Center, and the US-China Peoples Friendship Association in order to gain a broader perspective on the functioning of the exchange from the university administrative and community-interaction points of view. The dissertation concludes with several appendices that formed the basis of the research, including a selected bibliography. CHAPTER II BACKGROUND AND NATURE OF U.S.-CHINA EDUCATIONAL EXCHANGE For the purposes of this study, this chapter deals only with the students and scholars coming from the Pe0ple's Republic of China to the United States. However, it should be noted that the exchange is a two-way process with a slowly increasing number of Americans, both faculty and students, being admitted to China for teaching, study, and research purposes. The current arrival of Chinese students and researchers to the U.S. is certainly not the first instance of educational exchange between the two countries. Between l872 and l88l, a total of l20 Chinese students matriculated in American universities. By l917, there were l,200 students1 in America, many of them supported, ironically, by official Chinese government funds in the Boxer Indem- nity Remission Scholarship Program created by the U.S. to aid China in repayment for loss of American life and property in China during the anti-foreign Boxer Rebellion in China at the turn of the century. During this period in China there was tremendous interest in American values and their application to the newly emerged Republic of China. Sun Yat-sen, the first President of the Republic, had spent consider- able time in the West with American and English connections. Bertrand 11 12 Russell and John Dewey both made speaking tours of China, drawing a positive response from thousands of Chinese students and intellec- tuals with their philosophies of pragmatism. Further, the Chinese put great faith in the idealism of Woodrow Wilson and had hopes that he and the American influence would be able to bring about a settle— ment of World War I issues in order to safeguard Chinese territorial integrity. Such hopes were realized at the 192l-22 Washington Con- ference, which obligated the Japanese to withdraw from territories in China formerly held by the Germans and ceded to Japan in the Versailles Treaty. During the l9405, the number of Chinese students in America grew to between 5,000 and 6,000, nearly the same number which are now studying in the U.S. since the re-establishment of exchanges initiated in the late l9705.2 Of these American-trained professionals in science, education, and agriculture, many returned to China where some came to assume important positions in China's government and educational institutions now under Communist Party control. Through- out the last 20 years, many of those have suffered during periodic waves of suspicion and persecution because of their foreign training.3 In l950, educational exchanges between the two countries ceased as the U.S. withdrew its personnel and closed all consulates and the Embassy, officially denying recognition to the new government on the mainland of China. The present educational exchange with the People's Republic of China is a direct consequence of the re-establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries on January l, l979, thus ending 13 29 years of mutual nonrecognition between the two governments. The official move to normalize relations began in February l972, when then-President Nixon accepted the Chinese invitation to visit Peking for discussions on the possibility of improving Sino-American rela- tions. The visit concluded with the signing of the now-historic document known as the "Shanghai Communique," issued on February 28, l972. Although the signing of the "Shanghai Communique" led to the establishment of a Liaison Office in each country to continue dis- cussions of the normalization of relations and the development of bilateral trade agreements, little was done over the next six years to implement concretely the section of the Communique dealing with spe- cific exchanges: The two sides agreed that it is desirable to broaden the under- standing between the two peoples. To this end, they discussed specific areas in such fields as science, technology, culture, sports and journalism, in which people-to-people contacts and exchanges would be mutually beneficial. Each side undertakes to facilitate the further development of such contacts and exchanges.4 Such exchanges consisted, for the most part, of a limited, although increasing, number of tourist visas issued to Americans (primarily through the auspices of the US-China Peoples Friendship Association), exchanges of individuals or small delegations in the areas of business or government, and a few cultural exchanges. The most prominent among the latter were the tour of the "Archeological Finds from the People's Republic of China" in l975 and the "Exhibition of the Huhsien County Peasant Paintings" in 1977.5 During the period from 1975-1979, an increasing number of tours to China organized by and for indi- vidual university administrators and alumni were received in China. 14 However, despite the hopes on the part of the Americans that these visits would lead to specific exchange agreements between themselves and universities in China, this was not the case. Through a number of channels, the Chinese made it clear that the 'fiILl and open exchange of students and faculty between the uni- versities and research institutes of the two countries was dependent upon the establishment of full diplomatic relations. The Xinhua News Agency clippings for l977 and l978 record cordial meetings between representatives of U.S. university groups and representatives of the Chinese Ministry of Education (notably Fan Yi, Vice—Premier and President of the Chinese Academy of Sciences) which state diplomatic relations as a condition for the implementation of desired educa- 6 Similarly, when representatives from the formally tional exchanges. established Liaison Office of the People's Republic of China in Washington, D.C., accepted invitations to speak to those professional and government groups having a special interest in or relation to Sino—American concerns, their response to the question of educational exchange was the same.7 Despite the public assertions that educational exchanges of any magnitude would have to wait until normalization of relations was achieved, a great deal of behind-the-scenes work was being done; and in October l978, several months before the formal announcement of the establishment of diplomatic relations, an agreement on limited educational exchanges was reached in Washington, D.C., and subse- quently released. (See Appendix A.) This "Understanding on the Exchange of Students and Scholars Between the United States of America 15 and the People's Republic of China" was developed by Dr. Chou Pei-yuan, acting Chairman of the PRC Science and Technology Association, and Dr. Richard Atkinson, Director of the American National Science Foun- dation. The agreement consisted of ll points outlining general goals and conditions for a two—way scientific and scholarly exchange, including lists of fields in which each side's students and research- ers were interested and lists of institutions where they wished to work. Numbers were suggested: the Chinese wished to send around 500 students and scholars to the U.S. during the l978-79 academic year, while the U.S. indicated their desire to send lC) students to China in a national program starting January l, l979, and 50 more by the fall of 1979.8 The Door Opens On December l5, 1979, simultaneous announcements in the two countries (over Peking Radio and in the People's Daily newspaper in China and by President Carter in a nationally televised press con- ference in Washington, D.C.) stated that formal diplomatic relations between the United States and the People's Republic of China would be 9 In the latter part of January and effective on January l, l979. early February of 1979, Vice-Premier Deng Xiaoping made the first state-to-state official visit to the U.S. During his nine-day tour of several cities, a number of agreements were signed on a variety of scientific and cultural exchanges: the guidelines, terms, and condi- tions were outlined in an official document signed by both President Carter and Vice-Premier Deng in Washington, D.C., on January 3l, l979. 16 (See Appendix B, Agreement on Science and Technology and Memorandum of Understanding on Educational Exchanges Between the United States and China.) This agreement, although based on the promotion of mutually beneficial bilateral activities, clearly recognized China's needs for advanced training of personnel in the sciences and tech- nology in order to move its domestic national plan to modernize.‘ It includes areas of exchange much broader than that of students and faculty: bilateral cooperation extends to the exchange of scientific, scholarly, and technological information and documen- tation, the joint planning and implementation of programs, joint research in scientific and technological fields, and the organization of joint courses, conferences, and symposia, as well as others. The agreement is to remain in effect for five years with its implementa- tion and manner of operation to be determined by a US-PRC Joint Com- mission on Scientific and Technological Cooperation. The U.S. execu- tive agent is the Office of Science and Technology Policy; China's is the State Scientific and Technological Commission.10 While the above document and its general stipulations do not determine the sole context in which educational exchanges will take place or limit the initiative of organizations or universities in establishing their own direct relationship with counterparts in each country, it is the piece of paper that opened the door that had previously only been ajar. Neither country has lost any time in implementing the agreement, and exchanges, arranged both through government and individual institutional channels, have proliferated. 17 In November l978, two months before the signing of the Joint Communique which established diplomatic relations, China Features (Peking) carried an announcement that 50 research scholars, 6 of them women, would leave for the U.S. in December to commence study at four universities. Their two-year stay was to start with three months of English study at American and George Washington Universities in Washington, D.C. Fan Yi met with this first group of scholars on December 26, l978, encouraging them to study hard and master advanced American science and technology. "You must emulate the attitudes of Premier Chou Enlai and other revolutionaries of the older generation "1] On January 5, 1979, a mere five days when they studied in France. after the normalization of relations between the two countries, the Ministry of Education and the Bureau of Scientific and Technological Personnel under the State Council held a joint meeting with l60 par- ticipants from over 50 organizations and 27 universities. At this time they drafted a two-year plan for sending students abroad discuss- ing methods and standards for seleCting them.12 The emphasis was on the training of more teachers for China's institutes of higher learn- ing, particularly those responsible for the natural and technical sciences. In keeping with the "Understanding on the Exchange of Students and Scholars Between the United States of America and the People's Republic of China," eight American postgraduate students, selected through the auspices of the Committee on Scholarly Communi- cation with the People's Republic of China, arrived in China in late February l979. At a reception held for them by the Ministry of Edu- cation in Peking, the Chinese restated their goal of sending 500 18 Chinese to attend U.S. universities to study advanced science and technology; Tom Gold, speaking for the Americans, stressed the hope that the U.S. would send 60 Americans to China to study Chinese his- tory, literature, and language.13 Neither of these aspirations was achieved numerically within the time frame first estimated (six months for the Chinese, one year for the American), primarily because the exchange apparatus and logistics, nonexistent for nearly 30 years, had to be built almost from scratch. However, the mobilization of American institutions to receive students from China has proceeded at a rapid rate, all the more amazing considering the lack of a central administrative agency and the diverse stipulations and require- ments of independent institutions.14 Profile of the Chinese Students and Scholars in the U.S. From fewer than two dozen PRC citizens studying in the U.S. at the time of normalization, the number increased in dramatic pro- portions to reach over 6,000 by the summer of l98l, surpassing by more than one-third the number enrolled in U.S. universities during the 1940s.15 This figure is significant in that it reflects the desire on the part of both countries to positively demonstrate the new relationship between them. In China's case, it is action urgently taken to make good on the national plan to modernize and a solid reversal (at least for the present period) of its past international isolationism. Throughout this dissertation, persons from the People's Republic of China in the United States are referred to as students lr l9 and scholars. Such a distinction is necessary, reflecting groups of persons who have differing Characteristics, most notably in their sponsorship, status at the university, and purpose for their stay. Scholars, or "visiting scholars" as they are sometimes called, are mid-career Chinese professionals sent to the U.S. for varying periods of time to pursue advanced training, primarily in the natural sciences and engineering. They are engaged in research programs at individual American universities and institutes rather than degree programs. They are nominated by their home institutions, and their stay is supported by Chinese government monthly stipends of around US$400. The purpose of their stay is many-faceted: working with American colleagues in their field enables them to learn new research techniques, to catch up on developments in their fields, and to acquaint them with the broader scientific community. Chinese-government-sponsored graduate students constitute another defined category. In general, they are younger than the visiting scholars, being chosen after graduation, after a stringent selection process from China's leading educational institutions. Like the scholars, they receive a monthly living stipend from the Chinese government but are admitted and enrolled in graduate degree programs in American universities. At present, the Chinese govern- ment has plans to send four to five hundred such students to the 16 This number is not as large as that of the visit- U.S. each year. ing scholars, but it is a growing segment of Chinese citizens on American campuses. HE th 5P in thl COT frc $10 the sch of lng Chin Excha many dIaWr 20 Privately sponsored students make up a third category of Chinese now studying in the U.S. This group is much more diversified and, as of late l98l, has become the largest group of Chinese in the U.S., representing over 55% of the total. Recognizing that it cannot meet the need for trained personnel for the modernization effort or the desire for study abroad of its many citizens through government sponsorship alone, the Chinese government has encouraged students to investigate other sources of sponsorship and readily grants visas to those who can demonstrate a sufficient level of support. Such support comes from two primary sources: friends or relatives in the U.S. and from individual foundation grants, university fellowships, and assistantships. Selection in these cases rests on meeting the admis- sion standards of U.S. universities rather than the criteria set by the Chinese government. While members of this group range from high school students to individually sponsored researchers, the majority of them are undergraduates. They tend to be more widely scattered throughout the U.S., studying in a broader range of fields and disci- plines than either the visiting scholars or the Chinese-government- sponsored graduate students, both of whom are highly concentrated in the sciences and engineering. Individual American institutions are increasingly establish- ing their own exchange agreements with a variety of institutions in China. Such arrangements are often reciprocal, allowing for the exchange of students and/or faculty at a variety of levels and in many fields of study. The specifics of such exchanges are often drawn up in written exchange agreements. More about this and other 21 information concerning the changing pattern of the Chinese students and scholars in the U.S. will be discussed later. The first few months after the establishment of diplomatic relations raised many questions on how the exchange process would operate. American universities began contacting the newly established Chinese Embassy as well as the U.S. State Department for information on how to bring Chinese students to their campuses. U.S. universi- ties quickly began to receive letters of inquiry from students and universities in China asking similar questions. Even private organi- zations having links with or interest in China, such as the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations, the Committee on Scholarly Exchange with the People's Republic of China, and the US-China Peoples Friend- ship Association, were contacted for information about the exchange process. None of these agencies or organizations could provide a systematic, much less comprehensive, response to the growing demand for information. In March l979, a conference sponsored by the International Communications Agency of the U.S. government was convened to discuss the exchange process between the two countries and its implications. Attended by professionals in the National Association for Foreign Student Affairs (NAFSA) from a wide variety of educational institu- tions, the conference covered such areas as the lack of uniformity in placement procedures in U.S. institutions, English-language diffi— culties, and discussion about ways to introduce Chinese scholars and students to local people and the American culture should they desire such contact. At that time there were lOO students from the People's 22 Republic of China in the United States compared to l3,650 from Taiwan.17 One issue debated was the extent to which students and scholars arriv- ing from China should be treated differently from others of the many national groups of foreign students already on American campuses. Some felt that special considerations and stipulations were required since, at that time, so little information was available to each country on the educational evaluation procedures and admissions requirements of the other country. Throughout the l9705, most uni- versities in China did not grant degrees, and other means of evaluat- ing a student's performance which were recognized and accepted by many other foreign countries, such as the Graduate Record Examination and the TOEFL examination of English fluency, were unknown in China. Others felt that the establishment of special categories or services for Chinese students and scholars per se would be to set a precedent that would serve neither the Chinese nor the American institutions in the long run. Both groups were desirous of facilitating the exchange process, but that issue was left unsettled. Establishment of an Information Agency One strongly agreed upon outcome of that conference was the need for an agency to provide continual up-dated information on the exchange process to assist universities and others throughout the country. Thus, the U.S. International Communication Agency provided two-year funding for the establishment of the U.S.-China Education Clearinghouse in Washington, D.C., to be administered jointly by the Committee for Scholarly Communication with the People's Republic of 23 China and the National Association for Foreign Student Affairs. The main purposes of the Clearinghouse were to provide information about China's educational system to U.S. institutions of higher learning, to collect and share information about U.S.—China institutional relationships and student/scholar exchanges, and to channel recom- mendations received from the American higher education community on U.S.-China educational relations to appropriate U.S. government 18 The Clearinghouse performed these services admirably over agencies. the past two years and is to be commended for its publications, which are the leading source of information on the exchange process and its development. Not only has it provided valuable information on the Chinese population of students and scholars in this country, based on several research projects, but it has also compiled and shared pre- viously lacking information about Chinese institutions of higher learning necessary for Americans who wish to study or do research in China. A list of Clearinghouse publications is included in the bib- liography of this dissertation. The first known attempt to compile information on the students and scholars from China studying in the United States was undertaken by the U.S.-China Education Clearinghouse in December l979, and the results were released in a publication entitled "Survey Summary: Students and Scholars from the People's Republic of China Currently in the United States" in April l980. The report is based on a ques- tionnaire sent to l68 U.S. institutions of higher education to which 133 responded. In what is believed to be a realistic profile of - PRC students and scholars in the U.S. at that time, the total number 24 was approximately 2,000. One thousand one hundred of these were government-sponsored visiting scholars (figure verified by the U.S. Embassy in Peking based on those applying for visas to the U.S.); the remainder were privately sponsored students who received financial support from U.S. relatives or friends or directly by scholarships and various forms of aid from the U.S. institutions.]9 In addition to a profile of the Chinese students and scholars in terms of the institutions and locations where they were most con- centrated, the report also provided information on language, financial, and administrative issues. Deficiencies in English-language skills were mentioned by the responding institutions as a major problem. Of those who required additional language training after arrival in the U.S., 45.l% were students and 54% scholars.20 Speaking and listening comprehension caused the greatest problems. Other frustrations arose due to unfamiliarity with American idomatic usage and to technical terminology in the specific field of study. Misunderstandings in language often exacerbated misinterpretations of differing cultural behavior between the Americans and Chinese. Fifty-one and six-tenths percent of the responding institutions reported that those scholars and students sponsored by the Chinese government received stipends inadequate to living costs in America, stating that at least $100 to $200 in additional funds were required to meet basic monthly expenses.21 Lack of funds for needed clothing, medical and dental expenses were often reported. Because of the rapidly expanding number of Chinese who arrived in the U.S. each term, and the widely differing time periods of their 25 stay (some coming for three to six months and others for one to two years), the statistics released in the "Summary Survey" were out- dated by the time of its release. However, its purpose of providing a profile and of identifying initial problem areas in order that U.S. institutions could begin to address themselves to their solution was accomplished. In August 1981, the Clearinghouse published the results of a more detailed and extensive survey with the same title as the earlier one. Three main factors justified the conducting of a second survey only one and a half years after the first: (l) both the number of students arriving from China and the number of American institutions receiving them had increased dramatically, rendering the earlier survey incomplete and inaccurate; (2) a comparison of the results of similar items in the two surveys pointed out changes that had taken place in the profile, patterns of sponsorship, and problems facing the students and scholars; and (3) the second survey provided addi- tional information on university apparatus and methods of assimilating the Chinese citizens into the American academic environment. As before, the survey was sent to U.S. universities and colleges thought to have enrolled PRC citizens--313 in 1981 as opposed to 168 in 1979. One hundred eighty responded to the second survey. The results of the survey provide a much clearer picture of the exchange process and its present status on U.S. campuses. It is a picture that the authors, Tom Fingar (CSC-PRC) and Linda Reed (NAFSA), expect to remain fairly stable or within the range of changes in patterns among other foreign students in the future because of China's 26 inability to support students and scholars at the present increasing ratio and because the “pool" of those in China who most desperately needed foreign training for China's modernization efforts is being depleted. At the same time, China's ability to train students and researchers in needed fields in its own universities and research institutes is increasing because of the domestic policies of improv- ing educational institutions and because of the advanced training that returned students and scholars from abroad will bring. Of the estimated 5,000 PRC students and scholars in the U.S. at the time of the survey, the results provide information on the characteristics of 3,467 of them, broken down into the following categories: 399 undergraduates; 656 graduate students; 1,945 visiting scholars; 467 other (mainly persons studying English).2 This represents an increase of 300% over the number in the U.S. at the time of the first survey. While 5,000 is still only one-third the total number of students in the U.S. from Taiwan, there are only 12 or 13 other countries that have more citizens studying in the U.S. at this time.23 The geographic and institutional distribution of Chinese students and scholars remains about the same as in the earlier survey. Even though they have enrolled in nearly twice as many U.S. colleges and universities, the western region, California in particular, still ) 24 enrolls the largest percentage (26% . Further, this survey was able to document that, of the schools responding, 65% are in 25 27 schools that have more than 40 students and scholars from China, and six schools have more than 100.25 These figures showing concentra- tion are indicative of the particular following that some U.S. schools have in China, and that they have done quite well in securing admission to targeted institutions. One of the biggest changes between the results of the two surveys is that of composition of sponsorship and category. Visiting scholars, once 61% of the total, is expected to decline to 34% in the 1981-82 academic year; an increase in the absolute and relative number of graduate students (both Chinese government Sponsored and privately sponsored) was recorded with the percentage changing from 17% to 45%.26 While the majority of PRC students and scholars are engaged in research or degree programs in mathematics, engineering, and the physical sciences, the percentage of graduate students in the humani- ties and the social sciences is greater than that of the visiting scholars. Privately sponsored students, most of them undergraduates, tended to be more evenly distributed in all fields. The biggest jump came in the number of graduate students enrolled in the humanities, from 1 in 1979-80 to 90 in 1981-82.27 But this number represents only 1.5% of the total Chinese population studying in the U.S. The Chinese institutional affiliations 'fln" undergraduates, graduates, and scholars remained relatively unchanged from one survey to the next: 28 --Colleges and universities 54-55% --Chinese Academy of Sciences 27-29% (slight decline from 1979) --Academy of Social Sciences 2- 4% --Government agencies 4- 8% --Other 13-14% The only exception of note is that 77% of the undergraduates are coming from China's universities and colleges rather than special- ized academies or research institutes.28 Obstacles and Problems English—language deficiencies continue to constitute a major barrier to the admission and full assimilation of Chinese students and scholars into their academic or research programs, according to the respondents of the second survey. Of the 125 respondents to that question, 59% felt that most PRC students required additional English- language training; 1 % said that some needed it; and 22% indicated that few required more training.?‘9 Figures for Chinese scholars are nearly identical. An additional problem is that of assessing the language ability of PRC applicants prior to arrival in the U.S. because of the nonavailability and lack of administration of the standard TOEFL exam in China. This situation is about to be corrected as arrangements have been made to do so, starting in a few select loca- tions in China in 1981-82. Dr. Altman of the Educational Testing Service in Princeton maintains that GRE as well as TOEFL scores for all government-sponsored students and scholars should be available to U.S. institutions from those applying for the fall 1982 term.30 However, this leaves a large percentage of the total number applying for admission without access to the test in China, i.e., privately sponsored students. 29 The areas and issues raised around the subject of admissions policies and procedures are still troubling ones according to the responses to the second survey. As the Chinese have become increas- ingly aware of applications procedures, i.e., to whom to write for what forms, how to apply for financial aid, and others, increasing numbers of students and scholars applying from the institutions familiar with the procedures are using them. Those American institu- tions that have specific exchange agreements with individual Chinese institutions have the fewest problems in this area, mainly because persons from the two institutions have met, either in the U.S. or China, and have discussed the procedures for their own institutions. It is most problematic for the self-willed and enterprising Chinese student who wishes to apply for U.S. university fellowships or assistantships. He or she often does so on the suggestion of a foreign teacher in China, has never seen an American university cata- log, and expects things to be standardized in U.S. institutions as they are in China. Therefore, such students often use unorthodox channels and contacts and provide incomplete or insufficient informa- tion to the university or department to which they wish to apply. In response to China's lack of familiarity with American pro- cedures and methods of evaluating potential applicants, 48% of the survey respondents said they applied the same criteria to Chinese candidates as for all other applicants, leaving 52% who indicated they applied special criteria.3] Of the latter, the most common exceptions made were in the waiving of the U.S. standardized test scores: 99% waived TOEFL and assessed English ability by other 30 methods; 67% waived required GRE scores; 35% waived SAT scores.32 Some required that one or more of these tests be given after arrival on campus. Very few of the respondents viewed the application of special criteria as a permanent measure: 75% indicated that such waivers and special procedures would end when the normally required tests are administered in China, and 40% stated that the measures were introduced in order to resume exchanges with China.33 The survey asked a number of questions about financial support in order to lay rest to conflicting rumors and misunderstandings that have arisen among the institutions, the general public, and the Chinese-American community. Since the individual Chinese student or scholar simply does not have the financial resources himself or within his immediate family in China, the costs of study or research abroad have to be borne by others. Chinese-Americans, as a group, have been particularly "set upon" and pressured by relatives in China to support the higher education of a kinsman from China. With the competition keen in China for the limited amount of government funding for either students or scholars, many Chinese view their American relatives (most of whom they have not been in contact with for many years) as the best financial route for their son, daughter, cousin, etc., to achieve the now-much-sought-after opportunity to study abroad. This is particu— larly true for undergraduates or those in a nonscientific field, both categories that are low priorities for Chinese government funding. The survey found that substantial sponsorship for both gradu- ate students and visiting scholars is borne by the Chinese government, but that it did vary according to the category and field of study and 31 that the proportions have not changed very much between the first and second surveys. The following is a breakdown of financial sponsor- ship: 72% full or partial Chinese government paid PRC visiting scholars 23% full or partial U.S. universities paid 3% supported by friends or relatives in U.S. 34% full or partial Chinese government paid PRC students 26% full or partial U.S. universities paid34 36% supported by fr1 ends or relat1ves 1n U.S . A significant variation was found when looking at the pattern of financial support in those 25 schools that reported enrollment of more than 40 PRC nationals. Whereas the Chinese government provided full support for only 29% of the graduate students overall, it pro- vided full support for 45% of its graduate students enrolled at those universities. In comparison, friends and relatives provided full support for only 21% of the students at those schools, while provid- ing 36% of that category nationwide.35 These figures show a clear targeting of preferred schools by the Chinese government, whereas the overall percentage of privately sponsored students is scattered among a much broader range of schools nationwide. The "Summary Survey . . ." of 1981 requested and received information about one area that the Clearinghouse did not ask about in its 1980 survey, that of formal institutional agreements that existed between the respondent's school and one or more in China. Fifty-two percent of the respondents to the survey indicated that their university or school did have such an agreement with a Chinese school; 36 17 schools reported multiple agreements. Most of these were estab- lished in 1980 or early in 1981; most of them were specific agreements 32 that commit or permit the institution in each country to receive a designated number of students and/or faculty from the other; some obligate the bilateral providing of scholarships in given fields. However, the number of students and scholars coming to the U.S. under these kinds of agreements is only a small portion of the total: in 1980, 8 undergraduates, 73 graduate students, and 157 visiting scholars were in the U.S. under the auspices of formal institutional agree- ments.37 The U.S.-China Education Clearinghouse is, by far, the leading source of information about the nature and administrative specifics of the Chinese nationals in the U.S. at this time. Its coordination of information and role of acting as a liaison between university admissions and foreign students offices, the Embassies in both coun- tries, and knowledge of the steps and procedures needed to permit exchanges to move forward smoothly have been of great service to American institutions. The Clearinghouse closed on December 31, 1981, its major purposes fulfilled. However, some of the ongoing tasks have been shifted to the National Association for Foreign Student Affairs and the Committee for Scholarly Communication with the People's Republic of China. The Interaction of Chinese Nationals With U.S. Nationals Very little public information exists on the nature or extent of interaction between Chinese and U.S. nationals. In the spring of 1980, a letter was sent to the 56 participants who had attended the "Briefing/Workshop on Students and Scholars from the People's Republic 33 of China and the United States Colleges and Universities" mentioned at the beginning of this section. The letter requested information on what, if any, kinds of activities or programs were being planned to acquaint PRC nationals with American life and culture, including orientation programs and direct contact with American people or commu- nity groups. Of the 18 replies received (3 %), most came from members of COMSEC, or Community Section, of NAFSA, which is the division of the foreign student affairs body most interested in this aspect of the exchange process. None of those responding indicated that their institution was planning special orientations, apart from that provided or required for other foreign students on their campuses. In most cases, they felt that a special effort should be made to acquaint Chinese stu— dents and scholars with COMSEC services, which include the following: occasional in-home h05pitality home stays of varying duration (i.e., between terms) household loan items (dishes, furniture, sheets, etc.) conversational English community orientation (banking, shopping, etc.) speakers bureau emergency loan fund Several of the persons responding felt that COMSEC should play a role in orienting their volunteers and university personnel who were most likely to come into contact with Chinese students as to the potential pitfalls existing because of cultural and social differences and the long absence of contact with the People's Republic of China. In the year and a half since that information was solicited, a number of developments have taken place, mainly in response to the growing numbers of Chinese arriving on campuses across the country 3W 0/ m 34 and the growing awareness of community groups that Chinese students and scholars are, in general, enthusiastic about exploring the commu- nity and meeting with Americans. Some of the schools that have a large number of Chinese have established an informal, if not official, office that deals exclusively with the China exchange program: the University of Wisconsin, Northeastern University in Boston, Univer- sity of California in Berkeley, and Wayne State University in Detroit, to name a few. They handle administrative matters dealing with the Chinese and the university, but they also arrange communication between the Chinese and interested community groups. A number of professional groups and community organizations outside the university have an interest in the arrival of Chinese nationals in the U.S. The National Committee on United States-China Relations is one. Because of their concern that the majority of students and scholars, diligent and committed to their studies and research, would return to China without an opportunity to become acquainted with the history and development of American society, the National Committee created a Scholar Orientation Program in 1980.38 The program consists of a 7-ll-day visit to four cities-~Williamsburg, New York, Washington, D.C., and Philadelphia--for lS-member groups of Chinese scholars. Each tour is based on a particular professional focus to allow maximum interaction between colleagues of the two countries. Lecture sessions are given by experts in the four cities; there are also visits to historic sites and cultural performances, and tours of multi-ethnic neighbors and civic centers. A highlight of the program is the homestay with American families in New York 35 and Washington, D.C., which provides a direct experience with daily life. Thus far, five such groups have been organized under the program: --June 1980: focus on law and economics --Sept. '80: focus on English language and literature --Dec. 1980: focus on agriculture --March '81: focus on journalism --Aug. 1981: focus on English language and literature Through announcements of the Scholar Orientation Program to universi- ties across the country, the National Committee relied on the foreign student offices to publicize the program and to nominate those inter— ested scholars who would most benefit from the program. While the number of scholars who have participated in the program is small, a total of 47, it has been judged a great success by both the Chinese participants and the National Committee. Nearly half of the participants have been women, a representation much greater than the national percentage of women to the overall Chinese students and scholars in the U.S. (between 15-18%).39 Participants have been selected from a wide variety of institutions in all parts of the country, and they represented many different institutions in China. The only exception has been with the agriculture group, where all but one of the Chinese were studying at the Midwestern universities: Wisconsin, Michigan State, and Minnesota. The National Committee on U.S.-China Relations has summarized the_program as follows: I We feel that the scholars who participate in the program-- those who are in the vanguard of China's modernization drive, future leaders and policy makers--will leave the U.S. enriched, 36 not only by academic and technical knowledge, but by a truer understanding of our people, government, and American society.40 A Chinese participant put it this way: I've been in the U.S. for over a year, and until now all I had done was research in my area of specialization. All I knew revolved around the university and my field. I could not answer any questions concerning the "whole picture" of the United States. When we return to China we should also know about the general conditions in the U.S. This program has certainly con- tr1buted to that k1nd of understandmg.4 Another group having considerable contact with the Chinese students and scholars in the U.S. is the US-China Peoples Friendship Association (USCPFA). Nationally incorporated as a nonprofit educa- tional group in 1974, the Friendship Association is a loose "confed— eration" of over 100 local chapters of volunteer members with a nationally elected board of directors. National priorities focus on the operation of a tour program to China (one of the largest in the country) and the operation of the Center for Teaching About China in Chicago, which is a clearinghouse for educational materials about China for use in American primary and secondary school curricula. The Friendship Association's overall objective is "to promote a better mutual understanding between the peoples of China and the United States."42 The activities of local chapters vary considerably, depend- ing upon the interests of individuals and communities, but most offer regular programs on China featuring films and speakers, promote the national tour program, and participate in international community programs, festivals, and bazaars. Prior to the establishment of diplomatic relations, the organization publicly criticized the U.S. government's "two China" policy and lobbied for the normalization of relations in Washington. 37 Since 1979, the local chapters of the Association have spent increasing amounts of time and energy in activities to assist scholars in their adjustment to the U.S. and to encourage them to participate in Association events geared to educating Americans about China. Contact with Chinese scholars and students was not difficult to arrange and maintain, partly because the Association's focus is with China and not with foreign students in general, and partly because the Friendship Association is quite well known in China. Prior to 1979, it was one of the few American groups with a ready welcome in China and was given a special recognition for its pe0ple-to-people foundation. Most Association members have visited China, thus are acquainted with the differences in culture and conditions between the two countries. Many of the first teachers of English from the U.S. to be selected to teach in China's universities in 1978 and 1979 were members of the Friendship Association. While the opening up of China's doors to all varieties and sectors of the American society who have an interest in China has greatly reduced the "special" status and influ- ence the Association has in China, the history of the group makes it easier to understand the affinity between its members and the newly arrived Chinese students and scholars on American campuses. It is difficult to assess the strength of the relationship or the range of activities that the Association and the Chinese have in common because most local chapters are small and do not systematically report or publicize their services. Some of the larger chapters pub- lish sporadic newsletters, and the national office in Los Angeles publishes a bimonthly feature magazine, U.S.-China Review.43 From the str as vis Dubl' prOg) 38 these and personal first-hand knowledge of Association people and structures around the country, the following activities come forth as a representative sample of services offered on behalf of Chinese visitors through the Friendship Association: --hosting of banquets or dinners on Chinese national holidays, i.e., October 1 and Chinese New Year; --Eng1ish classes to enhance conversation ability; --transportation assistance for shopping, medical visits, and the like; --American home hospitality between terms or on American holidays; --"buddy systems" between individual Chinese and Americans; --organization of group trips to local community museums, historical sites, etc.; --sponsorship of Chinese students and scholars to national Friendship Association conventions; --regional organization by several chapters of group trips to out-of-town special events, i.e., the Great Bronze Age Exhibit or the China Trade Fair which toured America in 1980; --arranging contact with Association members in other cities for individuals who plan to visit for business or pleasure. The relationship is mutually beneficial. The presence of Chinese students and scholars has stimulated community interest in China and given the Friendship Association a new vitality in many cases. Indi- vidual students and scholars are often willing to speak before groups of Americans at programs or conferences and workshops sponsored by the Friendship Association. Most Association events are open to the public, but not often well publicized. Organization of services and programs with PRC students appears to be haphazard, often growing out 39 of the needs and requests in a specific location rather than proceed- ing from long-term planning. Evaluation is seldom systematic or comprehensive, and dissemination of information with the intent to share successes and failures happens only sporadically or randomly, often through word of mouth at regional or national conventions. Nevertheless, in spite of these weaknesses, the US-China Peoples Friendship Association is an organization that Chinese stu- dents and scholars respond to readily, one that offers a genuine opportunity for long-term relationships to develop and mutual learn- ing about each other's country and culture to take place. The second "Summary Survey . . ." from the U.S.-China Educa— tion Clearinghouse did ask for information from the U.S. institutions about the nature and frequency with which Chinese students and scholars participated in nonacademic activities. Concerning the programs arranged for foreign students, 74% said that they participated often or occasionally; the remaining 26% stated such options were used infrequently or never by Chinese nationals.44 Survey respondents cited informal English practice, home hospitality, and visits to schools and other community sites as the most commonly requested activities desired by their students and scholars. Sixty-nine per- cent of the responding institutions stated that they worked with community groups that provided such services for foreign students. For those community groups specifically interested in working with the Chinese nationals, Katherine Donovan's booklet, Assisting_ Students and Scholars from the People's Republic of China: A Handbook for Community Groups, provides a wealth of pragmatic advice and 40 information. The handbook is aimed at helping those individuals and groups who may not have a great deal of experience in programs for other foreign students, but who are eager to meet with and assist persons from the PRC. Moreover, Donovan feels that the preparation of the handbook was necessary because of the uncertainties of what to expect from the resumption of exchanges with a group of persons after nearly 30 years of estrangement. The booklet contains chapters that provide an overview of the exchange process to date, a profile of the newly arrived students and scholars, concrete steps to take on the organization of a program to assist them, and a description of the kinds of programs and services that Chinese students and scholars have found most helpful to date. Also helpful are the appendices, which include a pronunciation guide to common Chinese surnames, a chronology of U.S.-China relations from 1784 to 1980, and a listing of U.S. organizations working in specific areas of U.S.-China relations. The handbook, distributed through the U.S.-China Education Clearing- house, is the first publication to share the practical experiences, insights, and ideas gained from campus and community groups during this first phase of resumed exchanges. Summar This chapter has reviewed a wide-ranging variety of literature bearing on the specific research undertaken. The Chinese students and scholars now in the United States are, as a group, part of a much larger phenomenon, that of people from one culture studying in another in order to achieve special goals, both national and personal. 41 Yet, because of the particular nature of U.S.-China relations over the past century, recently resumed educational exchange between the U.S. and China has a character of its own, at least in this current period. Some initial work has been done to define the nature of the presence of Chinese nationals on U.S. campuses, much of it through the efforts of the U.S.-China Education Clearinghouse. The surveys conducted by the Clearinghouse provide basic information on the char- acteristics of the Chinese coming to the U.S. which has been most helpful. However, at this time, no major research has been done to determine the nature of preparation that such students and scholars have had to acquaint them with U.S. educational institutions or the culture in which they will be Spending a considerable period of time. Such information can come only from the PRC nationals themselves. For this reason, a written survey was designed to be distributed to a sample of such persons at selected institutions throughout the United States. The development, design, and analysis procedures of the survey are the subject of Chapter IV. 42 Footnotes--Chapter II 1Katherine C. Donovan, Assisting Students and Scholars from the People's Republic of China: A Handbook for Community Groups (Washington, D.C.: U.S.-ChinaiEducation Clearinghouse, 1981), p. 43. 2 3 4U.S.-China Agreement: Shanghai Communique. Reprint of press releases in both countries provided by the’U.ST:China Peoples Friend- ship Association, Los Angeles, California. 5Continua1 and up-dated listings of U.S.-China exchanges and visiting delegations can be found by consulting Notes from the National Committee, a newsletter published by the National Committee on U.S.- China Relations in New York, New York, and U.S.-China Exchange Notes, put out by the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Ibid., p. 3. Ibid. 6Xinhua News is a synopsis of news items that appear in mul- tiple Chinese newspapers throughout the PRC. Translated into many languages, the synopses are printed and distributed daily throughout the world. Not widely available in the U.S., interested U.S. indi- viduals and institutions can obtain subscriptions through the Xinhua News Agency outlet c/o S. Chinque, 76 Chancery Lane, London, W.C.2, England. 7This observation is based on statements by Wang Pingnan of the Chinese Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries, who spoke at the US-China Peoples Friendship Association National Conven- tion in San Francisco in September 1978, and Chao Yaqing, Chinese Liaison Office representative, who addressed the opening of the Exhi- bition of Huhsien County Peasant Paintings in Chicago, April 1977. 8"Understanding on the Exchange of Students and Scholars Between the United States and the People's Republic of China." Reprinted in China Bound: A Handbook for American Students, Research- ers and Teachers by Karen GottschangiiWashington, D.C.: U.SilChina Education Clearinghouse, 1981). Reference is to point number seven in the agreement. 9Joint Communique on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations Between the United States of America and the People's RepubliEiof China. Reprint of the press releases iniboth countries provided by the US-China Peoples Friendship Association, Los Angeles, California. 10Agreement on Science and Technolo and Memorandum of Under- standing on Educational Exchanges Between the United States and China. Issued January 31, 1979, Washington, D.C. Reprinted in China Bound: Handbook for American Students, Researchers and Teachers, op. cit. 43 ll 12 13 ‘4The U.S. system of noncentralized educational activities and structures has caused a great deal of confusion and frustration to the Chinese government, whose Ministry of Education had signed the Agreement on Science and Technology with the U.S. government. The U.S. Department of Education, the American counterpart of the Chinese Ministry of Education, had little role or decision-making authority in the actual exchange process. Acceptance of Chinese students was up to the schools to which they applied, which had differences in admission criteria, financial stipulations, and varying evaluative procedures for Chinese students. 15Thomas Fingar and Linda Reed, Survey Summary: Students and Scholars from the People's Republic of China in the United States, no ust 1981 iWEEhifigton, D.C.: U.S.-China Education Clearinghouse, 1981), p. i. 16 Donovan, op. cit., p. 8. 17Hugh Jenkins, Briefing/Workshop on Students and Scholars from the People's Republic of China and UnitediStates Universities and Colleges (Washington, D.C.: NationaT’Association for Foreign Students Affairs, 1979), p. 2. 18An Introduction to Education in the People's Republic of China and U.S.—China Educational Exchanges (Washington, D.CZ: U.S.- China Education Clearinghouse, 1980), p. i. Xinhua News, December 26, 1978. Ibid., January 5, 1979. Ibid., February 24, 1979. 19"Survey Summary: Students and Scholars from the People's Republic of China Currently in the United States, April 1980" (Washington, D.C.: U.S.-China Education Clearinghouse, 1980), p. 1. 201mm, p. 2. 211bid., p. 3. 22 23 24 25 26 Fingar and Reed, op. cit., p. iii. Ibid., p. 39. Ibid., p. 3. Ibid. Ibid., p. iv. 44 271bid., p. 11. 281mm, p. 10. 291bid., p. 17. 30Linda Reed, "TOEFL and GRE to Be Administered in the PRC," NAFSA Newsletter 32,7 (June 1981). (Washington, D.C.: National Association for Foreign Student Affairs, 1981), pp. 160-61. 3lFingar and Reed, op. cit., p. 19. 32 33 34 35 36 Ibid., p. 20. Ibid., p. 19. Ibid., from information extracted from tables on pp. 25-27. Ibid., p. v. Ibid., p. 35. 37 38"A Report on the Scholar Orientation Program" (New York: National Committee on U.S.-China Relations, Inc., 1981). The report consists of a four-page handout with accompanying lists of partici- pants and itineraries for each of the first five groups. 39 4o 41 42Taken from the "Statement of Principles" of the national brochure of the US-China Peoples Friendship Association, Los Angeles, California. 43Local chapters with active programs of assistance for students and scholars from China, and which have produced written reports and/or periodic newsletters include the following: Boston, Massachusetts; New York, New York; Miami, Florida; Atlanta, Georgia; Lansing, Michigan; Chicago, Illinois; Detroit, Michigan; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Denver, Colorado; Los Angeles, California; East Bay (Oakland-Berkeley). California; San Francisco, California; Portland, Oregon; Seattle, Washington; Houston, Texas; and Honolulu, Hawaii. In addition, the regional US-China Peoples Friendship Association bodies, located in Boston, Atlanta, Milwaukee, and San Francisco, Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., p. 3. Ibid., p. 4. 45 issue newsletters three or four times a year. Addresses for local chapters and regional offices can be obtained from the USCPFA National Office, 635 S. Westlake, Los Angeles, CA 90057. 44Fingar and Reed, op. cit., p. 33. CHAPTER III REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE An important element in the identification and nature of the research area involves an investigation of previous studies and literature on the subject. Three areas have the most direct bearing and provide insight and direction: what is known concerning the adjustment processes in a cross-cultural situation, what is known regarding the problems and needs of foreign students generally, and what is known about the assessment of and responses to the needs of foreign students by U.S. institutions. The review of the literature shall be placed in this framework and include sections under those subheadings, as well as an examination of the role of orientation programs to assist foreign students. Historical Setting Historically, international educational exchange has been truly significant in numbers only since World War II. This is not to say that exchanges did not occur prior to that time. However, the numbers and types of persons who left their homeland to study in a second country were few and the objectives were somewhat different. Traditions and centers of learning, though, go back several thousands of years. "Students" came from many parts of the country and some- times from abroad to learn from "Masters": Socrates and Plato in 46 47 ancient Greece, Confucius in China, and much later, in Europe, Galileo, Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, and others. Such learning was seldom institutionalized; in many cases, students sought their teach- ers as the latter moved from city to city, sometimes to escape perse- cution from authorities for their "heretical" teachings. In medieval Europe, centers of learning became known for expertise in specific subject areas, such as medicine or theology. Nor were the great centers to be found only in Europe. Timbuctu was a thriving center of Islamic study in the Songhai Empire in the 12th and 13th centuries in the Niger River basin of West Africa, drawing selected students from traditional Koranic schools all over Africa and as far away as Turkey and the Arabian peninsula. Later, during the Renaissance and Reformation periods in Europe, the search for humanistic studies, social policy, and the "grand tour" became motivating factors for study abroad among certain classes of people. Such travel was the route to adventure and social 1 Access to and desire for an education in distinction or promotion. a foreign country was, on the whole, restricted to the elite classes. Although such study abroad may have required the acquisition of another language, the education received strengthened the knowledge and values held in esteem by prevailing traditions of religion or culture (Christian, Moslem, etc.) which crossed national boundaries. Thus, it was not in conflict with or in contradiction to the student's own cultural heritage. The growth of schooling for a broader sector of a national population has become a priority and reality only in the 19th and 20th 48 centuries in conjunction with the emergence of the modern nation- state and expressed national development needs. In third-world countries, this growth has taken place, for the most part, in the last 20 years. Access to higher education in all countries is limited by the number of existent institutions, economic and politi- cal priorities, and the selection criteria. Although an even smaller percentage of students will have opportunities to study abroad, the trend toward greater numbers of persons participating in international educational exchanges shows a steady growth over the past 25 years. The growth in the flow of international students to other countries is made possible by several factors, both political and economic. These are not the concern of this study, but they provide the climate in which present-day exchanges take place. Not the least of these factors is the acknowledged global interdependency among countries and the increased facility of travel brought about by modern technology and means of communication. The cooperation and encourage- ment of international exchange by governments is also a large factor. Because of its highly developed technology in specific fields and its more broadly developed system of higher education, the United States is a major case in point. Since the 1946 creation of the Fulbright Program enacted by the U.S. Congress, it has become one of the largest promoters and an active participant in the field of international educational exchange. Today, the United States has one of the most varied and comprehensive arrays of exchanges of any country, both in terms of the numbers of U.S. students who go abroad to study and the number of students it admits from other countries to 49 its institutions of higher learning. The first 20 years of the Fulbright Program enabled a total of 28,997 American students, teach- ers, lecturers, and research scholars to travel, study, and teach in other countries. In return, over the same time period, 52,706 indi- viduals from other countries came to the United States under its auspices.2 In 1961, the Fulbright Program and the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 were consolidated into the Fulbright Act (Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act), which made the two-way flow of teachers and students part of an avowed foreign policy. It also provided the dollar support needed to initiate programs in countries where such assets were not available. U.S. government support, however, sponsors only a small per- centage of the actual numbers of foreign students enrolled in the country's colleges and universities. Foreign governments themselves sponsor a number of those selected to do advanced study in particular fields; many U.S. institutions, both private and public, provide open competition for available scholarships and assistantships among for- eign students; and an increasing number of foreign students are able to provide some or all of their own support for study in this country. Improved methods of record-keeping, such as the statistics filed in UNESCO reports and others, help to document the increased pattern toward study abroad. In particular, the Open Door reports, published annually by the Institute for International Education in New York, provide extensive records on the numbers of foreign students in the United States: where they come from, where and what they are studying, how they are sponsored, and a host of other information 50 concerning the international exchange process in the United States. Figure 1, from the most recent edition of Open Doors, 1978/79, traces the growth in numbers of foreign students in the U.S. (in thousands and divided into major world regions) over the past 25 years.3 Noteworthy in Figure 1 is the change in the proportions of students coming to the U.S. from the different world regions over the past 15 years: while the numbers from all areas are increasing, students coming from the continents of Asia, Latin America, and Africa are increasing at a greater rate than those from Europe and North America. Other figures from that same volume of Open Doors: 1978/79 indicate that the percentage of foreign students as part of the total enroll- ment in American institutions of higher learning (including two- and four-year colleges and graduate institutions) has jumped from 2.5% in 1956 to 12.4% in 1978/79.4 Of equal importance to the figures themselves are the questions raised by such data, questions of how best to provide an adequate educational environment for such persons in order to meet their objec- tive needs. The relevance of an American curriculum for students from developing countries is a major topic of concern. Language ability, orientation, and assistance in adapting to a new culture and the prOper type of advising are all factors that have a bearing on whether a given student will be able to meet his or her objectives. Practical questions of selection and admission criteria, financial requisites, and equivalencies for a student's prior study have to be addressed. 51 1 l— , I o 0’ q “ l ! i 70 _. — I"! 140 - - . . l .. .. ! - b i l a i .' 50 — - . 130 - — I I o ‘i l i p ! 50 d u— i 120 - _ .I i, I -- i ~ “1119 _P ' i AMERICA 5 4" -I I— 9‘. 110 - L . 0’ .’. ! p ! " AFRICA ‘ _ l 0’ ! i ll ' . 30 '1 - . . 100 - - I Q, . ” I - I. . d In I 0’ ’0’ EUROPE ! 20 h I! . oo-- .' O i Q .Q...NORm ' v ’0’ i .9“. .Q. AMERICA '- I- .‘.C ‘ .- UP ’.’.-.:.:.“m...w‘"q~ '- 10 -l l— o ’0 ““3... . b-0‘o’ ‘opo ..§::o.'. m 80 T? """"'.'.!.'.'.!.'.'.11.I.11.°.::.‘.-' 70 54/55 59/60 64/35 69/70 74/ 75 78/79 74]); Source: Open Doors, 1978/79. I 78/79 Figure 1.--Foreign students in the United States by major world regions, 1954-55 to 1978-79. 52 In response to such questions, most U.S. universities that have international educational exchange programs also have a struc- ture to help deal with some, if not all, of these areas. A growing body of literature explores both the concerns and proffered solutions. Both the foreign student and the university itself have been the subject of a number of studies made in the past few years. Overall, there seems to be general agreement that educational exchange is seen as a positive experience by both the foreign student and the hosting institution, that such experiences do meet the specific objectives of advanced professional training and the broader goals of helping indi- viduals to achieve a greater understanding and sensitivity to a cul- ture different from their own. In general, three types of literature and studies pertain to international educational exchange: (1) selected cross-cultural learning concepts and theories, (2) research studies that gather data directly from foreign students to determine the elements necessary for a stay that is both personally and academically successful, and (3) material on the responses of U.S. institutions to the growing numbers of students from countries that are culturally and economically quite different from the U.S. This review will identify some of the literature from all three of these areas. Selected Cross-Cultural Learning Theories Cross-cultural learning has generally been identified as taking place in three types of situations: 53 1. people from one culture learning about another culture, 2. people from one culture teaching other people from a different culture, 3. people from one culture in another culture in order to learn specific subject matter or skills. The first situation occurs to varying degrees in all cultures, sometimes randomly or arbitrarily, as information about cultures comes to the attention of the indivudal through the media, products from a different country, or indirectly through schooling and textbook infor- mation provided about another culture. This type of cross-cultural learning offers an initial exposure to cultural differences and, for the majority of the world's people, will be the extent to which they come into contact with other cultures. It is also the most super- ficial type of cross-cultural learning since much of it is filtered through other persons of the same culture. It may also be biased, purposefully or unintentionally, to reflect national self-interests and ideologies. The second of these situations is becoming increasingly common within nations that consist of a citizenry drawn from many cultural backgrounds, i.e., either the U.S. or newly independent African and third-world nations. It also includes specific teachers and researchers who go abroad to instruct persons from a different culture in a particular subject matter. Educators are becoming increasingly aware of the factors that can facilitate or impede learning across cultures in this situation. 54 It is the third situation, i.e., wherein people from one culture travel to another culture in order to learn specific subject matter, that has the most relevance to this thesis on Chinese scholars and students. Felipe Korzenny, in "Communication and Problem-Solving Across Cultures," defined the situation and its problems as follows: Foreign students (in the United States or abroad) are a special example of persons who are expected to perform in unknown or almost unknown cultural settings. They are expected to func- tion well immediately upon arrival in a physical environment and a social milieu that is not necessarily prepared to host them, and they are supposed tg obtain high grades in courses taught in a foreign language. It is generally known that the cross-cultural experience is complex, problematic, and stressful to the individual. The field of cross- cultural training is only some 30 years old and primarily based on American assumptions and modes of operation. Margaret Pusch, in "Cross-Cultural Training," asserted that the purpose of such training should be to provide a functional awareness of the cultural dynamic present in intercultural relations and to assist trainees in becoming 6 She also stated that a more effective in cross-cultural situations. major assumption lying behind cross-cultural training is the belief that people can change their behaviors and attitudes and grow in knowledge and skills once the elements and factors in the cultural dynamic have been identified. While some progress has been made in identifying these factors, many studies done in this area are incomplete, conflicting in conclu- sions, methods, definitions, and the implications for practitioners. Josef Mestenhauser, in "Selected Learning Concepts and Theories," identified four themes that pervade the literature of research in 55 cross-cultural studies: (1) the importance of prior learning, either direct or indirect, about other cultures; (2) the importance attributed to the individual's ability, through relevant experiences and opportu— nities to learn, to differentiate various aspects of a second culture and society; (3) the importance of variable selection in determining how successful an adaptation a person has made to a second culture; and (4) the overall utility and practicability of learning theories put forward.7 As concerns the first of the four themes, several studies have established that prior foreign experience was positively related to academic and emotional adjustments of foreign students. Selltiz et al., in Attitudes and Social Relations of Foreign Students in the United States, suggested that previous international experience appears to have a positive effect on the extent of social involvement of non- European students with U.S. students.8 Roudiani found a greater world mindedness among foreign students who had experienced previous 9 And Hull found that foreign students who cross-cultural contact. had no previous international experience were more likely to report problems in adjustment to a second culture than were students who had travelled abroad before for more than one month.10 Regarding Mestenhauser's second theme, that of the importance of an individual's ability to differentiate clearly about a second culture, several points that he made are of use to this study. He stated that people tend to differentiate more clearly in their own culture than in a second culture. Differentiation across culture is more susceptible to misperceptions, distortions, and inaccuracies 56 because powerful pressures mitigate against the breaking up of one's own accepted world view for the purpose of analysis and synthesis of new information. Nevertheless, the ability to differentiate is a prerequisite to successful integration of learning, particularly to storing new information received through media and methods that vary from those in the student's own culture. Therefore, Mestenhauser emphasized the need for meaningful and relevant experiences within the second culture in order to provide the foreign student with many opportunities to learn to differentiate the various aspects of the second culture so that he/she can analyze them accurately and within the framework of that culture rather than through the framework of their own first culture.11 A number of studies have been done over the past 20 years to isolate particular variables and to determine their importance to the overall success of a person studying in another culture. These include sex, age, field of study, length of stay, nationality, and others. The results of such studies, often conflicting, are discussed at a later point in this review. In the fourth theme of cross-cultural research mentioned by Mestenhauser, that of the utility and practicality of learning theories, he pointed out quite fairly that such studies as are done and theories that are advanced often have little relationship or effect on the population they are designed to assist, i.e., the foreign student. Most educational exchange practitioners, such as foreign student advisors and others who may be called upon formally or informally to assist the foreign student in adjustment problems, 57 do not teach. Likewise, the vast majority of those who do teach are trained in specific subject matter and, generally, have little or no training in the factors that affect learning across cultures. So, for the present at least, the onus of adjustments that need to be made either in the academic or social areas of experience falls upon the foreigners themselves. To further widen the schism that needs to be bridged is the fact that such work as is being done in the relatively new field of cross-cultural learning is done by scholars in such widely diverse professions as psychology, communications, and comparative education. Most foreign students, particularly those from third-world countries, elect courses of study in the more traditional fields of engineering and the physical and natural sciences. Thus those who have concrete theoretical knowledge in the processes and factors involved in cross- cultural learning often do not come in contact with those persons who find themselves in a situation that would greatly benefit from such knowledge, i.e., the increasingly growing numbers of people from one culture who are jp_another culture to gain specific knowledge and skills. Recognizing this gap, many educational institutions, in addition to multinational businesses and some government agencies engaged in international work, have designed and implemented separate orientation and training programs to cover aspects of this vital area. Their role and value, in relation to the study of Chinese students being presented in this thesis, will be discussed later in this chapter. 58 Review of Selected Studies Using Data From Foreign Students This section of the review of the literature presents a vari- ety of individual studies undertaken to identify problem areas and adjustment factors/variables that confront a person living in another culture, and which, if not identified and overcome to some extent, can impede the cross-cultural learning process and hinder the indi- vidual from achieving his or her original objectives. As mentioned earlier, the field of scholarship in the area of cross-cultural learn- ing and relationships is a relatively new one, interdisciplinary in nature. Thus, most of what information we have on the subject has been garnered during the past 30 years. Otto Klineberg, in a major study entitled International Educa- tional Exchange: An Assessment of Its Nature and Its Prospects, divided the impact of such exchanges into four component levels: the indi- vidual, the institutional, the national, and international attitudes. He summarized the results of his seven-nation study in this fashion:12 On the individual level, by far the majority who go abroad to study are happy with the experience in spite of adjustment prob- lems. Likewise, the majority of host institutions were also satis- fied, stating that foreign students provided a distinct advantage to the institution where their research and teaching abilities contrib- uted markedly to the regular educational program of the university. On the national and international levels, Klineberg's report is less clear. Beyond the obvious consequence that such exchanges 59 contribute to the needs of developing countries for skilled and pro- fessional workers, the long-range national effects were difficult to quantify. Nor was there enough information to verify the notion that educational exchanges lead to an improvement of international atti— tudes, thus strengthening friendly relations between countries. Peter Rose, ina "Report on the Senior Fulbright Programs in East Asia and the Pacific,“ concluded that the program has served its participants well, having clearly enhanced their mutual understand- ing, their academic achievement, and their personal goals. He saw the Fulbright participant as a cross-cultural mediator and pro- claimed the program a model for interpersonal and intercultural rela- tions.13 Nevertheless, these same studies, and other investigations into a broad range of aspects concerning exchange programs, reported a number of problem areas that diminish their real and/or potential effectiveness. These problems fall into two categories: those sig- nifying administrative and organizational weaknesses, and those that deal with the more difficult concerns of communication in a cross- cultural setting. If it is true that meaningful relationships within a given culture require work to make them succeed, the interjection of cross- cultural considerations and factors compounds the difficulty. Stephen Faust, in "Dynamics of Cross-Cultural Adjustments: From Pre-arrival to Re-entry," stated that "studies of intercultural communication have shown that the amount of time and energy needed for simple communica- o o o o o 14 t1on 1ncreases dramat1cally as cultural d1fferences 1ncrease." 60 (References are to those studies done by Condon and Yousef in 1975 and Sarbaugh in l979.) Persons living in a culture other than their own for an extended period of time have to make adjustments to a number of things: food, housing, language, and social customs are among the most obvious. Working with a sample of foreign students from non- western and lesser-developed countries at the University of Rochester, a survey by M. Rising and B. Copp defined four major problem areas: 1. adjustment to academic differences--problems with language, teaching methods and level of work required; 2. adjustment to American culture-~its people, politics, religious values and social life; 3. adjustment to living facilities--housing, food, shopping; and 4. adjustment across cultures--problems with the perceptions of American attitudes towards other countries being the most difficult.15 John Porter, in a Ph.D. dissertation for Michigan State Uni- versity, developed a "Michigan International Student Problem Inven- tory" in 1962, finding widespread adjustment problems. He suggested that some of them could be corrected by improved university counseling and information to acquaint them with "the ropes" of administrative, academic, and social procedures and alternatives.16 In 1979, Samnao Kajornsin conducted research into foreign students' awareness of the services available to them, again at Michigan State University. The results supported Porter's conclusions that more publicity and coordination is needed to increase student awareness of the fact that help already exists for many of their expressed problems and frustrations. Kajornsin's data showed that it 61 takes at least two terms for students to become aware of existing services and how they can best be used.17 ex” While the above research and studies were conducted with the aim of trying to identify problems facing the foreign student and recommending concrete ways to improve the situation, a second area of research concerns the adjustment process itself. This research sug- gests that individuals universally go through stages as they seek accommodation to, and understanding of, a host country and their role in that culture. In 1955, Sverre Lysgaard published the results of a study based on data received from interviews of 200 Norwegians who had studied in the United States on Fulbright grants. He concluded that adjustment followed a U-curve that consisted of several phases: 1. initial period after arrival of favorable reactions to new stimuli and with adjustment going smoothly; 2. secondary period of depression and sense of alienation and criticism directed towards both the home and the host culture; 3. a third period of trying to integrate the differences between the two cultures; and 4. a final period of growing satisfaction with insights gained and adjustments made. Lysgaard's hypothesis of the U-curve has been found suitable in some cases of further investigation and lacking in others; it does, however, serve as a starting point for others interested in the field. In a study done for the Social Science Research Council, Cora Dubois supported Lysgaard's findings that foreign students go through a series of adjustment periods, but found that the time frames proposed by Lysgaard varied considerably in individual cases and in other 62 studies. She preferred to discuss the cultural adaptation process in terms of the following types of stages: 1. "Spectator" phase where the person is not integrated or involved in the host culture, but simply absorbing new data; 2. "Adaptive" phase where the person begins to participate. Negative reactions and frustrations surface and the adjust- ment stresses are most strongly felt; 3. "Coming to terms" phase where the adaptive issues are brought into equilibrium. Judgments of both cultures are done on an increasingly objective basis; and A} "Pre-departure" phase where the importance of the return home becomes prominent with increasing disassociation with the host culture and a reidentification with the home culture.19 During the last two decades, numerous foreign student studies conducted in the United States have attempted to relate the foreign student's attitudes toward the host country to his or her ability to adjust or as a measure of a satisfactory experience. The "national status" hypothesis advanced by Richard Morris in The Two-Way Mirror: National Status in Foreign Student Adjustment asserts that the national status accorded to a foreign student's home country by the host country, in this case by Americans, is directly related to his or her attitude toward the United States.20 Subsequent studies have found this hypothesis to be salient only among those foreign students who are highly involved with their home country.21 Another hypothesis, again based on a study done in the United States, asserts that association with the people of the host country 22 This hypothe- produces a favorable attitude toward the host country. sis is generally supported by social psychological studies, but there is some disagreement, particularly in cases where attitudes of racial discrimination exist between the parties or cultures involved. Richard 63 Brislin of the East-West Center at the University of Hawaii revised the hypothesis to emphasize that attributed or perceived equal status is a necessary condition to its validity.23 A major study exploring the factors that influence the foreign student's perceptions of and interactions with the host country's people and culture was done by George Coelho in 1958. In Changing Images of America: A Study of Indian Students' Perceptions, Coelho identified and explored the process of acculturation by further test- ing of Lysgaard's U-curve hypothesis. He started with the posture that visitors arriving in a new culture tend to initially orient themselves in accordance with perspectives provided by the reference 24 The home country reference groups groups of which they are aware. provide the norms from which the Indian students he interviewed responded to what they encountered in the U.S. By interviewing his sample at three different times during their stay, Coelho found the phases of adjustment that Lysgaard postured to be true. He then for- mulated his own hypothesis that "a foreign student's orientation to reference groups in the host culture would show increasingly differ- entiated responses with the increased length of stay.25 While the U.S. institutions and culture were perceived initially in context to the values that Indian culture placed on such things as attitudes toward women, family, religion, and work, the tendency over time of his sample was that they gained differentiating perspectives regarding those same areas in both the host and the home cultures. This study provided the basis for later work that determined that such "differ- entiation" mentioned by Coelho was a key factor in helping a student 64 to learn effectively in a second culture. Faust, mentioned earlier in this review, stated that when an adventure reveals to a person the extent to which out- ward behavior is shaped by arbitrary cultural habits and values, and when that person learns not to define himself through those values, it then becomes possible for that person to broaden the range of responses to new situations and behaviors.26 Mestenhauser also made reference to Coelho's contribution in hisg earlier-cited work, which emphasized the importance of differentia- tion as a prerequisite to successful integration of learning across cultures. Foremost in exploring the factors related to a foreign stu- dent's adjustment to a culture other than his own, one must include the work of Otto Klineberg and Frank Hull IV, who have done the most extensive studies that comment on the hypotheses presented thus far. Dr. Klineberg, professor emeritus of social psychology at Columbia University in New York, is the author of three major works on the adaptation of students across cultures. In The Human Dimension in International Relations, Klineberg stated that the realization of the relativity of one's own cultural perceptions is a necessary step to overcoming the barriers to inter- 27 Most persons are initially national understanding and cooperation. limited in cross-cultural situations by ethnocentric perceptions that do change over time as the person alters his perceptions to include the influence of those around him. If the predominant reference groups that one comes into contact with have different perceptions, as they do in a cross-cultural setting, this will result in change caused by the tendency and need for accommodation to peer group 65 pressure. Klineberg supported the hypothesis that contact with people of the host culture is a major factor in the change of perceptions, but stipulated that the kind of contact is crucial, suggesting, as later substantiated by Brislin, that the perceived status must be that of equals.28 In 1976, Klineberg published a cross-national study, Inter: national Educational Exchange: An Assessment of Its Nature and Its Prospects, based on surveys conducted in seven countries. The com- ponents selected for investigation were the following: A 0 selection of students to go abroad; preparation; academic experience itself; wa personal and cross-cultural relationships in the host country; and 5. the return home. Concerning the selection and admission of foreign students to universities abroad, he found a distinction in the strength and char— acter of the motivations and handling of problems between those who were self-selected and those who were selected by others.29 In the area of preparation to go abroad, the study concluded that a great deal of unhappiness might be eliminated if the foreign student had a clearer picture of what was expected at the aca- demic level, and the trauma of culture shock might be reduced if he knew more about the general norms or standards of behav- ior in the host country prior to arrival.30 The surveys from all seven countries emphasized the need to compare the orientation programs that have been applied in the various 66 countries and in different situations to determine the existence of any general principles. Klineberg went on to say that contact between foreign stu- dents, other foreign students, and the people in the host culture were deemed desirable by students in all seven countries, but the responses affirmed that such contact has to be done on the basis of friendship between equals and not in a paternalistic context or it will defeat the purpose.31 The responses given to all the areas varied considerably according to the case of the individual host country. Klineberg pointed these out in a separate chapter for each of the seven coun- tries participating and then analyzed the data. The book raised no new hypotheses but concluded with a long list of recommended questions for further study. Klineberg's most recent and comprehensive work to date, EflLjL Foreign University: An International Study of Adaptation and Coping, is a ten-country study conducted with Frank Hull IV (Director of International Programs at Lewis and Clark College, Portland, Oregon) and published in 1979. The design of the investigation was developed in 1974 by 15 scholars and researchers from the ten participating countries. The focus was on the foreign student sojourn as a form of clinical life history on the coping process; the purpose was to establish interrelationships among factors affecting the adaptation process.32 The data base was 2,536 respondents to written questionnaires that used an international, interdisciplinary approach to determine 67 sources of satisfaction, difficulties encountered, and changes in attitudes of the foreign student over time. The study proposed the "modified culture contact hypothesis," which states that those foreign students who are satisfied and comfortable with their inter- actions with local people and the local culture during their sojourn would report broader and more general satisfaction with the total sojourn experience, not only nonacademically, but also academically.33 The instrument was designed to test a number of previously mentioned hypotheses about the adaptation process. The result of testing the national status hypothesis was incluclusive, but the data from the respondents did determine that "significant cultural contact with local individuals is, in reality, more crucial in coping and adaptation than the perceived national status of the foreign student's home nation with regard to the host nation."34 The study also concluded that the length of the sojourn was a significant factor in the adaptive process in two ways: (1) the sojourn and educational experience tend to engender a more sophisti- cated, differentiated, personal, and concrete knowledge and percep- tion of the host culture, its achievements and problems, its people and policies, and its "ways of life" as compared to the knowledge and 35 and (2) that although substantial numbers of images held before; respondents reported serious difficulties in the areas of language learning, making friends, housing, adaptation to academic demands, and learning the ropes of the host culture, most of these problems are handled with reasonable success before the first year is over.36 68 Apart from the comprehensive degree of cross-national data that the study produced, the detailed discussion concerning the development of the appropriate instruments was of invaluable assist- ance. Because the questionnaire was administered in many nations, the cross-cultural cooperation in preparing it was a monumental task in itself. In summarizing the literature review presented thus far, one becomes aware of the inadequacy of the various hypotheses put forth to meet all cases. This should be interpreted not as a weakness in the instruments or design of the studies, but as a sign of the complexity of the factors and variables in the field of cross-cultural study. Such a search makes one more aware of the dangers and limitations of trying to make definitive statements or universal hypotheses. Meeting the Needs of Foreign Students in the United States A third type of literature pertinent to the nature of this thesis is that which addresses the question of the relevancy of Ameri- can higher education for the growing numbers of students coming from countries that are culturally and economically quite different from the United States, i.e., from the developing third-world countries. As mentioned previously, Open Doors statistics show an increase in the proportion over the past 15 years of the U.S. foreign student population coming from Latin American, African, and Asian nations. Such an increase is partially the result of the standards, variety, and general availability and ease of access afforded to qualified foreign students in the fields in which they most often seek training, 69 i.e., science and technology. It is also a function of American foreign policy over the past 20 years, which encourages international educational exchange. In addition to the U.S. and other developed countries being a logical place for students from the nonindustrial- ized countries to come to for advanced training, A.I.D. government programs abroad have proliferated since World War II as the result of a genuine concern for the role that the industrialized countries can play in assisting the develOpment of third-world nations. Theories about "education for national development," "appropriate technology," and the "transferability" of American education and techniques have been advanced and practiced in a variety of programs, both in the U.S. and abroad. However, practice does not necessarily make perfect, and a number of questions are now being raised, particularly in terms of how well suited American institutions of higher education are to meeting the needs of students from third-world countries. A.I.D., one of the most experienced agencies in conducting educational train- ing abroad, has long been aware of the need to adapt American teaching methods and technology to "appropriate levels of development" in order to meet the needs of third-world countries. The Agency also sponsors a number of international students in select graduate programs in the U.S. through agreements with foreign governments. The U.S./A.I.D. Participant Training Program, while involving only a small percentage of foreign students from third-world countries currently in the United States, does, in many cases, provide orientation and cross- cultural training in order to assist such students in making 7O adjustments to American education and to assist them in academic counselling with a view to what is needed when they return home. In March 1980, a joint workshop was sponsored by A.I.D. and NAFSA (National Association for Foreign Student Affairs) in Washington. It was attended by 80 participants, including A.I.D. training person- nel, A.I.D. students and alumni from third-world countries, NAFSA personnel, faculty from U.S. universities, and foreign student advisors. The purpose of the two-day workshop was to hold discussions and exchange views on the relevance of American higher education to stu- dents from developing nations. In particular, it called into question the validity of the development theory called the "transnational style of development," i.e., a theory of development based on the assumption that the domestic forces in nonindustrialized countries cannot bring about their own development because of their lack of resources and 37 This theory institutional framework and the forces of tradition. of development therefore emphasized the need for outside external agents from the industrialized nations and/or the need for students from those countries to study abroad in order to receive the train- ing needed for development. Further, this theory of development had been endorsed by such influential bodies as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the governments of many lesser-developed nations. Recognizing that U.S. institutions of higher education will be providing training for students from developing countries for a long time to come, participants of the workshop were generally criti- cal of the ability of such institutions to meet the specific needs, 71 feeling that given the goals and realities of development in third- world countries, U.S. universities are presently unable to offer appropriate education to students from those countries. Partici- pants emphasized that there must be a greater understanding of the origins and objectives of such students' goals and that greater care must be taken to see that the development of the capacity for problem solving be isolated from the influence of U.S. culture and condi- tioning.38 The workshop also put forward the need for the development of a compulsory complementary curriculum for A.I.D.-sponsored stu- dents. Such a curriculum would include the study of the roots of underdevelopment and the structural characteristics of developing nations and economies. It would be developed for each of the major fields and development-related disciplines and for each major region of the developing world. Further, the said complementary curriculum should then be piloted, shared with, and promoted among U.S. graduate institutions.39 In its summary, the workshop offered recommendations for changes both in the area of theoretical direction and in the area of practical assistance to enable the U.S. educational system to better meet the needs of foreign students from developing countries. Dr. Kenneth Cooper (Bechtel International Center, Stanford Univer- sity) addressed the overall question of framework and direction as follows: 1. Changes in U.S. education for foreign students should not be limited to techniques. They should challenge the goals and structures of a development style that has failed. 72 2. U.S. students must be exposed to the impact that U.S. development has had on other countries. They must under- stand the need for U.S. development policy to change in order for the lesser developed countries to change theirs. 3. There is the need for a change in U.S. education that will engage both the foreign student and the U.S. student in a basic questionipa of the conventional transnational approach to development. The A.I.D. alumni students from third-world countries offered suggestions for improvement of present A.I.D. programs. They stressed the fact that the foreign student frequently assumes the U.S. is a panacea and that actual experience reveals the incongruities between the offerings of U.S. education and the needs to be met at home. They agreed on the importance of adequate preparation and orientation pgjgrg_embarking on educational programs in the U.S., both before leaving the homeland and upon arrival in the U.S. before beginning their course of study. Many of them felt that special courses are not needed. Rather, what is needed is the internationalization of present courses which can best and most easily be accomplished by seeking faculty who have had experience in and who maintain contact with other cultures. It is these experienced persons who have the necessary cross-cultural background and the ability to teach "adap- tive training" as the best method for making American education rele- vant to third-world countries.41 Most of the foreign students present at the workshop did not feel that a dramatic overhaul or interna- tionalization of U.S. education was a likely possibility. A.I.D. and the National Association for Foreign Student Affairs are two agencies that have been consistently concerned with the needs of foreign students in America. But there have been an 73 increasing number of publications, mostly articles rather than full- fledged studies, that present critical evaluations of the programs that U.S. educational institutions offer. These are mentioned briefly to provide a measure of the scope of problems and inadequacies. Wallace Edgerton, in "Trends in Educational Exchange," stated that planning programs for foreign students requires a sensitivity and skill lacking in most American graduate advisors, who fail to give 42 Jane students an early and accurate idea about their options. Walter pointed out in "Counseling Appropriateness: An Exploration From a Cross-Cultural Perspective" that the use of counseling ser- vices by foreign students is often minimal, again because American counselors have not been trained to provide effective support for them. Understanding the cultural differences between the counselor and the student is a prerequisite for effective counseling; therefore, coun- selors should be trained to identify these differences.43 Sanders and Ward, in Bridges to Understanding, made a case on a number of issues worthy of serious consideration. First, an inadequacy exists because the training of foreign students is based mainly on U.S. experience within a U.S. setting. Second, American professors have little or no international experience and are often unfamiliar with the human and economic issues that concern foreign students, particu- larly those from third-world countries. Finally, degree requirements are too often narrowly prescribed, and foreign students have little opportunity to mold their programs to fit their needs.44 To ameliorate some of the gaps for foreign students that exist between educational needs and the educational fit that American 74 education offers, Robert Kaplan, in "NAFSA in the Mod Mod World," argued that it is organizations such as the National Association for Foreign Student Affairs that must encourage educational institutions as well as the government to adjust to the presence of foreign stu- dents by making efforts to insure the relevance of a U.S. education to global problems.45 It is a plea for the internationalizing of American curricula so that both the American and the foreign student will be prepared educationally for the same world, split as it is by diverse cultures and economies. There is, however, little indication that any of the above suggestions have been pursued to any considerable degree. This does not appear to be from the lack of information, studies, or recommen- dations prepared by those most closely involved with foreign students in the U.S.; rather, it seems to stem from the old adage that "the wheels of change roll slowly," particularly when it is considered that the needs of foreign students represent those of a minority being educated in America and that the educational apparatus of any country is an unwieldy monster. Recent Comprehensive Needs Study by NAFSA The National Association for Foreign Student Affairs has worked consistently, and with great success, to improve the overall educational climate for foreign students in the United States. A recent and most welcome contribution to the literature is the April 1981 publication of Needs of Foreign Students From Developing Nations at U.S. Universities and Colleges, a study directed by Motoko Y. Lee, 75 Assistant Professor of Sociology at Iowa State University, under the sponsorship of a grant from U.S./A.I.D. For the past decade, NAFSA and A.I.D. have worked together in attempts to conduct and coordi- nate an important and complex international educational exchange program. In March of 1978, the Office of International Training of A.I.D. granted a three-year contract to NAFSA to carry out the follow- ing objectives: (1) to improve the relevancy of academic programs for A.I.D. participants and other foreign students from developing countries studying in the U.S. and (2) to provide increased access for these students to extracurricular professional and community involvement programs that will more effectively prepare participants 46 This led to for their roles in their own countries' development. the development of NAFSA's first major national research project, which was to determine the met and unmet needs of foreign students from developing countries in the U.S. and to assess whether the self- perceived needs of A.I.D.-sponsored students (currently numbering 7,000 who are receiving academic or technical training in the U.S. and overseas47) are different from or similar to those of other foreign students, both sponsored and nonsponsored. Phase I of the project was the formulation of the research design, including the construction of a questionnaire. Phase II was a nationwide survey to assess the needs of foreign students. This survey was conducted in the fall of 1979 at 30 selected universities. Phase III, to be conducted in 1980-81, is to include supplementary and on-going analyses of data in response to the specific interests of NAFSA's various con- stituencies and others in the field of international education, as 76 well as widespread distribution of the research findings of the survey. Nearly 1,900 students from 102 developing nations responded to the survey. They are a representative sample of a population of approximately 134,000 foreign students enrolled at universities and colleges whose foreign student body numbered 300 or more.48 The survey was designed to test 33 hypotheses relating to both the impor- tance and satisfaction of needs as perceived by the students them- selves. Categories of needs in the following areas were formulated in question form within the survey: 1. information needs 2. degree program needs 3. academic program relevancy needs 4. extracurricular professional activity needs 5. academic life needs 6. financial needs 7. community life and interpersonal relationship needs 8. housing needs 9. family life needs 10. pre-return needs 11. anticipated post-return needs 12. linguistic needs 13. goals 14. barriers The data from the returned surveys were subjected to extensive statistical analyses and hypotheses testing, which resulted in a number of highly useful substantive findings. In general, it was found that in every category of needs, needs were not satisfied to the level of students' expectations, even though most of the needs were 77 satisfied to a certain degree.49 Among the need items presented in the questionnaire, the ten most important items (listed from the highest) were the 1. need for enough money for living expenses; 2. goal of obtaining the degree; 3. goal of obtaining skills and knowledge in one's field; 4. need for enough money for school; 5. need for enough money for necessary medical care; 6. anticipated need for finding an appropriate job upon return to the home country; 7. goal of gaining practical experience in one's field; 8 need for work experience in one's field before returning home; 9. need for training to apply knowledge gained; and 10. anticipated need for receiving the latest professional materials in the field.50 With regard to satisfaction of needs, the ten most satisfied need items were as follows; the 1. goal of obtaining the degree; 2. goal of obtaining a broad education 3. goal of obtaining skills & knowledge in one's field 4. goal for information about registration processes; 5. goal of broadening your view of the world; 6. need for information about the use of the library; 7. need for obtaining basic knowledge in one's area of study; 8. need for information about clothes needed; 9. negd for understanding course requirements & instructions; an 10. need for information about the procedure to begin one's degree program.5 The ten least satisfied items were for the following needs: 1. getting a work permit for off-campus jobs; 2. finding a part—time job at the university related to one's degree program; 10. 78 exchange of visiting professors between universities of the home country and those in the U.S.; economic contributions of foreign governments to U.S. universities in order to finance special programs for foreign students; having magazines and newspapers from one's home country available in the university library; work experience in one's field before returning home; having publications in one's area of study from one's home country available in the university library; ' finding a job for one's husband or wife; seminars with students from several departments to deal with problems of national development; and having U.S. ngpionals correctly informed about one's home country. Needs for practical experience and anticipated post-return needs for material rewards and for professional opportunities and facilities were among the least met. They were also considered to be the most problematic ones for educational institutions in the U.S. to accommodate. Through analysis, it was found that the importance the students placed on various needs varied by --regions of the world from which they came; --major field categories; --sponsorship categories; --undergraduate vs. graduate status; and --whether or not they had jobs waiting in their home countries. Likewise, the degree of satisfaction felt by the students depended on --regions of the world from which they came; --self-evaluation of command of English; --whether or not they had jobs waiting in their countries. The results of this study indicate the following profile of a student who is likely to be most satisfied: 79 --one who is from Latin America; --one who has a job waiting for him or her at home; --one who is residing with a U.S. student; --one who is on an assistantship; --one who is a graduate, rather than an undergraduate, student; and --one who perceives himself or herself as having a good command of English skills.53 In terms of some of the hypotheses tested, the following were selected to report on because of their bearing on other studies men- tioned previously in the review of the literature or for their rele- vance to the study undertaken with Chinese students in this thesis; that the 1. perceived importance of needs is greater than satisfaction of needs. Supported. importance and satisfaction of educational needs does not differ from importance and satisfaction of other needs. Supported. importance and satisfaction of needs varies by sponsorship categories of students. In most of the composites, sponsor- ship categories did not differ significantly, hence the hypothesis is rejected. However, some tendencies deserved mention, namely that those students sponsored by assistant- ships appeared to experience the least frustration and that A.I.D.-sponsored students were less concerned with non- academic needs and post-return conditions. importance and satisfaction of needs varies according to age--sex--marital status. Hypotheses in this area refuted with composites showing no or little significant difference. importance and satisfaction of needs varies by command of English language. Supported: English language skills appear to be a strong predictor in both areas of importance and sat- isfaction of needs. importance and satisfaction of needs varies by graduate vs. undergraduate status. Supported in some composites. importance and satisfaction of needs varies by the region of the world from which students come. Supported with signifi- cant differences being recorded in several areas. Latin Americans are the most likely to be satisfied and Africans are the most likely to have the strongest ratio of difference between importance of needs and satisfaction of those needs. 8O 8. importance and satisfaction of needs varies by whether or not students participated in orientation programs. Rejected. 9. importance and satisfaction of needs varies by the amount of previous international experience students had. Rejected, but with the tendency noted that those with previous inter- national experience were more satisfied with needs pertaining to activities in the U.S. community. 10. importance and satisfaction of needs varies by whether or not students have jobs waiting for them in the home country. Supported with significant differences being recorded in a number of composites. ll. importance and satisfaction of needs varies by living arrange- ments of students. Supported. Students with differing living arrangements attached importance and satisfaction of needs to different composites. Those living with U.S. students were the most satisfied as regards needs. Note: the study tested 33 hypotheses. In each instance, importance of needs and satisfaction of needs were formulated as separate hypotheses. The listing of the findings above combines the two areas of importance and satisfaction into one for the sake of brevity, noting differences or trends where they occurred. All of the above data came from the publication already mentioned, Needs of Foreign Students From Developing Nations at U.S. Colleges and Universities. Dr. Lee's study for NAFSA provided the data for many further studies and analyses and will, in the future, be the basis for policy discussions in the field of international education as well as for designing changes in specific areas, i.e., changes based on meeting perceived needs and gaps. The findings of the study conclude with a list of recommended changes: 1. Practical experience, such as a type of internship, should be made part of the degree program so that schools could formally assist students to have needs met before they return home. 2. Students anticipated certain material and professional needs to be unmet upon returning home. The U.S. government and U.S. educational institutions might be able to assist or cooperate with the home government in this regard. 81 3. It is suggested that both A.I.D. and home governments consider providing assistantships by channeling funds to specific departments of U.S. colleges and universities as a viable alternative to the current method of assisting students with scholarships. 4. Remedial English courses should be strengthened, along with the addition of intermediate courses. 5. Educational institutions can accommodate the need for relevant education and training to apply knowledge by improving the current curriculum. These needs are expressed particularly in the field of agriculture. 6. One of the groups which perceived the least satisfaction in receiving equal acceptance by faculty and human respect by U.S. students was the group who were most likely to return home, i.e., African students. U.S. institutions of higher learning must address themselves to the question of improving human relationships between U.S. nationals, faculty included, and foreign students on their campuses. They should also take the lead in bringing this problem to the attention of the community outside the university, realizing that today's foreign students are likely to be tomorrow's leaders in those nations. 7. U.S. institutions could assist and encourage foreign students to live with U.S. students and families. Such arrangements could even be made in advance for foreign students, if so desired by them. 8. Overall, students with jobs in their home countries enjoyed a more satisfying stay in the U.S. as measured by academic and interpersonal items. While U.S. institutions have not to date considered it their responsibility to play a role in this area, it is suggested that they begin to explore the possibility of some apparatus of cross-national job placement in conjunction with governments and institutions of the countries from which foreign students come.5 The Role of Orientation in Preparing for StudypAbroad For the purpose of this dissertation, “orientation" is broadly defined as the process as well as the practices through which one becomes prepared to live in another culture. Such orientation takes place continuously throughout one's lifetime regardless of individual recognition of the elements and practices involved. Many factors are both dispersed and assimilated informally via a nation's media, 82 schooling, and contact with persons or products that are external to the home culture. Some components of orientation may take place without the individual's intention ever to go abroad: the learning of a second language is but one example. Individual levels of orienta- tion can vary considerably, both in terms of knowledge and awareness of another culture, depending on one's background and the amount of formal and informal exposure to such elements. With little or no conscious orientation, a person may suffer a longer period of adjustment upon entry into another culture. A formal orientation program, combined with the direct experience in a second culture, may extract and consolidate previously acquired images and perceptions. A review of the literature, therefore, would be incomplete without reference to previous inquiries into the effect of orientation on the success or failure of the individual cross-cultural experience. Many of the studies already mentioned refer to orientation or prepara- tion as important, but the literature search did not uncover any studies or major research that focused primarily on this area. Even so, many organizations and institutional programs involved in inter- national educational exchange require orientation sessions, believing that such preparation does play a role in facilitating the adjustment of the individual to a different culture. An experienced practitioner in this area is the Experiment in International Living, a private and nonprofit organization founded in Vermont in 1934. The underlying concept of the Experiment is that “individuals learn to live together by living together." The basis of 83 an Experiment program is the homestay experience, where selected individuals from one country live with a family in a second country in order to better understand the people and culture by directly experiencing the daily life of the host family. However, partici- pants are not foreign students. From its early years, the Experiment has provided, indeed' required, that its participants attend an orientation or training period before their departure for the foreign country. Orientation, varying in length depending on the nature of the program abroad, gen- erally consists of three components: (1) language training, (2) spe- cific information about the culture in which the participants will be living, and (3) cross-cultural training in which the individual is made aware of his own "cultural baggage." This latter component emphasizes the often-unrecognized assumptions and beliefs acquired from the home culture: social mores and habits, verbal and nonverbal communication patterns, religious beliefs and moral assumptions, attitudes toward race and sex, class perspective, and others. The composite of such "baggage" can, when transferred to a second culture, lead to misinterpretation of or confrontation with individuals who differ in their cultural precepts. The purpose of the cross-cultural training is not to change one's cultural orientation or beliefs, but to become aware of them so that they do not become obstacles to under- standing those of another culture.55 The Experiment's orientation programs are based on solid cross-cultural theories and continually improved by incorporating feedback from alumni and by providing training for those who conduct 84 the sessions. Most individuals who participate in an Experiment pro- gram travel as a group and with a group leader who has received spe- cific training in cross-cultural relations as well as previous experi- ence living 'hi the designated country. In his book, Intelligence Is Not Enough, Donald Watt, founder of the now-worldwide organization, made much reference to the importance of the orientation and the role of the tour leader. The structure and content of orientation sessions for group members are usually the responsibility of the group leader: any person in that position is well fortified with Experiment guide- lines, philosophy, and a loose-leaf "text" containing information on all aspects of the leadership role, including sections on cross- cultural training goals, techniques, and sequencing that can be used as a basis for or supplement to a planned orientation.56 The Experiment itself has not conducted academic statistical surveys that attest to the significance of the components of its pro- grams. Instead, written individual evaluations are required of each participant and group leader at the close of a program. Now number- ing in the thousands, these do testify that a strong orientation program, combined with the individual homestay and peer group experi- ences along with the presence of a qualified tour leader, is a "formula" that provides for the maximally successful cross-cultural exchange and growth of understanding among the individuals of both cultures. The growth of the Experiment itself, in the United States and internationally, has earned much respect from outside organizations. In the 19605, the Experiment, under contract with the U.S. government, 85 conducted orientation and cross-cultural training for groups of Peace Corps volunteers before their departure on two-year assignments abroad. Over the past 20 years, the Experiment has expanded to include academically accredited courses of study and degrees offered by its School of International Training in Brattleboro, Vermont. These include an undergraduate degree program in International Studies and a Master of Arts degree in International Management. Both feature an internationalized curriculum so as to avoid an "over-Americanized" world outlook. Another component, compulsory on-the-job training experiences abroad in international agencies or companies, provides practical experience both in skill application and cross-cultural living. Recognized expertise in language training, particularly in the use of the intensive oral methods, led to the establishment of M.A. programs in the teaching of English as a second language as well as in several romance languages and bilingual concentration majors. For more than ten years, one-month intensive language programs have been offered at different times of the year on the Vermont campus. These are credit courses attended by students enrolled at numerous colleges and universities across the U.S. Many Americans know of the Experiment opportunities for Americans to go abroad, but an even greater number of foreigners 57 The coming to the U.S. have participated in Experiment programs. majority of these are orientation and language training sessions. The Experiment and School for International Training have become recognized by institutions abroad for providing invaluable information 86 and training to ease the adjustment into the American setting. Such programs perform a service that the foreign institution has neither the priority, expertise, and/or funding to organize and conduct for its students. This is particularly true for third-world countries where institutions for higher learning are unable to enroll as many students as are qualified and that tend to mobilize their efforts and resources on the development of academic departments. Many of the current concepts and programs in cross-cultural training have evolved from American initiatives, not so much from scientific theory, but from the efforts of individuals or agencies confronted with cross-cultural situations and the difficulties they posed whether in the U.S. or abroad. Earlier in the review of lit- erature, a complaint was voiced that cross-cultural communication theories are too often American based. Even so, it is also true that American scholars and/or agencies are in the foreground of efforts to eliminate that bias and to "universalize" the processes of cross- cultural training. The Experiment in International Living has been mentioned because of its history, its constant development in response to its own practical experiences and evaluation, and sharing of resources in a broad-based fashion, both nationally and internationally. Nearly all the studies cited in this review of literature mentioned the value of the individual receiving prior knowledge of and insight into the culture of the host country. Some outlined goals and guidelines as to what kinds of information should be provided in a specific orientation program. 87 Faust, cited earlier, stated that orientation programs should have two major goals: to provide specific information and to develop the individual's capacity to manage his own adjustment to a second culture.58 The first is essential and aids in the solving of practi- cal physical needs. Until questions are answered about housing, food, finances, academic calendars, and other such matters, a person will not feel enough at ease to attend to the more critical objective of the stay abroad, whether it be study, a business venture, teaching, or simply travel. Such information should be supplied as soon as possible either before departure or after arrival in the host country. Suggested resources are encyclopedias, university catalogs, histori- cal novels, government publications, etc. The information should include lists of references and contact persons and agencies to whom the newcomer can turn for assistance in solving basic problems. The second goal, that of assisting the individual to manage the shock and adjustment patterns that come in a new cultural setting, must incorporate cross-cultural training concepts. Orientation should deal with specific cultural differences and attitudes, those of both the home and host culture. Role playing, simulations, and group dis- cussions about stereotypes and expectations are often more direct ways of helping the participant to perceive the differences.59 Techniques in cultural self-analysis should be introduced to aid in the process of differentiation between cultures that Mestenhauser stated is required for successful integration of new information. While orien- tation can enhance the individual's ability to cope with change and uncertainty, Faust also cautioned that adjustment to another culture 88 is an on-going, often painful, process that cannot be quickly assimi- lated. The NAFSA survey conducted on the Needs of Foreign Students. .. asked several questions that related to orientation. The need for more or improved information that an orientation program could easily sup- ply did not figure high in the listed responses. Fewer than 30% of the students indicated participation in orientation sessions per se, 60 In fact, either before departure or after arrival in the U.S. among the needs they felt had been most satisfied were those relating to specific information about academic matters. This would seem to indicate that universities are, in general, efficient in providing this type of information. However, it may also not be very signifi- cant because nowhere were these needs mentioned as priorities. Of the ten needs listed as most important, none were needs that could be met through an orientation, and none related in any significant way to the problems of cross-cultural adjustment or learning. Money, achieve- ment of academic goals, and the desire for practical experience in one's field were the top concerns. Orientation and its effects upon individual learning in a cross-cultural situation is an area in need of more study. It makes sense to assume that the more one knows about the culture, behavior, and language of a country in which one is going to spend considerable time, the more one will benefit from the experience. It is also possible that the role and importance of orientation may depend more on the goals of the visit to a second culture. Most Americans go abroad to learn about or work within the second culture. Information 89 and intercultural insights are important in order to achieve that goal. Many foreign students, on the other hand, come to the U.S. to learn specific skills and knowledge, often scientific, that they cannot get at home. Becoming acquainted with the host culture is often of secondary importance. Still, not enough is yet known to discount the merits or necessity of cross-cultural training. @9931 Several points stand out in the review of general literature on foreign students in the United States. First, the area of investi— gation is new, with the majority of studies taking place only within the past decade. Second, the nature and purpose of such studies vary considerably. Generally, the interests of the investigators fall into three categories: (1) isolating psychological factors that can assist or impede cross-cultural communication, (2) identifying struc- tural factors that can assist or impede the adjustment of foreign students, and (3) assessing the match between the stated needs of students and the stated achievement of those needs and expectations. Some studies dealt with one national group in one host country (Coelho, Rose, Lysgaard); others, with several national groups in one host country (Morris, Kajornsin, Lee, Rising, Selltiz); and still others, with several national groups in several countries (Klineberg, Hull). Some hypotheses have been supported in several studies, e.g., the validity of an adjustment pattern over time to a second culture. Other hypotheses have been supported in some cases for particular national groups, but rejected when tested with others. Useful 90 information has come from such studies, but few variables stand out as absolute predictors (either psychological or structural) of suc- cess for the foreign students or the host country. What is known, through improved record keeping, is that students, particularly those from third-world countries, are coming to the United States in increas- ing numbers and ratio to the overall number of students in U.S. insti- tutions. This increase in cross-cultural contact represents a growth of educational needs and expectations to be met. Thus, further studies of this nature are needed and should be continued in order to provide information that will increase the chances for success of the foreign student in his or her endeavors. The review, although investigating a wide area of approaches and research into many facets of international educational exchange, is selective rather than comprehensive. It has relevance to the study in this dissertation from several perspectives. First, it has pro- vided background and acquaintance with the findings of others who seek to define the variables and settings that lead to a successful cross-cultural experience. Although none of the research cited 6] there is included students from mainland China in its data base, little reason to believe they would not be responsive to the conclu- sions and findings of at least some of the studies shown to be valid across national or cultural boundaries. Second, the discussions of methodology and the development of appropriate instruments to examine single or multiple variables, including the design of surveys, provided invaluable insight into the preparation of the questionnaire used to gather data for this 91 dissertation. Finally, the review revealed the complex nature of the field of international educational exchange, which prompted a more modest and realistic sense regarding the conclusions that any one study could hope to reach. 92 Footnotes--Chapter III 1Edward Cieslak, The Forei n Student in American Colleges (Detroit: Wayne State University ress, 1955), p. 4. 2Otto Klineberg, International Educational Exchange: An Assessment of Its Nature and Its Prospects (The Hague: Mouton, 1976), p. 98. 3Open Doors: 1978/79 Report on International Educational Exchan e (WaShington, D.C.: ‘Institute of International Education, 1980 , p. 7. 4 5Felipe Korzenny, "Communication and Problem-Solving Across Cultures," in Learning Across Cultures, ed. Gary Althen (Washington, D.C.: National Association for Foreign Student Affairs, 1981), p. 104. Ibid., p. 2. 6Margaret Pusch, ed., "Cross-Cultural Training," in Learning Across Cultures, op. cit., p. 73. 7Josef Mestenhauser, "Selected Learning Concepts and Theories," in Learning Across Cultures, op. cit., p. 119. 8Clair Selltiz et al., Attitudes and Social Relations of Foreign Students in the United States (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1963), p. 62. 9Iraj Roudiani, "Foreign Students: A Comparative and Correla- tional Study in Frames of Reference, Length of International Experi- ences, and Patterns of Interaction in a Multi-Cultural Environment" (Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1976), p. 87. 10Frank W. Hull IV, Foreign Students in the United States of America: Coping Behavior Within the Educational Environment (Neinork: Praeger Publishers, 1978), p. 139. nMestenhauser, op. cit., p. 123. 12Klineberg, International Educational Exchange, op. cit., pp. 62-67. 13 Peter 0. Rose, "Academic Sojourners: A Report on the Senior Fulbright Program in East Asia and the Pacific" (Washington, D.C.: Department of State, Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs, Office of Policy and Plans, 1976), p. 2. 14Stephen Faust, "Dynamics of Cross-Cultural Adjustments: From Pre-arrival to Re-entry," in Learning Across Cultures, op. cit., p. 17. 93 15Muriel Rising and Barbara Copp, "Adjustment Experiences of Non-Immigrant Foreign Students at the University of Rochester, 1967-68" (Rochester, N.Y.: University of Rochester, 1968), p. 38. 16John W. Porter, "The Development of an Inventory to Determine the Problems of Foreign Students" (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1962), p. 112. 17Samnao Kajornsin, "A Study of Foreign Graduate Students: Their Awareness of, Utilization of, and Attitude Toward Selected Student Personnel Services and Other Services Available to Them at Michigan State University" (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State Univer- sity, 1979), pp. 139-40. 18Sverre Lysgaard, "Adjustment in a Foreign Society: Norwegian Fulbright Grantees Visitin the United States," International Social Science Bulletin 7,1 (1955?: 46. 19Cora Dubois, Foreign Students and Higher Education in the United States (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1956), pp. 67473. 20Richard T. Morris, The Two-Way Mirror: National Status in Foreign Student Adjustment (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1960), p. 31. 2IHwa-Bao Chang, "Attitudes of Chinese Students in the United States," Sociology and Social Research 58 (1973): 69. 22 23 Selltiz et al., op. cit., p. 94. Chang, op. cit., p. 70. 24George Coelho, Chan ing Images of America: A Study of Indian Perceptions (Glencoe, 111.: ree Press, 1958), p. 7. 25 Ibid., p. 14. 26 27Otto Klineberg, The Human Dimension in International Rela- tions (New York: Holt, Rinehart 8 Winston,il964), p. 992 Faust, op. cit., p. 18. 281bid., p. 118. 29Klineberg, International Educational Exchangg, op. cit., p. 30. 30 Ibid., p. 34. 3'Ioid., p. 41. 94 32Otto Klineberg and W. Frank Hull IV, At a Foreign Univer- sity: An International Study of Adaptation and Coping (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1979), p. 4. 33 Ibid.. PP. 52-53. 34 35 36 37Hugh Jenkins, Rapporteur, The Relevance of U.S. Education to Ibid., p. 75. Ibid., p. 94. Ibid., p. 96. Students From Developing Countries, Report on the Fourth A.I.D./NAFSA Workshop iWaShington, D.C.: National Association for Foreign Student Affairs, 1980), p. 13. 38 Ibid., p. 8. 391bid., p. 15. 4O 41 42Wallace Edgerton, "Trends in Educational Exchange," Inter- national Educational and Cultural Exchange 11,1 (1975): 44. 43Jane Walter, "Counseling Appropriateness: An Exploration From a Cross-Cultural Perspective," Research in Education, ED 159 751, 1978. Ibid., pp. 23-24. Ibid., p. 18. 44I. Sanders and J. Ward, Bridges to Understanding (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970), pp. 52-55. 45Robert Kaplan, "NAFSA in the Mod Mod World," Exchange 6,2 (1970): 74. 45 Stephen C. Dunnett, ed., Needs of Foreign Students From Developing Nations at U.S. Colleges and Universities (Washington, D.C.: National Association for Foreign Student Affairs, 1981), p. xi. 47 48 Ibid., p. x. Ibid., p. xiii. 49 Ibid., . xiv. p 501bid., p. 49. p 51 Ibid., . 50. 95 52Ibid. 53 54 55Donald Watt, Intellg‘gence Is Not Enough (Putney, Vt.: Experiment Press, 1967), p.71 8. 56Incomparable Journey: A Leader's Handbook (Putney, Vt.: Experiment Press, 1968). Includes additional—updated loose—leaf chapters and sections for specific countries. 57Odyssey Newsletter, Spring 1981. (Brattleboro, Vt.: Experiment in International Living, 1981). 58 Ibid., p. xiv. Ibid.. pp. 131-32. Faust, op. cit., p. 13. 591bid., p. 17. 6ODunnett, op. cit., p. 76. 61With the severance of governmental ties in l950, educational exchanges between the U.S. and China ceased. An initial search for studies in English and French in the Michigan State University library did not uncover any information on the experiences of PRC nationals in other countries. CHAPTER IV METHODOLOGY The principal aims of the research undertaken with students and scholars from the People's Republic of China currently in the United States were: (1) to obtain descriptive information on the extent of their preparation before coming to the U.S. and their sub- sequent exposure to facets of American culture and (2) to determine what relationship, if any, existed between those two areas or variables within them. Two methods were used to gather the data: the preparation and distribution of a written survey questionnaire and a more extensive examination of the exchange program at one location, Michigan State University. The data received from the return of the written ques- tionnaires were analyzed subsequently with the assistance of an SPSS program at the Michigan State University Computer Laboratory. Each of these aspects of the methodology is the subject of this chapter. Methods of Inquiry Design and Development of the Written Survey Qbestionnaire The questionnaire, designed in the late spring and early summer of 1981, consisted of 82 questions divided into two major sections: "Preparation to Come to the United States" and "Life in 96 97 the United States." Under these major headings, subsets of questions were asked to solicit information about particular subject areas. Categories in the section "Preparation to Come to the United States" included the content areas of (1) personal data and previous contact with U.S. and/or another foreign culture, (2) formal preparation before coming to the U.S. related to the areas of English-language training and orientation to American culture, and (3) informal preparation before coming to the U.S., i.e., indirect or self-motivated exposure to the English language and American culture. Categories in the sec- tion "Life in America" included (1) specifics on the living arrange- ments and academic situation as well as formal orientation programs in the U.S., (2) use of the English language, and (3) contact with American culture outside the academic environment. At the end of the questionnaire, respondents were asked to assess their overall satis- faction with the stay in the United States thus far, both in the area of satisfaction with their academic or research program and satisfac- tion with their contact with the American people and culture. (See Appendix C.) A number of difficulties emerged during the development of the questionnaire, consideration of which influenced its final design. Nearly a year earlier, a four-page questionnaire was sent to a foreign teacher of English at a major Peking graduate school seeking informa- tion from the Chinese students enrolled in special sections that were to prepare them for eventual study abroad in English-speaking countries, primarily the United States.1 The feedback from the send- ing of that questionnaire was instructive; though related in some of 98 its subject matter, the survey itself was not a pre-test or pilot, nor was the information received intended to be incorporated into the present research. Limited contact with a few of the visiting scholars already in the U.S. suggested that language training was, at that time, inadequate and orientation to American culture virtually nonexistent.2 The questionnaire thus focused on obtaining descrip- tive information on the curriculum: texts, teaching methods, and language laboratory use, if any. Respondents were also asked to enumerate their goals and expectations vis-a-vis study abroad. The format was a mixture of questions requiring short answers or enumerations in English as well as those that required a check in the appropriate box. Although the respondents were advanced-level English students, and 87% (67 cases) of the questionnaires were returned, the data received presented two major problems: short- answer responses provided too much detail from some surveys and not enough from others where the respondents lacked either the time or the ability in written English to answer some questions; and the data were too unwieldy in form to analyze expeditiously. The fact that so many students were willing to cooperate in such a project suggested that Chinese students and scholars would not be reticent or neglectful about providing information, given the right circumstances. More will be said about this subject later in the section "Method of Dis- tribution." A second difficulty was that of limiting the number and nature of questions to be asked. The sudden appearance of several thousand students frou a country with which the U.S. has had virtually no 99 people-to-people contact for a generation enhanced the desire to seize the opportunity and medium of a questionnaire to find out as much as possible all at once. With no primary research yet under- taken using this sample of foreign students as a base, the temptation was great to devise a survey to compare their experiences with those of other nationalities or to test any one of previous hypotheses using another or multiple nationalities. Information leading to evaluation of the exchange process is needed by all parties involved, including the universities in and the governments of both countries, the PRC nationals themselves, and the American public. Further, the desire of all parties to see the resumed exchanges succeed is a favorable climate in which to gather such information.3 The survey design incorporated those desires to some extent, but its content imposed its own limitations and direction of inquiry. The exchange process is seen in the context of the history of rela- tions between the two countries, a history that severely limited the bilateral free flow of information, experience, and direct associa- tion that form the basis of an individual's perception and understand- ing of another culture. Questions were asked that had the potential to provide insights into the two principal aims of the study: what is known about the respondent's previous exposure to specifics of U.S. culture, including people, language, and media, all known to be purveyors of information and values; and whether differing amounts of such exposure would make any difference in the depth and extent to which the respondent would have contact with those same cultural indi- cators after their arrival. 100 In its several drafts, the questionnaire was revised to exclude many areas of questioning that, though interesting, were determined to be extraneous to the primary area of investigation. These included a number of questions concerning the individual's perceptions and expectations of America before arrival, questions about the nature of support groups and systems that can often ease the adjustment to another culture, and a variety of questions on personal background, i.e., marital status, position in China, educa- tional and work experience. Members of the doctoral guidance commit- tee at Michigan State University provided a great deal of assistance in this area. The design of the questionnaire involved assistance from and consultation with a number of individuals and sources. In addition to instructive guidance and constructive criticism from doctoral committee members, expertise was sought from the Michigan State Uni- versity Office of Research and Design, a personal friend and colleague in the Department of Sociology at North Park College (Chicago) experi- enced in the development of surveys and familiar with statistical procedures, and computer consultant at the University of Illinois-- Circle Campus. A near-final form of the questionnaire was submitted to several visiting scholars in Chicago who were returning to China shortly and would not participate in the actual survey. They volunteered to complete the survey and provide information on the clarity of the questions, the length of time it took to fill out, and whether, in their frank judgment, any question or set of questions was culturally 101 or politically sensitive, hence unlikely to be answered. At their suggestion, it was decided not to pose the questions in both English and Chinese, as most Chinese students and scholars would have taken an English-proficiency test in China (not TOEFL), resulting in a competent reading level for the questions in the survey. The survey in its final form was printed as a l6-page reduced- size booklet with a cover letter of introduction, intent and instruc- tions in English on the front page and repeated in Chinese on page two. All questions, with the exception of those asking the respondent's name, address in the U.S., institutional affiliation in China, and the U.S. school were of three types, each answerable with a check on the appropriate line: yes or no response required; b. multiple-choice question where one answer is requested; c. multiple-response questions where the respondent may check any of the answers that apply. This questioning format attempted to avoid ambiguity of response, to encourage a higher rate of response than other formats, and to facili- tate the process of data analysis. Estimated time to complete the questionnaire was 15 to 30 minutes based on the earlier trial. The questionnaire included a self-addressed mailer complete with the "no postage required" business reply mail permit. The Selection of the Survey Sample Population At the time the written survey questionnaire was being developed, the latest estimates of the total number of PRC students and scholars in the U.S. stood at more than 5,000.4 The selection 102 of a random sample of 20% of that estimated total, of 1,000, to use as a data base, was deemed sufficient for representation of the total. Initially, limiting the selected sample to include only visiting scholars was considered, for the following reasons: (1) they repre- sented the largest category of PRC citizens in the U.S. during the first year and a half of the renewed exchange between the two coun- tries; (2) they represented the category that had been in the U.S. for the longest period of time, thus reducing the possibility that the respondents' lack of familiarity with and/or exposure to American culture and people was a consequence of a too-recent arrival and shortness of time in the U.S.; and (3) they represented the category most easily accessible in terms of facilitation of the distribution of the questionnaires because of the internal networking among them. More on this subject is explained in the following section, "Methods of Distribution." For the purpose of comparison, however, the category of graduate students was added. Their numbers were increasing; and as graduate students enrolled in degree programs, they are more repre- sentative and typical of the situation of foreign students in the U.S. in general. Further, from the profiles released by the U.S.-China Education Clearinghouse, the composition of Chinese nationals coming to the U.S. is shifting rapidly to include a greater percentage of graduate students and a lesser percentage of scholars. As a group, the Chinese graduate students are less homogeneous in a number of areas, i.e., sponsorship, fields of study, and others, than are the visiting scholars. 103 The questionnaires were sent to 40 institutions selected to include representation in different parts of the country; public and private institutions; universities, colleges, and research insti- tutes; and large and small schools. Information on institutions where Chinese students and scholars are studying came from a number of sources: the U.S.-China Education Clearinghouse, the Embassy of the People's Republic of China, and various chapters of the US-China Peoples Friendship Association. Additional sources of such informa- tion came from China Exchange_and NAFSA newsletters, as well as from colleagues and professional contacts in a number of universities and colleges. Another criterion that figured significantly in the selec- tion of the institutions was the willingness of contact persons in those locations to participate in the distribution of the question- naires to the Chinese students and scholars. This method of reaching the sample population was necessary and desirable for the reasons listed in the following section. Method of Distribution The number of PRC nationals in the United States changes more often than that of foreign students of other nationalities as arrivals and departures, particularly of Chinese visiting scholars, occur monthly throughout the year. Part of this is the consequence of short-term agreements established between institutions and/or the two governments; another related factor is the unpredictability and vary- ing length of time it takes to complete the process of paperwork (credential review, financial arrangements, passport and visa approvals, 104 and flight arrangements) of PRC students and scholars. This latter factor is expected to become less onerous in the future as the exchange mechanisms in each country become better known to the other. Because there is no central listing of the names and addresses of PRC citizens in the United States--neither the U.S. government nor the Embassy of the People's Republic of China maintains such lists--it is necessary to reach them through the institutions at which they are studying or doing research. While institutions have varying policies concerning the release of such names and addresses to outsiders, most of them do not allow such information to be given out randomly. For that reason alone, the development of contact persons in those institutions or locations was necessary. A second and more significant reason for distributing the questionnaires through individual contact persons was to encourage and assure a higher rate of return of the survey. Chinese students and scholars are not as accustomed, culturally, to receiving random requests for information from strangers as are Americans. Nor are they as familiar with the medium of a survey as a vehicle to gather data as are Americans. Social science research and methodology, never a well-developed field in China, has just recently become an area of study and investigation with the reopening in 1977 in Peking of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences with its 25 affiliate research institutes.5 After personal consultation, written and/or spoken, with more than 60 institutions to determine the most appropriate and desirable body or individual willing to distribute the questionnaires, contacts 105 in 40 institutions were chosen. They included foreign student advisors, members of the US-China Peeples Friendship Association, faculty members, and, in some cases, a student or scholar from the People's Republic of China. They were all interested in and support- ive of the survey's intentions. Because of their access to and contact with the Chinese students and scholars, they would be able to explain the nature of the survey to the Chinese in a more personal way than did the cover letter on the questionnaire itself, answer ques- tions that might be raised, and provide personal encouragement to the students and scholars to complete the survey, allaying any fears or suspicions they might feel initially. The latter was a possibility since a personal conversation with the PRC Embassy confirmed a rumor that the American F.B.I. had been soliciting information from PRC nationals on some campuses.6 Despite its necessity and strong points, the use of contact persons also had a number of weaknesses. Some variations in how many of the desired sample (students and scholars at the given institution) actually received the questionnaire out of the total at that institu- tion did occur, although not often. In some cases, the number of questionnaires sent, based on the best estimate of the population by the contact person, was too few or too many because of the continual arrival and departure of PRC citizens at the institution. When this happened, additional questionnaires were sent as requested or the number adjusted downward as the case indicated. In a few cases, the questionnaires were distributed disproportionately among the ratio of students to scholars,7 thus skewing the number of returned 106 questionnaires from those institutions in favor of a higher per- centage of scholars. Neither of these weaknesses was considered detrimental to the analysis of the questionnaires that were returned, but the observations should be noted. In all, 1,178 copies of the questionnaire were printed, of which 996 were sent to the contact persons in 40 institutions. Of those, a follow-up with the contact persons found that 714 of the questionnaires were actually sent or given to individual students and scholars from China. The profile of the distribution was as follows among the 40 institutions: research institutes 4 colleges & universities 36 public institutions 15 private institutions 35 Midwest 21 East 9 South 4 West 6 Percentage and number of questionnaires sent to the above profile were: Number Percent research institutes 51 5.12 colleges & universities 945 94.87 public institutions 435 43.67 private institutions 561 56.32 Midwest 497 49.89 East 215 21.58 South 77 7.73 West 207 20.78 Appendix 0 lists the names of the institutions that participated in this survey, including the number of questionnaires sent, the number of questionnaires actually distributed, and the number of questionnaires 107 returned, which formed the data base for analysis. Appendix E is the cover letter sent to the contact person in each of the 40 insti- tutions involved. Examination of the Exchange Program of Chinese Scholars and Students at One Institution A second method of inquiry, one intended to supplement the data obtained from the nationwide written survey, was an investigation of the nature of the exchange program at Michigan State University. This institution was chosen primarily because of its accessibility, but also because it met the following criteria, making it typical of many of the institutions at which Chinese students and scholars are studying and/or doing research work: 1. Michigan State University has a presence of PRC nationals from all the categories: undergraduates, graduate students, visiting scholars, and special students; 2. both Chinese-government-sponsored and privately sponsored students and scholars are in residence at Michigan State University; 3. PRC citizens at Michigan State University come from many parts of China with a diversity of Chinese institutional affiliation; and 4. although the majority of Chinese at Michigan State University are engaged in academic study or research in scientific fields, as they are nationally, the population there includes students in a variety of other fields as well. This part of the overall work of the dissertation took place after the return of the questionnaires, in October and November 1981. The investigation of the exchange program had the following objectives and format, of which the results are written up in Chapter VI. Objectives: to obtain further information and follow up of ques- tion areas included in the written survey from a select group of persons; 108 to describe the origins, development, and nature of the exchange process at one location; to obtain, through discussion and interviews with specific Chinese students and scholars, a broader perspective of the experiences they are having at this point in their stay in the United States, including areas not covered in the survey question- naire; and to obtain information about their stay at Michigan State University from the perspectives of others involved in the exchange program and with whom they come in contact, i.e., the foreign students' office, the English Language Center, community groups, and others. To achieve the objectives, several sources of information were con- sulted and individuals contacted, including the following: 1. written materials or documents prepared about the program in its past or current status; discussions with persons in the Asian Studies Center, the Foreign Students' Office, the English Language Center (both with the person in charge of the program for the Chinese nationals and an English Second Language teacher), the Admis- sions Office of Michigan State University, the current chair- person of the Greater Lansing Chapter of the US-China Peoples Friendship Association, and a representative of the Community Volunteers for International Programs-Services; and discussions with two groups of Chinese students and scholars, one with seven persons held on November 15, 1981, and the other on December 13, 1981, with six of the eight women cur- rently at Michigan State University. The discussion sessions with the Chinese students and scholars focused on a previously prepared agenda that sought the following kinds of information: the selection process that took place in China; the administrative process for getting in and to the U.S.; academic matters: a. relevance of curriculum; b. styles of learning; c. facilities for learning; d. relationship to faculty, students, and colleagues; e. problem areas and evaluation of academic program. 109 4. goals and expectations: a. how these originated; b. assessment of the feasibility of accomplishment; c. changes, if any, in goals and expectations since arrival; d. obstacles toward achieving goals and expectations. 5. Chinese group organization at M.S.U. a. nature of any formal and/or informal network; b. role and functions of that network, i.e., friendship, problem solving, psychological support, etc. 6. nonacademic aspects of their stay in the U.S. a. acquaintance with American people and culture; b. activities pursued; c. problem areas and cultural misunderstandings. 7. assessment and relationship of stay in the U.S. to their return home a. effect of stay here upon their job, position, and status upon return to China; b. relationship to China's goals; c. effect of stay in the U.S. upon them personally, i.e., growth, change of values, etc. Of the 13 individuals from China who participated in the dis- cussion sessions, 11 of them had also completed the written question- naire. While the survey was not the sole basis for the discussions, many of the responses clarified and extended a number of areas included in it. In addition, a separate informal talk was held with the leader of the Chinese visiting scholar group at Michigan State University to obtain more information about that particular group. See Chapter VI, "A Closer Look: Chinese Students and Scholars at Michigan State University," for a summary of the results of this method of inquiry. Methods of Analypjs The survey design included variables concerning prearrival preparation/orientation and postarrival exposure to American culture. 110 These were posed in questions divided into the two areas with three subsections each, as follows: PM Gllpreparation: Section I Questions l-l9 prior contact with U.S. culture, direct or indirect Section 11 Questions 20-30 English-language training Section III Questions 31-42 acquaintance with U.S. culture in preparation to come Postarrival: Section IV Questions 43-55 living situation & orien- tation in the U.S. Section V Questions 56-63 English-language usage Section VI Questions 64-82 interaction with U.S. culture The Development of a Scoring System One component of the plan to analyze the data was the assigning of positive and negative numerical values to responses to questions that dealt specifically with factors known to relate to preparation/ orientation to a second culture and to cross-cultural communication and interaction. This was done for several reasons: 1. One could thus identify concretely and provide a numbered value to the overall exposure an individual respondent had to variables recognized as significant in the field of international educational exchange. 2. The composite negative and positive scores, for individuals overall and within the separate sections, could then be compared with nonvalued variables, such as sex, age, field of study, and others to determine any relationship. 111 3. Individual and group composite scores in each of the six sections could help prepare a profile that would identify the strengths and weaknesses in the different areas of preparation and interaction for a specific national group whose background and experiences in the U.S. are little known. 4. With so many individual variables in the survey, this sys- tem facilitated the grouping of related variables into pertinent clusters in order to later measure them in relationship to each other and to the hypothesis under investigation. Variable analysis of clus- ters is a complicated procedure, even with the assistance of a com- puter. The comparison of section scores accomplished the same purpose, yet was less unwieldy. Assigning and calculating the accumulated points and scores of each individual and using them to extract descriptive statistics was not the sole analytical technique employed in the study. The system was a helpful evaluative tool, though not without its limita- tions. Pages 127 through 133 at the end of this chapter list the values attached to individual questions in the survey, as well as listing those to which no numerical value was assigned. The actual value in points, positive or negative, assigned to responses was created for the purpose of this study. The numbers do not come from evaluative scales prepared for any previous study and are not necessarily seen as applicable to other or future studies as that was not the purpose or aim of this research project. The numbers, ranging from one to five on both positive and negative scales, could as easily have been in other multiples. They were, however, chosen 112 with careful consideration as to their relationship to each other within the questionnaire. The number selected was based on the importance attributed to the variable and its relationship to the orientation and intercultural interaction processes. The following considerations assisted in the assigning of points: 1. the attention paid to and judgment of the importance of a variab1e(s) in the studies reviewed earlier; 2. more time spent in association with particular variables was seen as more valuable: for instance if a respondent had studied English longer, he received more points; 3. exposure to a greater number of items within a category posed in multiple-response questions enabled a respondent to accumulate more points even though each item had the same numerical value: for instance, a person who had consistent contact with more types of written materials by Americans or on American culture could score higher. The reading of such material in English rated higher still. It is important to state that such a system of evaluation only iden- tifies contact with the variables, sometimes over time and sometimes in terms of numbers of different items within a category. The score achieved does not judge the content or quality of such variables. A person may have studied English for ten years and not be proficient. Likewise, orientation sessions held either in China or the U.S. may vary considerably in their content and ability to prepare a person for the cross-cultural experience. One person may have read simpli- fied or condensed versions of American novels, while another read the original and unabridged edition. The survey did not attempt to deal with such differences as that would have necessitated a much longer and unwieldy questionnaire, particularly for those unfamiliar with the form of written questionnaires. It would have also necessitated subjective judgments on quality and content that the investigator was 113 unprepared and unwilling to make. What was being measured was to what extent the respondent came into contact with measures, both direct and indirect, believed to be important in the preparation to go abroad and to what extent he came into contact with assimilation and interaction variables after arrival in the U.S. Such information was deemed worthwhile in itself for descriptive purposes and for the testing of the assumption posed in this study, namely that Chinese students and scholars who have some initial pre- departure preparation in language training and cultural orientation to America will have more varied and extensive, active ties with the American populace (academic and non- academic) than do those Chinese students and scholars who did not have such preparation. The actual points assigned to individual variables were not validated by a panel of experts in the field of cross-cultural rela- tions, although the scale was submitted to and received feedback from a number of individuals. Thus, while the evaluative system did meet the criteria for reliability, some scholars may question the weighting of the Specific numerical points assigned. In retrospect, a scale using zero as the base may have been less cumbersome for the purposes of analysis than one that included negative numbers. Others may have chosen to attribute a greater or lesser importance to some of the variables, thus leading to a greater or lesser overall range of points making up the composite scores received by the respondents. Generally, though, the composite scores did not play a large role in the analysis of the data. Most of the significant findings were related to the cross-tabulations of individual variables within the study. 114 A detailed listing of the numerical values assigned to the responses of specific questions can be found at the end of this chap- ter on methodology (pages 127-131). It should be noted that the number of possible positive points greatly exceeds the number of possible negatives. This is true in each of the six sections. A negative numerical value indicates no contact with the variable in question or is one answer in a multiple-response question, the rest of the responses each assigned a positive value. Overall, an indi- vidual could receive a maximum of 130 positive points or a maximum of 42 negative points. It was not possible for a respondent to receive either the total positive or negative score if he had some of each. Finally, in regard to the scoring system, there were some questions that did not have numerical values assigned to the answers. These variables, including sex, age, occupation, field of study, and others, were judged as independent of the processes and practices of orientation and cross-cultural interaction. They were later analyzed to determine what relationship they had, if any, to the scores of individuals. Also, there were a few questions in the survey where only some of the possible answers were assigned numerical values. An example is in the question asking for a listing of goals: only those goals that included an effect on the interaction of the two cultures apart from the academic purpose received points (desire to learn more about America, to further their knowledge of English, or to get a broader education). Other answers to that question, i.e., desire to get a degree, to acquire skills and experience in one's field of study, etc., were not assigned negative points because they were felt to be 115 independent of, or at least not negative influences on, the processes of the cross-cultural experience. A listing of the variables and questions that did not receive numerical points is also to be found at the end of this chapter. Both the questions that were assigned points leading to a score for respondents and those with no numerical value attached ' served a useful purpose. Each question provided data for the descrip- tive profile or for analytical comparisons between and among variables. One further step was taken as an evaluative tool, again because it facilitated the testing of the hypothesis about the rela- tionship between predeparture orientation and postarrival contact with American culture. Value judgments/labels of "poor," "fair," "good," and “very good" were placed on the accumulated score of points, both positive and negative. These labels were based on the total numbers of points possible, and they applied only to the follow- ing scores: 1. Combined predeparture preparation scoreS--Sections I-III positive (+) points possible = 66 Poor = 0-16 Fair = 17-32 Good = 33-49 Very Good = 50-66 negative (-) points possible = (-) 20 Poor = 16-20 Fair = 11—15 Good = 6-10 Very Good = O- 5 116 2. Combined postarrival scores--Sections IV-VI positive (+) points possible = 64 Poor = 0-16 Fair = l7-32 Good = 33-49 Very Good = 50-66 negative (-) points possible = (-) 22 Poor = 18-22 Fair = 12-17 Good = 6-11 Very Good = O- 5 3. Overall composite scores. The possible range in this case was from -42 to +130 or 172: total positive points possible = +130 total negative points possible = - 42 Poor = -42- 0 Fair = l- 43 Good = 44- 86 Very Good = 87-130 The composite Score for each individual was the difference between the total positive score obtained and the total negative score obtained. In all three of the above procedures for the evaluation of poor, fair, good, or very good, each of the divisions contained 25% of the total range that was possible. Data-Analysis Procedures The data from the survey, 233 returned questionnaires, were analyzed in three phases at the Michigan State University Computer Center using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) to perform most of the desired statistical analyses. The first phase was the computing of the scores. For each of the 233 cases, scores were tabulated as follows: 117 positive points for each of the six sections negative points for each of the six sections total prepreparation positive points (Sections I-III) total prepreparation negative points (Sections I-III) total postarrival positive points (Sections IV-VI) total postarrival negative points (Sections IV-VI) total positive points (Sections I-VI total negative points (Sections I-VI composite score (positive points less the negative points) The following frequencies were then computed for the group of 233 cases: 1. total positive points total negative points Section I positive points Section II positive points Section III positive points Section IV positive points Section V positive points Section VI positive points Section I negative points Section II negative points Section III negative points Section IV negative points Section V negative points Section VI negative points prepreparation positive points (Sections I-III) prepreparation negative points (Sections IV-VI) postarrival positive points (Sections I-III) postarrival negative points (Sections IV-VI) composite scores This phase of the analysis was useful in helping to build a profile concerning the preparedness of the overall group of Chinese students and scholars and their interaction with American cultural factors after arrival. (See chapter on the findings of the survey.) 118 It also provided a basis for a number of the cross-tabulations that were done later. Frequengy Computations of the Data The second phase of analysis consisted of computing the fre- quencies of the variables within each of the sections. This included the variables to which no numerical value had been attached. The following is a listing of the frequencies tabulated on questions within each section: Section I (survey questions 1-19) sex age (birthdate) occupation past family study in U.S. relatives living in the U.S. prior experience abroad first visit to U.S. present length of time in U.S. projected length of stay in U.S. U.S. institution university status degree program field of study direct exchange agreement between U.S. and Chinese institutions member of exchange number of Chinese from home institution in the U.S. number of Chinese at U.S. institution how initial contact was made with U.S. institution perusal of U.S. university literature before arrival in U.S. Section 11 (survey questions 20-30) Language preparation length of time of English study first English learned English conversation studied learned English from native speakers used English in work in China primary mode of English practiced studied other subjects with English as language of instruction English-language club participation in English-language club English-language test in China 119 Section III (survey questions 31-42) Contacts with U.S. culture had special preparation/orientation in China specific classes offered at Chinese institution length of preparatory classes talks with foreign experts in China talks with returned students and scholars correspondence with students and/or scholars in U.S. listened to Voice of America radio (VOA) frequency of listening to VOA evaluation of advanced preparation Section IV (survey questions 43-55) met by whom in U.S. eating situation type of food transportation access to radio and/or television frequency listen to radio and/or television frequency read U.S. newspapers U.S. orientation U.S. orientation arranged by whom length of U.S. orientation Section V (survey questions 56-63) English-language usage least-difficult aspect of English most-difficult aspect of English English test in U.S. English course required length of course required frequency of reading English materials outside academic life language most often spoken outside academic life Section VI (survey questions 64-82) Interaction with U.S. culture time spent with what pe0ple have community contacts contacts considered casual or long term more contact desired who arranged community activities accompanied by whom on activities invited to speak to community groups spoke to community groups invited to attend professional conferences participated in professional conferences plans to visit elsewhere in U.S. satisfaction with academic progress satisfaction with contact with American culture 120 Within each of those sections there were a number of multiple- response questions. Frequencies for each answer selected were com- puted along with the frequencies with which people checked more than one answer. These included the following variables: sponsorship (question 16) most important goals (frequencies tabulated for the top three) methods used to learn English in China (question 22) needs for improving preparation in China (question 42) variety of means used to learn about U.S. culture (in China) in English (question 37) variety of means used to learn about U.S. culture (in China) in Chinese (question 38) subjects covered in U.S. orientation programs (question 55) supplemental means of English improvement (question 61) U.S. contacts from what groups (question 66) how U.S. contacts were made (question 67) reasons for lack of contact with U.S. nationals (question 70) familiarity with what groups (question 71) participation in what outside activities (question 72) Cross-Tabulation of Variables The tabulation of all the above frequencies provided a great deal of information concerning the group of students and scholars as a whole. It helped to constitute a profile as well as to provide reference to areas of strength and weakness both in terms of prepara- tion and interaction with U.S. culture. These descriptive statistics alone could not provide the Significance of individual variables or a correlation between variables, which are needed to determine if a relationship exists between any given variable or overall preparation factors and subsequent interaction with U.S. culture. Therefore, the 121 data were also analyzed using some of the procedures of inferential statistics. These procedures compared variables and groups of vari- ables to determine if there was a predictable relationship between them. The principal procedure used was that of cross-tabulation of selected variables to determine what relationships, expected or other- wise, would materialize in the form of linear regressions or signifi- cant chi squares. The research question posed for the study hypothe- sized that the more kinds of predeparture exposure an individual had to U.S. culture, the more extensive his or her contact with U.S. culture would be after arrival. Scores for the different sections were the best representative of the presence or lack of quantity of such exposure, both prior to departure and after arrival. Therefore, they (scores) were treated as variables in themselves and, as such, were compared with other variables. One segment of cross-tabulation dealt with the comparison of scores as follows: 1. prepreparation + scores and postarrival + scores 2. prepreparation - scores and postarrival - scores 3. prepreparation + scores and postarrival - scores 4. prepreparation - scores and postarrival + scores 5. composite scores were cross-tabulated with each of the following variables: age sex length of time in the U.S. status in the U.S. degree program field of study first English learned 122 satisfaction with academic program was cross-tabulated with each of the following variables: composite score prepreparation + scores prepreparation - scores postarrival + scores postarrival - scores satisfaction with acquaintance with U.S. culture was cross-tabulated with each of the following variables: composite score prepreparation + scores prepreparation — scores postarrival + scores postarrival - scores A second set of cross-tabulations using the scores as variables allowed a closer examination of the relationship between specific sections and other variables as follows: 8. 10. 11. 12. 13. Section II + scores (language preparation) and postarrival + scores Section II + scores and Section VI (interaction) + scores Section II + scores and Section VI - scores Section II - scores and postarrival + scores Section II - scores and Section VI + scores Section II - scores and Section VI - scores Section III + scores (U.S. culture preparation) and postarrival + scores Section III scores and Section VI (interaction) + scores Section III + scores and Section VI - scores 4. Section III Section III Section III scores and postarrival + scores scores and Section VI + scores scores and Section VI - scores satisfaction with academic program and Section VI + scores satisfaction with acquaintance with U.S. culture and Section VI + scores sponsorship and postarrival + scores sponsorship and Section VI (interaction) + scores status at U.S. school and postarrival + scores. status at U.S. school and Section VI (interaction) + scores but was 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 123 field of study and prepreparation + scores degree program and postarrival + scores degree program and Section VI (interaction) + scores length of English study and Section IV + scores and Section V + scores and Section VI + scores orientation classes in China and Section IV + Scores and Section V + scores and Section VI + scores special preparation in China and Section VI + scores first English learned and Section VI + scores living with whom and Section VI + scores and Section VI - scores type of food and Section VI + scores Section VI - scores language spoken most often and Section VI + scores and Section VI - scores A third set of cross-tabulations did not involve the scores, between the following sets of variables: 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. exchange program between U.S. and China and special preparation in China exchange program between U.S. and China and orientation program in China orientation program in China and orientation program in U.S. status in U.S. school with degree program evaluation of advanced preparation and Chinese-government sponsorship and U.S. scholarship and private sponsorship and U.S. assistantship participation in outside activities and present time in the U.S. satisfaction with academic progress and sponsorship 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 124 satisfaction with academic progress and most important goals satisfaction with academic progress and each of the following: status in U.S. school degree program field of study length of time in U.S. length of English study orientation in China evaluation of advanced preparation satisfaction with knowledge of U.S. culture and sponsorship satisfaction with knowledge of U.S. culture and artici- pation in outside activities (survey question 72 satisfaction with knowledge of U.S. culture and each of the following: status in U.S. school degree program field of study length of English study orientation in China length of time in U.S. evaluation of advanced preparation first English learned age had English conversation in China living with whom most important goals satisfaction with knowledge of U.S. culture and satisfac- tion with academic progress familiarity with what groups and each of the following: participation in what activities satisfaction with knowledge of U.S. culture Each of the above 36 sets of cross-tabulations was selected in order to find out what, if any, variables had more influence on the amount and kinds of acquaintance that the Chinese nationals had with U.S. culture. The frequencies tabulated earlier showed a number of the respondents had followed a similar pattern in some areas that 125 could affect their interaction with American culture. Many persons indicated that they lived with other Chinese students or scholars, cooked for themselves and ate primarily Chinese food, and outside of their academic or research program tended to speak Chinese and to spend most of the time with other Chinese persons. These are all factors that Klineberg and Hull referred to in their study, At_p_ Foreign University: An International Study of Adaptation and Coping, as having an influence on whether a foreign student is able to suc- cessfully integrate with the host culture and which, they felt, have much to do with the foreign student's overall satisfaction with his or her stay, both academically and nonacademically. In order to determine the extent of the relationship of these factors to interaction with American culture, an additional variable was created: 00 Chinese Things. This variable included the fol- lowing: living with whom (question 45, answer 6); type of food (question 47, answer 1); language outside of academics (question 63, answer 2); and company outside of academics (question 64, answer 1). wa—J o o o o The earlier frequencies computed provided information on how many of the respondents answered each of those questions individually. The new variable, 00 Chinese Things, gave information on how many of the respondents answered those questions with the pattern mentioned above, i.e., how many did none, one, two, three, or all four of those vari— ables that involved remaining in an atmosphere that was primarily Chinese. 126 This variable was then cross-tabulated with others to determine if, in fact, the pattern of maintaining a primarily Chinese style of living did interfere with or affect the interaction of those indi- viduals with American culture. The following comparisons were made: 37. do Chinese things and each of the following: Chinese government sponsorship U.S. university scholarship private sponsorship U.S. university assistantship satisfaction with academic progress satisfaction with knowledge of U.S. culture status at U.S. university participation in outside activities Other Types of Analysis The data-analysis procedures outlined above were duplicated for a particular sector of the Chinese students and scholars in the United States, those at Michigan State University. The findings of these analyses as well as the results of the discussions and inter- views that took place with the Michigan State University Chinese nationals are recorded in a subsequent chapter, "A Closer Look: Chinese Students and Scholars at Michigan State University." Summary The above three phases of data analysiS--the computation of scores, the tabulation of frequencies, and the computing of the afore- mentioned cross-tabulations--led to findings that related to the primary research question posed in this dissertation. In addition, the analysis established relationships or lack of relationships between many individ- ual variables thought to have an effect on the adaptation of foreign students to a second culture. These are all discussed in the next chapter, "The Findings of the Survey." 17. 127 ASSIGNED VALUES--PREPREPARATION--Sections I-III Survey Question # . Past family study in the U.S. . Relatives living in the U.S. . Previous experience abroad . First visit to the U.S. . Length of time in the U.S. Main goals to achieve in U.S. End Section 19. Seen U.S. university materials 20. Length of language training 22. Methods of learning English 23. Conversation study 24. English with native speakers as teachers 25. Frequency of English use Points Answer (+ or -) yes +1 no -1 yes +1 no -1 yes +1 no -1 no +1 l-6 months 0 7-12 months +1 more than 1 year +2 more than 2 years +3 broader education +1 improving the language +1 knowing U.S. people +1 learning about U.S. +1 yes +1 no -1 I less than 6 months -1 6 months to 1 year 0 l to 2 years +1 2 to 5 years +2 more than 5 years +3 only scientific English -1 Special course +2 more than 2 hours daily +2 yes +1 no -1 yes +2 no -1 daily +2 often '+l rarely PREPARATION--ASSIGNED VALUES--Continued 26. 27. 28. 29. Survey Question # Mode of English use Studies other subjects with English instruction English club Participation in club 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. Special preparation to come to U.S. Chinese university program Length of orientation Talks with Americans living in China Talks with returned Chinese students and scholars Contact with Chinese in U.S. Learning about U.S. culture-- using English Learning about U.S. culture-- using Chinese Listen to Voice of America End Section Points Answer (+ or -) reading/writing -1 all three modes +2 yes +1 no '-1 usually +2 sometimes +1 rarely -1 II yes +1 no -1 yes +5 no -5 1 or 2 sessions +1 less than 1 month +2 1 to 3 months +3 yes +3 yes +3 yes +2 American literature +3 American magazines +2 American newspapers +2 American movies +2 American tourists +1 American literature +2 American magazines +1 American newspapers +1 American movies +1 no -1 129 PREPARATION--ASSIGNED VALUES--Continued Points Survey_Question # Answer (+ or -) 40. Frequency listen to VOA daily +3 sometimes +2 rarely +1 End Section III Possible prepreparation + points/score = +66 Possible prepreparation - points/score = -20 Section I (1-19)_ Section II (20-30), Section III (31-40) possible +s = 14 possible +s = 17 possible +s = 35 possible -5 = 5 possible -s = 8 possible -5 = 7 ASSIGNED VALUES--POSTARRIVAL--Sections IV-VI Points Survey Question # Answer (+ or -) 45. Living with whom U.S. students +2 U.S. family +2 foreign students +2 Chinese students -2 46. Eating situation school cafeteria +1 family or relatives +1 47. Type of food Chinese -1 American +2 combination +1 50. Frequency listen to radio/TV daily +2 sometimes ' +1 rarely -l 51. Frequency read U.S. papers daily +2 sometimes +1 rarely -l 52. Had U.S. orientation program yes +5 no -5 54. Length of orientation 1 to 2 hours +1 half day +2 full day +2 130 POSTARRIVAL--ASSIGNED VALUES--Continued 55. Survey_Question # Subjects covered END SECTION 61. 62. 63. Additional English study Read material in English Language most often spoken 64. 65. 67. 68. 69. 70. END SECTION Spend time with whom Community contacts Types of contacts Nature of contacts Desire more contact Reasons for lack of contact Answer life on campus American history/culture +1 social customs +1 academic information +1 other (specify) +1 IV with a tutor +1 self-study +1 often +2 sometimes +1 rarely -1 English +3 Chinese -3 some of both +1 V Chinese people -3 foreign students +1 Americans +2 combination +1 yes +1 no -1 if 3 or more +1 casual +1 long-term contacts +3 some of both +3 yes +1 prefer Chinese -1 do not wish contact -1 131 POSTARRIVAL--ASSIGNED VALUES--Continued Points Survey Question # Answer (+ or -) 72. Activities/visits American family +1 U.S. farms +1 U.S. factories +1 movies +1 cultural events +1 sports event +1 sightseeing locally +1 sightseeing elsewhere +1 73. Activities with whom foreign students +1 American friends/students +2 combination +2 74. Activities arranged how other Chinese +1 American friends/students +2 combination +2 76. Accepted invitation to speak yes +1 no -1 78. Given conference paper yes +1 no -1 79. Plan to visit elsewhere in U.S. yes +2 -END SECTION VI Possible postarrival + points/score = 64 Possible postarrival - points/score = 22 Section IV (31-55) Section V (56-63), Section VI (64-82) possible +s = 21 possible +s = 7 possible +s = 36 possible -5 = 10 possible -s = 4 possible -s = 8 Survey Question # 1 1A 2 2A 8 8A 9 10 ll 12 l3 14 15 16 17 18 21 30 41 42 43 44 48 49 53 56 132 LIST OF CHINESE SURVEY QUESTIONS TO WHICH NO NUMERICAL VALUE IS ATTACHED Label/Variable Sex Age Occupation Institutional affiliation in China Intended length of stay in U.S. U.S. institutional affiliation Status at U.S. institution Degree or nondegree seeking person Field of study U.S.-China direct institutional exchange Member of direct exchange program Number from Chinese school in U.S. Number of PRC nationals at U.S. institution Sponsorship Goals: (1 get degree 2 acquire research skills (3) gain knowledge in field (7) gain practical experience in field How contact with U.S. institution made Where English first learned English test in China prior to departure Evaluation of predeparture preparation Preparation needs: (1) academic information (2) more English 3) cultural information Met by whom in U.S. Where living Primary means of transportation Have radio or T.V. Who arranged orientation Which area of English is the easiest 133 SURVEY QUESTIONS TO WHICH N0 NUMERICAL VALUE IS ATTACHED-~Continued Survey Question # 57 58 59 6O 66 71 75 77 80 81 82 Label/Variable Which area of English is most difficult English test required in U.S. Supplemental English courses taken Length of required supplemental English Contacts with what groups Familiarity with what community groups Invited to speak to American groups Invited to present conference paper When further travel is planned Satisfaction with academics Satisfaction with knowledge of U.S. culture 134 Footnotes—-Chapter IV 1The questionnaire was distributed by a personal contact to classes at a graduate school in Peking to which I was an invited lecturer on several occasions in November 1979. At that time, diplo- matic relations had not yet been established and there were no offi- cial exchange agreements between institutions in the two countries. Nevertheless, this school had set up special courses for those gradu- ate students who were potentially being selected to go abroad, either on government scholarships or through their own initiative in con- tacting U.S. universities about admissions and financial aid. 2This observation was confirmed by talks with scholars from both Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory and the University of Chicago. Although they were, for the most part, doing research work in physics, many of them were dependent, at least initially, on trans— lators who usually were Chinese-American faculty members. A more complete examination of the methods of English teaching in China was published in the TESOL Quarterly_l3,4 (December 1979). The article, "English Teaching iniChina: A Recent Survey," was prepared by a group of four English Second Language specialists who visited China in May 1979 for nearly three weeks at the request of the Chinese Ministry of Education. 3In general, the universities contacted about the distribution of the questionnaire showed great interest and enthusiasm. Distribu- tion through a source or person that the students and scholars consid- ered "friendly" was an important factor, both to explain the nature of a general survey received from a stranger and to provide assurance that it was for a good cause. 4Linda Reed, staff person of the U.S.-China Education Clearing- house, Washington, D.C. Information provided in an address to the TESOL annual convention, March 13, 1981, Renaissance Center, Detroit, Michigan. 5"An Introduction to Education in the People's Republic of China and U.S.-China Educational Exchanges" (Washington, D.C.: U.S.- China Education Clearinghouse, 1980), p. 65. 6Although no details were provided by the Embassy, the Spokes- person suggested that the reason for a smaller or no response from some of the Eastern-region campuses might be the suspicions raised from this experience, particularly since the questionnaire I sent out asked for so much information about the respondent's contact with American cul- ture and people. 7The University of California at Berkeley distributed the ques- tionnaires to research scholars only because their addresses had been compiled for the 1981-82 year while those of the graduates and under- graduates were not readily available. CHAPTER V FINDINGS OF THE SURVEY The survey's intended distribution was to include approxi- mately 20% of the estimated total of 5,000 Chinese students and scholars in the United States as of summer 1981. One thousand ques- tionnaires were to be distributed to a random sample. Of these, 714 were actually distributed and 233 were returned as completed by indi- vidual students and scholars. The return rate was thus 32.6%. The returned questionnaires came from respondents in 31 American institu- tions: there were no returns from 9 of the institutions. The 233 cases represented the following regional distribution and type of institution: Number Percent public institutions 116 49.79 private institutions 117 50.21 Midwest 150 64.3 East 12 5.2 South 6 2.6 West 65 27.9 Among the American institutions with which the Chinese students and scholars were affiliated, 12 have formal institutional exchange agreements with institutions in China: 135 136 Columbia University Purdue University Goshen College Seton Hall University Indiana University Sienna Heights College Michigan State University University of California--Berkeley Northeastern University University of Ca1ifornia--Los Angeles Northwestern University University of Pittsburgh Overall, the results of the analysis of data obtained from the questionnaires showed a positive linear correlation between the amount of exposure that respondents had to various items relating to American culture before leaving China and the amount of interaction that they had with American culture after their arrival in the U.S. This relationship was established by a test of the Pearson coefficient, which is a useful statistical measure of linear correlation, and by a chi-square analysis. Both procedures used a cross-tabulation of the total of predeparture positive scores and the postarrival positive scores obtained by the respondents. (See Figure 2, page 167.) While both these tests showed a statistical significance in the relationship between the two, in and of themselves they cannot provide conclusive proof for the full acceptance of the hypothesis posed as a major research question, that Chinese students/scholars who had some initial preparation in language training and cultural orientation to America will have more varied and extensive, active ties with the American populace (academic and nonacademic) than those Chinese students/scholars who did not have such preparation. The reasons for a nonacceptance of the hypothesis will be discussed later in this chapter. However, a number of tests provided reason to accept the formulation that those 137 Chinese students/scholars who come to the U.S. as indi- viduals with private sponsorship will have more varied and extensive contacts with Americans than do those who come under the sponsorship of the Chinese government. With regard to the third research question posed, that those Chinese students/scholars who have more interaction with U.S. culture will express more overall satis- faction with their stay than those who have less, the results of the data analysis were mixed. Comparisons between individual variables and the scores obtained by the respondents showed a relationship between interaction with U.S. culture and satisfaction with their acquaintance and familiarity with U.S. people and customs (question 72), but there was no statistical relationship between the respondents' interaction with U.S. culture and satisfaction with their academic progress (question 71). In order to more fully explain the results of the data analy- sis as concerns the three above-mentioned hypotheses, this chapter of the dissertation will first present a profile of the respondents as provided by their answers to questions in the survey. This descrip- tive analysis will supply needed background on the nature of their preparation to come to the United States and the extent of their inter- action since their arrival. This information is the framework within which the comparison of scores and selected variables took place. The Respondents: Who They Are The 233 persons listed 118 different institutional affilia- tions from 29 cities in China: represented were 38 schools and research institutes in Peking, 17 in Shanghai, 8 in Nanking, and a variety of schools in 26 other Chinese cities. Four did not list 138 their affiliation in China, and two indicated middle schools (second- ary) rather than an institution of higher learning. The respondents included 31 women (13.3%) and 202 (86.7%) men. The oldest person who responded was 59 years of age; the youngest, 20 years of age. Thirty- five percent were 40-45 years old, and 77.2% were between the ages of 36 and 51. These figures corroborate those found in the U.S.-China Education Clearinghouse surveys and are consistent with China's stated priority of sending professors and scientists established in their fields abroad for advanced research in their areas of specialty. The respondents listed the following occupational background: graduate students 12.9% professors/teachers 54.5% research scientists 26.6% other 6.0% Within the category of "other," doctors and medical researchers, city planners, and administrators in government ministries were cited. Thirty-one percent indicated that more than 20 from their institutional affiliation in China were now studying in the U.S.; most of these were from among the larger, well-known universities and research institutes in China. Nearly 30% stated that fewer than five were now in the U.S. When asked how many Chinese students and scholars were presently at the American institution where they were studying, nearly 54% said more than 50, while 25.8% said fewer than 25. This would appear to support the information provided by the U.S.-China Education Clearinghouse that China is indeed targeting certain American schools. 139 Thirty-seven percent of the respondents stated that their institution in China had an exchange agreement with the American school; 33% stated the two schools did not; and nearly 30% were not sure. However, most of the respondents were not a member of the exchange, even if there was such an agreement. Of the 139 persons who said yes to the exchange question, only 36 (25.9%) were in America as part of that exchange; 103 (74.1%) were not. The respondents listed their status in the United States in the following categories: Number Percent undergraduates 6 2.6 graduate students 40 17.2 special students 8 3.4 visiting scholars 160 68.7 other 18 7.7 Although it is estimated that there are now nearly as many under- graduates and graduates as visiting scholars, if not more, the majority of the respondents to this survey were visiting scholars. Because the numbers are higher, the statistical inferences involving the scholars are perhaps more valid for that category of the sample than are those for other categories where the number of actual respondents was small. The higher number of responses from the scholars may also be related to the fact that as a group they are more cohesive, with several from one institution in China coming to the same institution in the U.S. They have a stronger and more formal network than do the random graduate students. In many cases, groups of scholars have a head person chosen to speak for them as a group. More will be said about the internal organization of the students and scholars in the 140 next chapter, which looks at the case of the Chinese nationals at Michigan State University. However, some of those reasons account for the larger number of respondents from among the group of visit- ing scholars. Closely related to status in the U.S. is financial sponsor- ship. The 1979 Agreement on Science and Technology signed by the two countries mentioned that the costs for exchanges would be borne as mutually agreed, but that participants in the exchanges from either country would be eligible to apply for whatever grants, scholarships, or sources of funding were available in his or her field in the host country. To date, this stipulation has favored those Chinese students coming here to work in graduate programs more than it has assisted students who might wish to go to China for graduate work simply because the U.S. schools have more alternatives for funding open to foreign students than do Chinese institutions. The Chinese govern- ment resources allotted to the exchange between the two countries, and they have been considerable, tend to finance two groups of people: Chinese visiting scholars in America and American professors and specialists in fields of science and technology who are invited to China to lecture, usually from two months to a year, in specific institutions. The survey respondents listed their sources of funding in the U.S. as follows: Number Percent Chinese government funds 164 64.6 U.S. scholarships 30 13.0 U.S. assistantships 33 14.3 relatives or friends 9 3.5 other 18 7 l 141 "Other" answers included sponsorship from organizations or businesses and from part-time employment. Twenty-three persons indicated more than one source of funding, the most common arrangement being that the U.S. school provided an assistantship while the Chinese institu- tion provided transportation. Once in the U.S., the survey showed that 79.8% of the respond- ents were not enrolled in degree programs while 20.2% were. The fol- lowing fields of study were listed: engineering 42.1% natural or life sciences 35.6% other 9.0% English 4.7% social sciences 3.9% humanities 1.3% business & management 3.0% "Other" answers included medical research, astronomy, urban planning, and agriculture. Thus far, the profile is similar to that noted by the U.S.-China Education Clearinghouse surveys. The survey Showed that a majority of the students and scholars planned to be in the United States for two years: two years 58.4% more than two years 16.7% one year 12.4% less than one year 5.6% not sure 6.9% Most of those who responded to the survey had been here less than one year: less than six months 32.2% six months to one year 29.6% more than one year 34.3% more than two years 3.4% Had the survey been conducted three to four months earlier or later, the percentage of respondents who had been here more than one year or 142 close to two years may have been considerably higher. The first groups of scholars who came throughout the spring and summer of 1979 for a two-year period had completed their stay and returned to China. The increasing numbers of graduate students with plans to stay for two or more years arrived primarily in late 1980 or 1981. In terms of the most important goals and objectives they hoped to achieve in the United States, the answers in the survey cor- roborated those in the NAFSA study (Needs of Foreign Students From Developing Countries at U.S. Colleges and Universities) conducted with students from many other countries. There was a strong prioritization of academic objectives among the Chinese students and scholars. The following goals and percentages are those the respondents listed as their first, second, or third most important: developing research skills 74.6% receiving knowledge in your field 77.2% improving your level of English 42.1% gaining practical experience 28.9% obtaining a degree 26.9% knowing U.S. people in your field 23.5% learning about U.S. culture 17.7% getting a broader education 14.6% A marked difference from the NAFSA survey is in the number who rated receiving a degree as a high priority and need. The majority of Chinese nationals who responded to this survey were not enrolled in degree programs; hence the results reflect the status in the U.S. The Chinese graduate students who responded to this survey all listed receiving a degree as their number-one goal, which is in keeping with the NAFSA survey. 143 Preperation to Come to the U.S. The majority, by far, of respondents to the survey listed little exposure to U.S. culture through their personal background or indirect family connections. 87.6% had no one in their families who had studied in the U.S. 75.5% had no relatives living in the U.S. 88.4% had no prior living experience abroad. 96.6% stated that this was their first visit to the U.S. Had the survey included the increasing number of undergraduates from China now enrolled in U.S. colleges and universities, the percentages may have varied considerably. According to the U.S.-China Education Clearinghouse, many of the undergraduates are sponsored or assisted by relatives in the U.S. Eighty-two percent of the respondents indicated that they had seen U.S. university catalogs and/or materials before their arrival. This would seem to indicate that one of the problems often cited in the earliest stages of the exchange, that of students and scholars arriving with little knowledge of how the U.S. higher education system operated in specific institutions, has been solved. These materials have now become more common in China as a result of the increased links between the two countries: returning students and scholars have supplied them to their home institutions, American teachers of English in China have made efforts to acquire them in order to assist students in making applications to American schools, and the increased number of direct exchange agreements between schools in the two countries have helped in this respect. 144 English-Language Background and Training Proficiency in the language of the host country is recognized by those involved in international educational exchange as perhaps the single most important component to an individual's success, both in terms of ability to do academic work and to acquire a familiarity with the host culture and people. Unlike cases in numerous other countries where a familiarity with English is the result of a colonial background or the most common second language acquired by the educa- tional elite, foreign language study has not been a concomitant part of the Chinese educational curricula, either traditionally or since 1949. The inclusion of English for every school child in China starting at the age of nine and continuing through the university level is a mandate sent down from the Ministry of Education only in 1979. Unprecedented in scope and scale, this ambitious undertaking speaks to a change in the official world outlook of the government, but it is of little consequence to those now studying in the U.S., who either had to rely on their past study of English or special preparatory courses in English. The answers of the respondents pro- vided the following information about English-language background and training: 24.5% indicated they had studied English for a year or less. 43.3% claimed more than five years of English study. 51.1% first studied English in middle (secondary) school. Given the ages of most respondents, that was between 20 and 30 years ago. In the 19505 and early 1960s, Russian was the language studied by the educated elite; anti-rightist periods in the 19505, during the Cul- tural Revolution in the late 19605, and in the period before Mao 145 Zedong's death in 1976 brought persecutions and social repression to intellectuals, particularly to those who had a background of exposure to "foreign" ideas or who had libraries that included books in foreign languages. Opportunities and encouragement to pursue fluency in a foreign language were thus only intermittent. Indeed, later discussions with individual scholars and students showed the lingering and important influence of the missionary schools, which operated in China before 1950. Among the older scholars, some had first learned English in elementary schools run by American mission- aries in the 19305 and 19405. Many of those students and scholars now in their mid- to late thirties came from families where their parents had attended such schools. Although not a part of the study in this dissertation, it would be interesting to know more about the role such a variable has played and what percentage of those Chinese who are now coming to the U.S. have such influences in their backgrounds. Given the circumstances, the survey results showed a surpris- ingly high amount of English-language contact in China before their departure, almost all the results of changes that have occurred in the past three years since the establishment of diplomatic relations. Respondents stated that 68.7% used English daily or often in their work in China; 49.4% had studied with native speakers of English; 44.6% had studied other subjects in the English language; 78.1% had received instruction in English conversation; but 82.0% stated that reading was their primary mode of English usage; and 80.7% were tested in English before their study abroad (not TOEFL . 146 Only 30.8% of the respondents indicated that their institution in China had a formal or informal English-language club. Participa- tion in such clubs was not strong. Of the 71 respondents who knew of the English club, 10 (14.1%) attended programs usually; 30 (42.3%) attended sometimes; and 31 (43.7%) attended rarely. Orientation and Introduction to U.S. Life This section of the questionnaire included a number of items also related to language training. But it was designed to acquire information about direct exposure to elements of U.S. culture in preparation to the respondent's leaving for study abroad. While 57.1% of those responding said they had some special preparation, only 44% said this took the form of special classes pro- vided by the home institution. Of those, the extent and nature of the classes were described as follows: 30 (38.5%) one or two sessions; 13 (16.6%) less than one month; 26 (33.3%) one to three months; and 9 (11.5%) other (none specified what this was). Much of their individual preparation took other forms: 43.3% had talked with foreign experts; 50.6% had talked with returned scholars; and 38.2% had corresponded with students and scholars in the U.S. Voice of America radio (VOA) received the right to resume open pro- gramming in China after diplomatic relations were established. Programming is determined with approval of the Chinese government. The majority of air time is given over to news programs, correspondence 147 courses in the English language, and educational or cultural programs and features such as National Geographic specials, lectures on scien- tific or agricultural subjects, and some sports. Voice of America is popular in China at the present time, and 87.1% of the survey respondents said they had listened to it: 51 (25%) on a daily basis; 119 (58%) sometimes; and 34 (17%) rarely. The establishment of diplomatic relations and the new govern- ment policies of the past three years have ended, at least for the present time, the stigma of foreign ideas. There has been some increase of English-language literature and films, along with quite a rapid increase in the number of Americans who visit China each year. But the dissemination and availability of such material nowhere nearly matches that in other developing countries, where such cultural con- tact has been the norm for years. Nor is there any way of measuring what portion of the Chinese population is exposed, or desires to be exposed, to such material. This survey could only record the responses of that sector of the population who, because of their coming to the U.S. to study, might be desirous of and likely to avail themselves of such material. In response to the question about what media they had come into contact with in English, the students and scholars stated the following: Number Percent American short stories and novels 106 57.3 American magazines and journals 121 65.4 American movies 86 46.5 American newspapers 36 19.5 American tourists 63 34.1 '412' 148 (The question was a multiple-response one where respondents were asked to check all answers that applied.) A fewer number of responses were given (280) to the same question asked but using Chinese as the language: . Number Percent American novels and short stories 101 65.2 American magazines and journals 53 34.2 American movies 109 70.3 American newspapers 17 11.0 Copies of American newspapers are not as available in China as are issues of news magazines or paperbacks of American literature. Like- wise, translations of American magazines and newspapers are less fre- quent than are some translations of literature. American films (also other foreign firms) are still not a common occurrence in China; they include such diverse offerings as Gone With the Wind, Sound of Music, Convoy, and Boots, However, they are widely sought out, with the purchase of tickets often necessary several days ahead of time. Evaluation of Preparation The respondents did not give a very high rating overall to the advanced preparation they had received before coming to America: 3.4% very good; 21.0% adequate 54.5% some areas adequate, others inadequate; and 18.5% inadequate. 73% { The greatest need expressed for preparation was that of more language training and practice: 80.9%. Forty-seven and eight-tenths percent said they would have liked more information about academic programs; only 29.1% stated a desire for more information about American social customs. 149 Arrival and Living Situation in the United States Although 42.9% of the respondents said they were met upon arrival by U.S. university people, 30% said they were met by other Chinese students or scholars. Nineteen and three-tenths percent said they were met by both. This is indicative of a network that has been developed even before arrival among the PRC nationals. This is par- ticularly true among government-sponsored scholars and colleagues from the same home institution. Very few of the respondents lived on campus or in dormitories. They stated their living situation was as follows: 90 2% { 58.4% in apartments or homes; ' 31.8% in room off campus; and 9.0% in dormitory. Asked with whom they lived, they said: 11.6% alone; 9.0% U.S. students; 16.0% U.S. family; 7.3% foreign students; and 53.6% other Chinese students/scholars. Eighty-nine and three-tenths percent indicated that they cooked for themselves, with the following type of cuisine: 94 5% { 62.7% primarily Chinese food; ° 31.8% both Chinese & American foods; and 5.6% primarily American food. Ninety-six and nine-tenths percent of the respondents stated that they got around by walking, public transportation, or bicycle (42.1%). Five persons stated they depended on friends who drove cars, and one person said that he had acquired a driver's license and had purchased his own car for transportation. 150 The survey sought information on what language the students and scholars spoke most often outside of academic work and with whom they spent the most time. According to the respondents' answers to those questions, more than twice as many spoke primarily Chinese (31.8%) as they did English (14.2%), although 53.6% indicated that they spoke some of both. Even fewer said they spent their time out- side academic work primarily with Americans: 43.3% primarily with Chinese people; 2.6% primarily with foreign students; 8.6% primarily with Americans; and 44.6% a combination of the above. This means that 85.4% of the respondents spoke Chinese part or most of the time outside classes and that 86.9% of them spent part or most of their time with Chinese people. The frequency with which the Chinese students and scholars did "Chinese things," i.e., lived with Chinese, ate Chinese food, spoke Chinese, and spent the most time with other Chinese, was also noted. The following are the percentages of respondents who did none, one, two, three, or four of those things: 00 Chinese Things Percent none 21.8 (50) one 20.9 (49; two 19.7 (46 three 17.5 (41) four 20.1 (47) Of those who did just one Chinese thing, that one thing was to eat Chinese food (94.6%). 0f the 20% who did all four Chinese things, more than 90% were visiting scholars rather than graduate students. 151 If, on the other hand, one takes the same four questions and extracts those answers most closely related to an American life style and atmosphere, i.e., those who live with U.S. students or families, eat primarily American food, speak mostly English outside the academic environment, and spend the major portion of their time with Americans, then the figures look quite different: 00 American Things Percent none 60.1 one 26.8 two 7.8 three 5.2 four 0.0 If the respondent did one "American" thing, it was most likely to be to live with an American family or student. And more than 70% of those who indicated they did two or three American things were gradu- ate students as opposed to visiting scholars. The above comparisons appear to indicate that, given options and preferences, few of the respondents were or chose to be in an "American" environment outside their academic study or research. But while 20% of them maintained a strong "Chinese" life style, nearly 80% of them did spend part of the time eating American food, speaking English, and being with American people. More discussion, comparison, and evaluation of these elements will take place later in this chapter. U.S. Orientation Programs Close to three-quarters of the survey respondents (73%) said they had not attended orientation sessions at the U.S. institution. This does not mean that such programs are not offered for foreign 152 students. Many universities require enrolled students from other countries to attend sessions to facilitate their adjustment to U.S. academic life. However, since a large proportion of the Chinese nationals in the U.S. are here as visiting scholars, and not as students registered in a degree program, participation would be optional. This survey did not solicit information from the universi- ties, but it would be interesting to know if Chinese nationals in the category of visiting scholars are informed about, eligible, and encouraged to attend formal orientation programs for foreign students where they are offered. About half of the 61 persons who did attend sessions said they were organized by the Foreign Student Office of the university. But nearly half indicated they had been organized by other bodies, among them the US-China Peoples Friendship Association and church groups. Fifty-four and four-tenths percent said the sessions had lasted one or two hours; 17.6% said they were half-day sessions; and the remaining 21% stated there had been several sessions spread out over a longer period of time. Those who attended such sessions indi- cated the following subject areas were covered: life on campus 49.0% American history & culture 33.9% U.S. social customs 47.5% academic information 27.1% English-Language Skills The respondents identified "reading" as the mode of English with which they had the fewest problems (87.6%). There was more diver- sity in their answers concerning the most problematic area: 153 writing 24.9% understanding 32,2% speaking 40.3% Although more than three-quarters of the respondents took an English examination before leaving China, the reverse was true in the United States. Only 24% said they took a test; 75.8% said they did not. Again, this is not necessarily indicative or typical of U.S. univer- sity policies. It is more likely related to the fact that visiting scholars who represented over half of the respondents in the survey are not registered students and, therefore, a number of university policies do not apply to them. Of the 65 persons who stated that they did take an English test upon arrival, fewer than half of them (41.5%) were required to enroll in a supplemental English course as the result of the testing. Seventy percent of those who took a course said it was for one term only. Even though the majority of the students and scholars from China indicated they were not pursuing formal English-language study, most of them stated that they were engaged in a variety of methods to improve their English: 2.4% full-time; 25.4% part-time; 31.7% in a class; 17.5% with a tutor; and 55.6% informal self-study. In regard to how often they read materials in English outside of their academic or research program, the respondents stated the following: 25.3% often 45.9% sometimes; and 27.9% rarely. 154 Contact With American Media, Culture, and People Fewer than 10% of the respondents stated that they did not have access to a radio or television set. Fifty-five percent said they listened to radio and/or television daily; 87.5% daily or some- times. Only 22% said they read the newspaper on a daily basis; but the percentage rose to 78.6% when the category of "sometimes" was included. Eighty-two and eight-tenths percent of the persons responding stated that they had made contacts in the community where they lived: 95.3% wanted to make more contacts. A high percentage (77.5%) did know an American family, with the following other types of persons listed as contacts (multiple responses possible): other students and teachers 53.9% Chinese-Americans 44.5% primarily relatives 5.2% other (did not specify) 2.6% The students and scholars said such contacts had been made in a variety of ways, namely through (multiple answers possible): university groups 36.9% other students 45.8% Foreign Student Office 14.9% relatives 4.8% other (primarily USCPFA) 32.7% When asked whether they considered these contacts to be casual acquaintances or longer—term friendships, the respondents indicated the following: 18.0% casual acquaintances 16.0% long-term friendships 41.6% some of both 155 TWenty-three and six-tenths percent of the students and scholars did not respond to the question, which leaves doubt as to its clarity. A number of reasons were given for why they had few contacts, the most common being the lack of time and the heavy work schedule: 30.7% not in the U.S. long enough 75.0% too busy in academic program and research 29.5% difficult to make contacts 3.4% do not wish more contacts Only 31.3% of the respondents had been asked to speak to American groups about China, and 95.9% of those said they had accepted the invitation. Twenty percent said they had been invited to lecture or present papers at U.S. professional conferences; 93.75% said they had accepted the invitation. One question asked the respondents to list whether they had participated in a variety of activities that would provide at least a superficial acquaintance with aspects of American culture. Only nine persons left this question blank; most of the others indicated that they had participated in more than one of such activities. Over 60% of the respondents had participated in each of the following: visit to a U.S. home, been to the movies, done local sightseeing and sight- seeing in another city. The composite percentage of activities they had participated in included the following: 72.2% visits with an American family; 37.2% visits to a U.S. farm; 33.2% visits to a U.S. factory; 74.0% been to the movies; 43.5% been to a cultural event; 26.5% been to a sports event; 77.1% local sightseeing; and 64.6% sightseeing in other cities. 156 Only 5.6% of the PRC students and scholars said these visits had been arranged through the Foreign Student Office; the largest percentage said they had been arranged through American friends and students (32%) or through a combination of bodies (44%). Twenty-seven and four-tenths percent of the respondents said they went on their own or with other Chinese nationals, but the largest percentage (42%) said such visits were made in mixed groups of Chinese and Americans. A further question asked the respondents to identify their familiarity with community and professional groups that provide ser- vices for foreign or Chinese students and scholars. Sixty-six persons did not answer the question. Of those who did, 83.1% said they were familiar with the US-China Peoples Friendship Association (USCPFA); 11.1%, the International Club at their American School; 4.2%, the National Association for Foreign Students Affairs; and 1.6%, the China Council of the Asia Society. At the end of the questionnaire, respondents were asked to evaluate their level of satisfaction with both their academic or research program and their acquaintance with U.S. culture. In each of those areas, over 70% of the respondents said they were satisfied or very satisfied, but there were some differences. 9.4% very satisfied 63.5% satisfied 21.0% only sometimes satisfied 3.4% not very satisfied Satisfaction with academic program 9.9% very satisfied 53.6% satisfied 24.5% only sometimes satisfied 9.0% not very satisfied Satisfaction with U.S. culture 157 Summary of Descriptive Data Some brief observations in summary of the above section may be helpful at this point. The following are extracted generalizations: l. The majority of Chinese students and scholars presently in the U.S. and who responded to the survey had no formal orientation as such, either before leaving China or after arrival in the United States. 2. Before leaving China, all students and scholars were exposed to and took advantage of a variety of means to acquaint them- selves with English and with American culture, although the number and kinds of means varied considerably according to their responses. 3. In some cases, students and scholars chose to have or not have contact with components that would better acquaint them with American life before leaving China, i.e., Voice of America broadcasts, participation in English clubs, and the reading of a variety of types of material either in English or Chinese. 4. In some cases, it is not known whether the lack of exposure to some components that would better acquaint them with American cul- ture was due to lack of availability of such measures or due to choice, i.e., talking with American teachers or tourists, reading American newspapers, or seeing U.S. university catalogs. 5. Although the majority of students and scholars specified a background in English language, in most cases such training took place as long as a generation ago, with not much opportunity to use it dur- ing the intervening years. 158 6. Although the majority of students and scholars stated that they had had some training in conversational English, they also stated that they felt most comfortable with reading scientific English. 7. The majority of students and scholars responded that, at best, their preparation was adequate in only some areas, with the need for more practice in English stressed by most. 8. Concerning their goals and objectives in coming to the United States, the students and scholars attached the least priority to those items relating to knowledge of America and the most priority to those relating to their academic objectives. 9. More than one-third of the students and scholars respond- ing to the survey stated that they maintained a predominantly Chinese life style apart from their academic work in terms of eating habits, living situation, language spoken, and people they spent time with. Of these, more than 75% were visiting scholars. 10. Most students and scholars indicated that they had become acquainted with some Americans and had participated in some activi- ties in the community. Nearly 100% stated that they would like more interaction. However, nearly three-quarters of them stated that they were too busy with their work to develop such interaction. 11. Although the majority of students and scholars expressed satisfaction with both their academic progress and knowledge of U.S. culture thus far, the number of those who expressed only partial sat- isfaction was higher in regard to the area of U.S. culture. 159 Scores Frequencies The answers the Chinese students and scholars supplied to the questions that made up the descriptive data just discussed were trans— posed into the system of scoring mentioned in the chapter on method- ology. Individual totals of both positive and negative points for each of the six sections as well as positive and negative totals for predeparture preparation and postarrival interaction were tallied. An overall composite score for each individual respondent was also obtained. Range of Scores Individual scores, both positive and negative, ran almost the entire range of possible points in each of the areas computed: Category Range of Scores Possible Scores 1. composite scores -16 to +85 -42 to +130 2. total positive points 8 to 85 130 3. total negative points 2 to 33 42 4. predeparture positive points 4 to 45 66 5. postarrival positive points 2 to 47 64 6. predeparture negative points 1 to 17 20 7. postarrival negative points 0 to 18 22 8. Section I--past direct or indirect contact with U.S. , positive points 0 to 9 14 negative points 0 to 5 5 9. Section II--language training pOSitive points 0 to 15 17 negative points 0 to 7 8 10. Section III--preparation to come to the U.S. positive points 0 to 30 35 negative points 0 to 7 7 11. Section IV--living situation in the U.S. positive points 0 to 18 21 negative points 0 to 10 10 160 Range of Scores Possible Scores 12. Section V--language skills in the U.S. positive points 0 to 6 7 negative points 0 to 4 4 13. Section VI--interaction with U.S. people and culture positive points 0 to 27 36 negative points 0 to 6 8 Frequencies were then computed to determine what percentages of respondents rated "poor," "fair," "good," and "very good" in each of the above categories. The following profile as concerns the scores of the respondents emerged: l. composite scores: very good 0.0% good 22.7% fair 70.4% 0 poor 6.9% } 77'3A 2. predeparture positive very good 0.0% scores: good 11.2% fair 59.2% 0 poor 22.3% } 81'SA 3. predeparture negative very good 8.6% scores: good 37.8% fair 48.6% a poor 1.7% } SZ'QA 4. postarrival positive very good 0.0% scores: good 16.3% fair 65.2% 0 poor 18.5% } 83'7A 5. postarrival negative very good 21.0% scores: good 44.6% fair 32.6% 0 poor 1.7% } 34'3A In order to determine whether overall the students were better prepared in some sections of both their predeparture preparation and their postarrival exposure to American culture, the percentages of 161 those who scored below the 50% range of possible points, i.e., either "fair" or "poor," were noted: 1. Section I positive points: 94.8% negative points: 84.0% 2. Section II positive points: 71.2% negative points: 13.7% 3. Section III positive points: 73.0% negative points: 66.1% 4. Section IV positive points: 82.0% negative points: 61.8% 5. Section V positive points: 77.4% negative points: 31.8% 6. Section VI positive points: 60.9% negative points: 33.1% Several observations about these results can be noted. 1. The composite scores and frequencies are the least useful and meaningful to the study as a whole because they are so general. They are used only to obtain a sense of relationship overall of the respondents to each other and to see what relationship, if any, they had to some of the independent variables of sex, age, field of study, and so forth (see next section on “Cross-Tabulations"). 2. In general, the respondents did a better job in avoiding the accumulation of negative points than they did in the accumulation of positive points; i.e., it was not so much that they did participate in situations or variables deemed detrimental to the cross-cultural experience, but that they did not participate in as many of the situa- tions and variables that were helpful in the cross-cultural process. 3. Of all the sections, the highest percentage of students and scholars did well in the area of interaction with variables in 162 American culture after arrival, this in spite of a lesser percentage doing well in predeparture preparation. 4. According to the scores and their frequencies, the stu- dents and scholars scored better in the area of language training and usage, both before leaving China and after arrival in the U.S., than they did in other areas; i.e., they accumulated fewer negative points and more positive points (with the exception of the Section VI posi- tive interaction scores) than they did in other sections. 5. The survey was only able to note whether or not students and scholars had been exposed to the variables mentioned. As was mentioned in the cases of some of the descriptive data, it is not known whether the lack of such exposure was out of choice or whether such exposure was not possible or available. By the standards used to judge how well the students and scholars from China were prepared for their sojourn in the U.S. and how well they interacted once they arrived, most of them did not "rate" well. In the case of all sections, over 50% of them scored in the bottom half of the devised scale. Because the scale itself was arbi- trarily drawn up for the purpose of the survey, the results can be used only cautiously, as one measure of many, when applied to testing the hypothesis raised in this dissertation. Of more interest and significance are some of the relationships between variables, both those relationships that were established and some expected ones that did not appear. 163 Findings of the Cross-Tabulations Pages 121-124 and page 126 in the preceding chapter on method- ology listed 37 areas of variable cross-tabulations. Some areas included several cross-tabulations using the same independent variable. In all of the cases, a chi-square analysis was done to determine if a significant relationship or correlation existed between the two vari- ables. A relationship was deemed significant by using the .05 crite- rion of significance. This standard statistical measure is often selected as an acceptable criterion. It indicates that the proba- bility or error of falsely concluding a relationship does exist is 5% or less. The linear correlation or frequencies between variables is not likely to have occurred randomly or as a coincidence. The establishment of a significant relationship between variables using the chi-square analysis does not determine the cause of the relationship. Two variables may be correlated for a variety of reasons: x may cause y; y may cause x; or both may be caused by a third variable. The hypothesis posed in this study predicts there is a correlation between the predeparture preparation of Chinese stu- dents and scholars and their subsequent interaction with U.S. culture after arrival. This assertion was tested. But it is very broad, so a number of comparisons between variables were done to determine if some of those variables were significantly correlated to each other or if some could be identified as significantly correlated to the gen- eral hypothesis while others were not. 164 Nonrelated Variables The following cross-tabulations found no significant relation- ship or correlation between the variables analyzed. (The number pre- ceding each result is the number assigned in the chapter on methodology and is for reference only.) 4. 5. 12. 13. prepreparation - scores and postarrival + scores composite scores and each of the following: age; sex; length of time in U.S.; and first English learned. satisfaction with academic progress and each of the following: composite scores; predeparture + scores; predeparture - scores; postarrival + scores; and postarrival - scores. satisfaction with knowledge of U.S. culture and each of the following: predeparture + scores; predeparture - scores; and postarrival - scores. negative scores in predeparture language training (Section II) and positive interaction with U.S. culture after arrival (Section VI + scores). prepreparation exposure to U.S. culture by reading, radio, movies, talking with U.S. citizens, etc. (Section 111 + scores) and positive interaction after arrival (Section VI + scores). lack of predeparture exposure to U.S. culture (Section III - scores) and positive interaction after arrival (Section VI + scores). lack of predeparture exposure to U.S. culture (Section III - scores) and lack of interaction after arrival (Section VI - scores). sponsorship and interaction with U.S. culture after arrival (Section VI + scores). status at U.S. university and positive interaction with U.S. culture after arrival (Section VI + scores). 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 23. 24. 25. 27. 29. 31. 32. 165 degree program and positive interaction with U.S. culture after arrival (Section VI + scores). degree program and postarrival + scores (Sections IV—VI). length of English study and postarrival living situation (Section IV + scores); length of English study and postarrival language usage (Section V + scores); and length of English study and postarrival cultural interaction (Section VI + scores). special classes in China and postarrival living situation; " " " " " postarrival language usage; and " " " " " postarrival cultural interaction. special preparation in China and postarrival cultural interaction (Section VI + scores). first English learned and postarrival cultural interaction (Section VI + scores). living with whom and positive postarrival cultural interaction scores (Section VI + scores). type of food and positive postarrival cultural interaction scores (Section VI + scores). exchange program between U.S. and China and special preparation in China. exchange rogram between U.S. and China and orientation (special classes) in China. orientation program in China and orientation program in U.S. evaluation of advanced preparation and sponsorship of respondents. satisfaction with academic progress and sponsorship of respondents. satisfaction with academic progress and each of the following: degree program; field of study; length of time in the U.S.; orientation classes in China; evaluation of advanced preparation; and length of English study. satisfaction with knowledge of U.S. culture and sponsorship. 166 34. satisfaction with knowledge of U.S. culture and each of the following: status in U.S. institution; degree program; field of study; length of time in the U.S.; orientation classes in China; first English learned; age; English conversation practice in China; and most important goals. 37. do Chinese things and each of the following: satisfaction with academic progress; and participation in what activities. Related Variables I The results of chi-square analysis of the following sets of variables found significant correlation between the variables; some were positive correlations; some were negative. 1. prepreparation + scores and postarrival + scores. See Figure 2. The cross-tabulation showed that the higher the accumulation of points in the area of predeparture exposure to U.S. culture, people, and language, the higher the accumulation of points in postarrival exposure and interaction with U.S. culture and people. Forty-one and nine-tenths percent of those who rated "good" in predeparture exposure rated "good'' in postarrival exposure as opposed to 2.3% who rated "poor." 2. prepreparation - scores and postarrival - scores. See Figure 3. Of those who rated "good" (least negative points) in preprepara- tion, 64.8% rated "good" or "very good" in postarrival scores. Of those who rated "poor" (most negative points) in preprepara- tion, 33.3% rated "good" in postarrival negative scores, and no one was rated "very good." 3. prepreparation + scores and postarrival - scores. See Figure 4. The cross-tabulation showed a negative linear regression, i.e., the higher the accumulation of points in the area of predepar- ture exposure to U.S. culture, people, and language, the lower the accumulation of negative points in the area of postarrival interaction with U.S. culture and people. 167 coon cocoa coon“ occaN aoomN oooon econ» cacao eoomc ocean .mmcoum + Fm>wccmumog new mmcoom + cowumcmamcamcn mo compcmasoouu.m mcamwu man 0 mu=4¢> cap—can o o muaac> oz—mn—x a u muaac> ouaaauxu canon econ. cacao ocean oooon oeoow cocoa ocean ocean noon 9 O 0"--. .-'-.-‘U-.'---.----.'---.-I--.----."-'.-'-'.'--‘O----.-.--.----.-'-'.----.---'O--.-0---'."--.. o W _ o a fi _ . a z fl 0 _ c . 0 ~ 0 coon c n o c o u c u o o c o o o o . o no.9“ o o c o o o N * o o a o o o c _ H c c I c n o 0 fl N c o c c o N o coon— _ a N o o c o c c n u N o o — c a . a H n c o c N o o o o c o c N o c o u c o c c N o a o N a O o o 6 oeoeN ~ 0 N u o o a N a c o a a u o o c N a a o u c n o o o o u 0 n o o u o o c a — N c o o u . ~ o n o c a o aaonu — ~ 0 c N c o c n c C H a c a o o o N c o n o a c c u c o o c a n a O C c o o c o c u c a u c o oeoom — o n c o a c o H u n o n u a -----'--"-'-'--------'--"--'---.--'----. .C--'--'---------'-------------------""'--"'."------.--. ~ 0 o o c o c o o c o o o econ" u c o o o c — _ o o o o 0 ~ _ o c o a o fl _ o o c c 0 090°C _ c o c 0 u fl 0 c o n o n o u o w . fl . m econc _ o fl 9 oeoou o O 0"--. .‘--.----O--|-.--'-OI---..I.-.---'.---..----O'6--.’-'-.-.--.-0-‘O----.----.-'--O--I-.---'OI'll. anon. omoNt anon» unoNn emosw enoNN ench— enoNu on.» snow 168 oooN @900 09.0 coco— oooNu cocoa coco" coca— ooooN .mmcoum . Pm>wccmpmoa new mmcoum . =o_pmcmamcamca mo camwgmasouuu.m mgzmwu o I nu=4<> uz~wmut a I muaa¢> ou6340xu nnN 0 mu34¢> cupped; ooooN coco" coco— eoocu aeoNu ocean coco coco coco oooN a O0"--.-'-'.---'.----.----.-'--.---'.----.---.O---.0I---.----.----.-"-.----."--.----."--.----.-'--.O . o M a o a _ o _ _ . C 0 fl eooN 0 O C C C O o _ 0 90.: N c n N o o c o _ o 0 30 N N N a o o o c c _ o _ . m coco h n o o N N o c c n a o 99.0 o n o N c n o n o o N 0% H o c o o N c o v N N o o _ o 99.9“ N c c c o c N N“ o c o N H _ . . w n . ~ ~ . o N w o c c u c w w o 990N— o O m N o o o o N 0_ N o o o N o n o N N N NH n 0 fl 0 cocoa o o N N o N_ o o o o o c c o N o o 0 fl 0 4 once— 0 C O C . o W o cocoa z 1 o _ o coooN O9"--.----....-.'---.----.'---.-.--.-'...--.-.--..0----0---..-:-00.-'-.'s'.C-.-OI-"O----.----O-'-'. O gonad oaohu coon— econu .oouu coco .oOoh econ aco— 1659 .mmcoUm . Pm>wccmpmoa can mmcoum + compmgmgmgamca mo comwgmasoouu.e mc:m_m a u muada: uzummut a o mmSad: cwcaquxu nnN a mwaacs amp-oau anoaN anoou noood no a. coo~a ca..u a-un nooc u-oa oo.N a O0.---O----6'I-IO6-6-0-6--.--|-.--|-6----OOI--.I-..00---.C--.‘----.I'I'O--|-O"--..U--.60--.---0006000O u o m o 33 . . . w . 3.“ u 4 I o o e . . . . w M 3.... . . . . .u o . 3.3 n o o o w w .. . . . MM . . w 3.3 . o . m . 3 ~ . . . 3. 3 n o o n o o m u u . ~ ~ ~ m 3.3 . u u m u u . m m m . u .. 3. 3 o o o o o n n N o N u N . ~ . . . .~ ~ " . u 3.2 . . ~ . ~ . m ~ . . 3.3 0 ¢ 9 n o o o o o o o N o I o . w o o n o m w 3.: . . . . . . ~ " . 3. 2 N o N w u w o o o N u o n N ooomn o u o o * N o o. an mm W o w o o o o w 0 O O O O 0 on I n u on 99.0: o w“ n o 99.39 o . o o o o o noon: 0 ow . . o no no. no acoom u * u no em O.-I-.-‘..O-'--O--I.O.--I6"....I.-.....6.--'6----6----“O...6|.--OI....--.-OC|-IOO-UI.‘---O--UIO.0--. e¢.o« oaosu oo- mu caonu anon“ no. 0 coon .a.m coon coon 170 No one who rated "good" in prepreparation rated "poor" on postarrival negative scores. Forty-one percent who rated "good" in prepreparation rated "very good" on postarrival negative scores. Only 9% of those who rated "poor" in prepreparation rated "very good" on postarrival negative scores. 4. prepreparation - scores and postarrival + scores. Although a statistically significant relationship between these two variables was not found, it should be noted that no one who rated "poor" (most negative points) in predeparture preparation rated "good" or "very good'I in postarrival osi- tive scores (exposure and interaction with U.S. culture) 5. composite scores and each of the following: a. status of respondent in U.S. institution Those who rated "good" on composite scores included 40% of the graduate students but only 17.3% of the visiting scholars. b. degree program Those who rated "good" on composite scores included 42.2% of those pursuing degrees but only 21% of those who are not. c. field of study Those who did "good" on composite scores included 63.6% of those in English, 57.1% of those in business, 44.4% of those in the social sciences, 22.4% of those in engineering, and 16.9% of those in the natural and life sciences. 7. satisfaction with knowledge of U.S. culture and each of the following: a. composite scores Of those who were "only sometimes satisfied" or "not very satisfied," 60% rated "poor" on composite score, 35.3% rated "fair," and 26.3% rated "good." b. postarrival exposure to U.S. culture (+ scores) Of those who were "only sometimes satisfied" or "not very satisfied," 51.3% rated "poor" on postarrival exposure, 32% rated "fair," and 27% rated "good." There were numerous cross-tabulations done between language training and postarrival variables in order to determine the farmer's 171 effect on interaction with the second culture. A number of signifi- cant relationships did appear. 8. language preparation + scores and each of the following: a. postarrival + scores Of those who scored "good" in English preparation, 42.9% rated "good“ in postarrival exposure to U.S. culture; of those who rated "poor" in English preparation, only 18.4% rated "good" in postarrival exposure to U.S. culture. b. Section VI + scores (interaction with American culture and people) Of those who rated "good" in English preparation, 68.6% rated "good" in interaction, as opposed to 5.7% who rated "poor" in interaction. c. Section VI - scores Of those who rated "good" in English preparation, 77.1% rated "very good" (least accumulation of negative points) in area of interaction with U.S. culture and people as opposed to 2.9% who rated "poor" in interaction (most accumu- lated negative points). language preparation - scores and each of the following: a. postarrival + scores Of those who did "very good," only 10.4% rated "poor" on interaction with U.S. culture, while 44.8% rated "good" in interaction. b. Section VI - scores Of those who did "very good," 64.6% did "very good" (least accumulation of negative points) in interaction, while only 6.3% did "fair." A number of significant relationships were also found by com- paring prepreparation exposure to U.S. culture (Section III) scores with postarrival variables. 9. predeparture exposure to U.S. culture (Section III) + scores and each of the following: a. postarrival + scores Of those who rated "good" in predeparture exposure to U.S. culture, 9.6% did only "fair" in postarrival + scores, while 38.5% rated "good." 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 172 b. Section VI (interaction with people and culture) - scores Of those who rated "good" in predeparture exposure to U.S. culture, 3.8% accumulated the most negative points in post- arrival exposure, while 61.5% accumulated the least negative points. predeparture exposure to U.S. culture (Section III) - scores and Section VI - scores (interaction with U.S. culture and people) Those who scored the fewest negatives in the former also scored the fewest negatives in the latter. satisfaction with academic program and Section VI + scores Of those "very satisfied" with academic progress, 13.6% had "poor" scores in interaction with U.S. culture and people, while 48.9% had "good" scores in interaction. satisfaction with knowledge of U.S. culture and Section VI + scores The greatest percentage of those who were "not very satisfied" with their knowledge of U.S. culture were also those who scored the fewest points in interaction with U.S. culture; likewise, the greatest percentage of those who were "very satisfied" with their knowledge of U.S. culture were also those who scored the most points in interaction with U.S. culture. sponsorship and postarrival + scores Seventy-one percent of those who rated "poor" in postarrival situation and interaction with U.S. culture were Chinese- government sponsored, as opposed to U.S.-university or privately sponsored respondents. Forty-seven percent of those who rated "good" in postarrival + scores were U.S.- university sponsored as opposed to 14% who were Chinese- government sponsored. status at U.S. school and postarrival + scores Seventy-three and eight-tenths percent of those who rated "poor" in postarrival exposure and interaction with U.S. culture were visiting scholars as opposed to graduate stu- dents (14.3%). Twenty-five percent of the graduate students rated "good" as opposed to 10% of the visiting scholars. field of study and predeparture + scores Of those respondents in engineering and the sciences, 66.9% did "poor" and 30.2% did "good"; of those respondents in the social sciences, 22.2% did "poor," and 44.4% did "good." 20. 21. 22. 26. 28. 30. 173 living with whom and Section VI - scores Those who lived with other Chinese people did not interact with American culture and people as much as those who did not. Mainly, a higher percentage of them spent time with Chinese people, which led them to accumulate negative points. type of food and Section VI - scores Those who ate primarily Chinese food did not interact with American culture and people as much as those who did not. (See Do Chinese Things variable with cross-tabulations.) language spoken most often outside academics and each of the following: a. Section VI + scores Fifty-four and eight-tenths percent of those who rated "poor" on postarrival interaction with U.S. culture and people spent their time outside of academics speaking primarily Chinese as opposed to 3.2% who spent their time speaking primarily English. Likewise, 48.5% of thosequ>rated "good" on inter- action with U.S. culture spoke English primarily, whereas only 29.6% of the primarily Chinese-speaking respondents rated "good." b. Section VI - scores Only 9.4% of those who rated "very good" in lack of negative points in interaction with U.S. culture were those who spoke primarily Chinese; 22% were those who spoke primarily English; and the largest group (68.8%) were those who spoke some of both. status in U.S. school and degree program No visiting scholars are enrolled in a degree program; all graduates and undergraduates are enrolled in degree programs. participation in outside activities and present time spent in U.S. Ninety percent of those who participated in all eight activi- ties had been in the U.S. between one and two years; 75% of those who had been here more than two years had participated in five or more activities; 90% of those who had not partici- pated in any of the activities had been here less than one year. satisfaction with academic progress and most important goals Although a statistically significant relationship between these two variables was not found, it should be noted that those who did list the receiving of a broader education as 33. 34. 35. 174 one of their top-three goals were not as satisfied as others. The number of respondents involved (3) is too small to make it a meaningful statement. satisfaction with knowledge of U.S. culture and participation in outside activities Seventy-six and five-tenths percent of those who stated they were "satisfied" with their knowledge of U.S. culture and people had participated in at least five of the listed activities. Of those who stated they were "only sometimes satisfied" or "not very satisfied," 23.6% had participated in five or more of the activities. satisfaction with knowledge of U.S. culture and each of the following: a. evaluation of advanced preparation Fifty—four and one-tenth percent of those who stated they were "only sometimes satisfied" or "not very satisfied" with their knowledge of U.S. culture and people stated their advanced preparation had been inadequate; 32.1% of those "only sometimes satisfied" or "not very satisfied" rated their advanced preparation "adequate." Four and five-tenths percent of those very satisfied with knowledge of culture stated their preparation had been inadequate, whereas 55.1% of those who were dissatisfied with knowledge of culture stated their preparation had been inadequate. . living with whom Fifty-six and five-tenths percent of those who were the most satisfied with their knowledge of U.S. culture and people lived with U.S. students or U.S. families, while 26.1% lived with other Chinese students or scholars. Nineteen and two— tenths percent of those who were the most dissatisfied with their knowledge of U.S. culture and people lived alone; 9.5% lived with U.S. families; and 66.7% lived with other Chinese students or scholars. satisfaction with U.S. culture and satisfaction with academic progress Eighty-four and five-tenths percent of those who were satis— fied with knowledge of U.S. culture and people were also "satisfied or very satisfied" with their academic progress. Only 4.1% of those "satisfied“ with U.S. culture and people were "not very satisfied" with academic progress. 175 36. familiarity with what groups and each of the following: a. participation in outside activities The greatest numbers of students and scholars indicated they had participated in four of the listed activities (63.8%). Of these, 97% were familiar with the US-China Peoples Friend- ship Association and 9.1% knew more than one group. Of those who had participated in all eight of the activities, 100% were acquainted with USCPFA, 42.9% with the International Club at the U.S. school, and 28.6% with NAFSA. b. satisfaction with knowledge of U.S. culture Of those "only sometimes satisfied" or "not very satisfied" with their knowledge of U.S. culture, 35.6% were not familiar with any of the groups; 59.2% were familiar with one group, and none were familiar with more than one group. Of those "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with their knowledge of U.S. culture, 100% knew of at least one group; 15.4% knew of more than one group. 37. do Chinese things and each of the following: a. sponsorship Chinese-government-sponsored students and scholars as a group comprise a greater percentage of the number who do Chinese things; those on U.S. assistantships comprise the least per- centage of those who do Chinese things. do all four things: 23% of the Chinese-government sponsored 6% of the U.S.-scholarship sponsored 22% of the relative or friend sponsored 3% of the U.S.-assistantship sponsored do 2 Chinese things: 37.7% of the Chinese-government sponsored 23.3% of the U.S. scholarship sponsored 11.1% of the relative/friend sponsored 15.2% of the U.S. assistantship sponsored do 0 Chinese things: 16.4% of the Chinese-government sponsored 26.6% of the U.S. scholarship sponsored 44.4% of the relative/friend sponsored 48.9% of the U.S. assistantship sponsored The respondents as a whole were split about evenly, with 20% each who did 0, l, 2, 3, or 4 Chinese things. Conversely, in answering those same questions, 60% of the respondents did 0 American things, 26.8% did 1, 7.8% did 2, 5.2% did 3, and none did all four of the American things. 176 b. satisfaction with knowledge of U.S. culture Of those who were "not very satisfied" with their knowledge of U.S. culture, 23% participated in all four Chinese things; 9.5% had participated in one; and 4.5% had participated in two. Of those who were "very satisfied" with their knowledge of U.S. culture, 35.3% did no Chinese things; 26.1% did two Chinese things; and 13.6% did four Chinese things. c. status at the U.S. institution Eighty-seven and five-tenths percent of those who partici- pated in all four Chinese things were visiting scholars; 7.5% were graduate students. Forty-four and four-tenths percent of those who participated in none of the Chinese things were graduate students; 16.8% were visiting scholars. Survey Findings and the Research Hypotheses The results of the findings would appear to indicate that there is a relationship between predeparture preparation and postarrival interaction with American culture and people. However, as indicated earlier, this finding is a qualified one, not necessarily leading to the acceptance of the research hypothesis posed for this dissertation. While those respondents who had better overall scores in prepreparation did tend to have better overall scores in interaction after arrival in America, the cross-tabulations appear to indicate that, in a closer look at the individual sections, the type and amount of orientation before leaving China did not affect the amount of interaction the respondents had with American culture in terms of activities partici- pated in and in type of contacts made. This conclusion is based on the cross-tabulations for which no significant relationship was found: 177 1. lack of predeparture preparation was not related to amount of postarrival interaction (Section VI); 2. previous exposure to American cultural media (movies, novels, etc.) was not related to amount of interaction with American culture and people; 3. the existence of special classes in China before coming to the U.S. was not related to the amount of interaction with American culture and people; 4. length of English study was not a factor in the amount of inter- action with American culture and people; 5. the type of sponsorship and the status at the U.S. university were not related to the amount of interaction with American culture and people; and 6. those respondents who lived in a primarily Chinese atmosphere in the U.S. did not appear to have more or less interaction with the American culture and people. There were, however, relationships established beteen some aspects of preparation and the amount of interaction, namely amount of language preparation. Those who had the most language training received high scores in postarrival interaction scores, as well as the least number of negative points in interaction scores. This part of the hypothesis, therefore, appears to be supported. From the results of the statistical analysis, though, one cannot say that a greater amount of prior exposure to media of American culture led to a greater amount of interaction with American culture and people after arrival. The variables that did appear to have an effect on the participation of Chinese nationals in activities were the length of time they had been in the U.S. and their acquaintance with interested community groups. The second hypothesis, that Chinese students and scholars who come to the U.S. as individuals with private sponsorship will have more varied and extensive contacts with Americans than do those who come under the sponsorship of the Chinese government 178 appears to be supported through a number of the relationships estab- lished. Those Chinese nationals who were privately sponsored, i.e., by U.S. scholarships, assistantships, or by relatives, tended to achieve higher postarrival scores, primarily as a consequence of their living arrangements and life outside the academic environment. Fewer privately sponsored students tended to "do Chinese things." Graduate students, who made up the majority of respondents who indi- cated they were not funded by the Chinese government, were those who spoke the most English, mingled more with Americans, and, in general, were more satisfied with their knowledge of U.S. culture and people. In regard to the third research hypothesis, that Chinese students/scholars who have more interaction with U.S. culture will express more overall satis- faction with their stay than those who have less, the data analysis produced mixed results. There was no significant relationship established between satisfaction with academic progress and the amount of interaction the respondents had with U.S. culture and people (Section VI). There was, however, a correlation between the amount of interaction with U.S. culture and people and the respond- ents' satisfaction with the same. In addition, satisfaction in this area of their stay was related to the respondents' evaluation of their advanced preparation. Those who felt their advanced preparation had been adequate tended to be more satisfied than those who felt their advanced preparation was inadequate. Finally, a relationship was established between satisfaction with knowledge of American culture and the amount of interaction that respondents had with the culture and people. Those who did more 179 "Chinese things" reported less satisfaction than did those who reported participation in fewer "Chinese things." Concerning the differences that arose between the responses of graduate students and scholars, one can make the observation that status and sponsorship appeared to have a significant bearing on the interaction level of the respondents. However, the overall statis- tics are probably more valid for the scholars because a greater per- centage of that sample of the p0pu1ation responded to the question- naire. CHAPTER VI A CLOSER LOOK: CHINESE STUDENTS AND SCHOLARS AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY In October 1981, 49 scholars and students from the People's Republic of China were in residence at Michigan State University to pursue advanced studies and research in a variety of fields. While this number is not as large as that at some of the other major U.S. institutions, such as the University of Wisconsin, University of California at Berkeley, or the University of Minnesota, all ofwhich now have well over one hundred scholars and students on their campuses, the number at Michigan State University has grown steadily from the few in attendance during the latter part of 1979. The first exchanges were brought about primarily through the initiative of individual professors who had an interest in China and who were able to arrange for exchange invitations from personal contacts. In the fall of 1980, Michigan State University sent a delegation to China to discuss the possibility of official exchange arrangements with specific Chinese institutions. Largely successful in their efforts, the University is now in the process of working out the implementation of such agreements with several Chinese institutions. By the fall of 1981, a number of the students and scholars at Michigan State were from the institutions with which they had an exchange, accounting for some, 180 181 but not all, of the steady increase in the number of Chinese nationals at the university. Graduate students from China have received uni- versity assistantships and scholarships in several departments, and there are also some undergraduates receiving partial support from relatives in the United States. Because of Michigan State Univer- sity's long-time interest in developing an exchange with China and the growth of its program, it is worthwhile to examine the situation in more detail. The Re-establishment of Institutional Ties Between MiEhigan State University and Chinese Institutions Attempts by Michigan State University to secure official, and mutually beneficial, exchanges on an institutional level with China's counterpart institutions have been tortuous, dependent, in the long run, on the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries. This has been the case with nearly all such exchange agree- ments between the two countries. In the 19305 and 19405, many Chinese students attended the then Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science, including some who gained international renown for applied agricultural research, such as the development of the first seedless watermelon:I Some of the M.S.U. alumni now hold prestigious posts in China's agricultural research institutes, as was discovered by the delegation from Michigan State University on an official visit to China in 1980. During the 19705, many abortive attempts to arrange for exchange delegations between M.S.U. and China were initiated. Dr. Clifton Wharton, Jr., then President of the University, was eager 182 for exchanges to develop and at one point initiated a letter through the Honor's College, under the direction of Dr. Paul Varg. Recipro- cal correspondence was not received. However, considerable ground- work was being laid through nonofficial channels that would later play a large role in the particular exchanges that did develop. In 1973, the Chinese government began to issue invitations to overseas Chinese and Chinese-Americans on an individual basis. The purpose of such visits was to enable relatives, long separated, to meet once again, and to acquaint such overseas Chinese visitors and scholars with the progress that China had made in the years since 1949. Dr. Joseph Lee, of the Humanities Department of M.S.U., spent several months in China on such a visa. He took with him a letter from Michigan State University requesting a visa for a university delegation, but there was no return contact from that initiative. Dr. H. T. Tien of the Biophysics Department visited China for several months in 1974 with his wife, Dr. Joseleyne Slade Tien of the Department of American Thought and Language. Because of his stature in the international scientific community, Dr. Tien was able to initiate a number of contacts and long-term correspondences that were most fruitful in the ultimate establishment of the official agreements that came several years later. Before the establishment of diplomatic relations between the U.S. and China, Dr. Tien was invited several times to come to China as a special lecturer and researcher to the Academy of Sciences in Peking. And it was through his efforts that the first visiting scholars came to Michigan State University, being supported on grant money that he had secured, nearly 183 two years before any official institutional exchanges had been arranged between Michigan State University and Chinese institutions. During the years 1975 to 1979, a number of individual M.S.U. faculty visited China as general tourists, many of them through the auspices of the US-China Peoples Friendship Association, which, during those years, was almost the sole means through which the American public at large was invited to visit China. While these individual visits played little role in the generation of an official exchange, they brought an awareness of China to the Michigan State University campus, and they established numerous contacts between individuals in the universities in both countries, contacts that were later acted upon. An interview with Dr. Warren Cohen, now Director of the Asian Studies Center at M.S.U., provided information on the development of concrete institutional ties between the two countries toward the end of 1980. Under the name of M.S.U.'s new President, Dr. Cecil Mackey, letters were sent to the newly established Chinese Embassy in Washing- ton and the Ministry of Education in Peking in mid-1979 expressing interest in establishing an official exchange at the university level. However, it was a roundabout way that the Chinese extended an invita- tion to an M.S.U. delegation to come to China for further discussions on the matter. Dr. William Tai, Professor of Botany and Plant Pathology, had earlier visited China and written an account of the status of academic research in his field as he found it in China. The account was pub- lished in the Chinese daily newspaper, People's Daily, and led to his 184 contacts with persons in the Chinese Ministries of Agriculture and Education, who appreciated his forthright assessment of their prob- lems and needs. An invitation was thus extended from China's Ministry of Education in cooperation with the Ministry of Agriculture for a university delegation to visit several cities and key institutions in China. Such a visit was to entail discussion on the possible mutual benefits that could be derived from an exchange of students, faculty, and scholars. An eight-member team from Michigan State University, under the direction of Dr. Warren Cohen, visited China from September 10-30, 1980, meeting with a variety of institutions in the cities of Peking, Tienjin, Xi'an, Chengdu, Guangzhou, Nanjing, and Shanghai, with one part of the delegation remaining in China (agricultural group) for an extra week to visit institutions in Harbin in Northeast China. The nature and objective of the visits were exploratory, but the M.S.U. delegation was prepared to sign general agreements with interested Chinese institutions. Before leaving for China, the dele- gation had done considerable "homework" at M.S.U., preparing a book- let on the history, nature, and offerings of Michigan State University, including a listing of over 60 departments interested in and willing to implement a bilateral exchange with Chinese university counter- parts.2 Throughout the course of the delegation's visit, discussions were held on many subjects: the state of the art of various fields in different institutions, facilities and resources that could be offered by both countries' institutions, and the possibilities for the 185 financing of a variety of exchanges. The three-week visit resulted in the signing of general agreements with seven institutions in China: three with comprehensive universities--Nankai University in Tienjin, Xi'bei University in Xi'an, and Sichuan University in Chengdu-~and four with specialized institutions--Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences in Nanjing, Heilongjiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences in Harbin, Northeast Agricultural College in Harbin, and the Institute of Botany of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Peking.3 In particular, the agreements reached with Sichuan University and the Academy of Sciences were not so much the results of the work of the delegation, but the results of the earlier personal contacts and work done with the Chinese by Drs. Tien and Tai.4 Specifications varied within the individual agreements. Some noted the agreement to exchange researchers and faculty for short periods of time, while others included the mutual exchange of students for longer periods of time. Further information concerning the visit of the delegation is documented in a published report, Michigan State University's First Mission to the People's Republic of China,_l980. At the time of the writing of this dissertation, one year after the signing of the general agreements, implementation is in evidence by the presence of persons from some of those Chinese insti- tutions on the M.S.U. campus. Preparations for American faculty and students from M.S.U. to the Chinese institutions are underway, but proceeding more slowly. An undergraduate program to study Chinese language and culture is being organized for the summer of 1982 in Xi'an. And Sichuan University initiated the suggestion of a one-year 186 undergraduate program on its campus for M.S.U. students with explora- tory discussions underway between the two schools. However, most M.S.U. short-term faculty visits to China to lecture or teach are being arranged apart from the formal agreements, often with other institutions with which the individuals had prior contact. Chinese Students and Scholars at Michigan State University Although the number of Chinese students and scholars at M.S.U. has increased since the signing of individual agreements with several Chinese institutions, their presence has been felt on campus since early in 1979, and many continue to arrive through other channels. The first to come were visiting scholars in the Departments of Biophysics and Botany and Plant Pathology under arrangements made through the individual initiatives of Professors Tien and Tai. Some were sponsored by the Chinese government, but others were financed from research grants awarded to the M.S.U. professors. Within a few months after diplomatic relations were established, individual Chinese students began to apply to the University for study in various fields. These applications were treated in a similar fashion to those from students in other foreign countries, including the competition for existing university scholarships and departmental assistantships. Dr. August Benson, head of the Foreign Student Office, indi- cated that initially there were some concerns about the coordination and admissions procedures for Chinese students and scholars, particu- larly in the areas of judging a student's past performance or level of competence, both in the desired field of study and the English 187 language because of China's failure to issue degrees from institu- tions of higher learning during the period of the Cultural Revolution and the following decade in the 19605 and early 19705. Further, Chinese students had little knowledge of the forms and procedures required by U.S. universities for admissions. They sometimes made their initial inquiries for admission through a friend or faculty member at M.S.U., sending only an autobiographical statement. A meeting was held in November 1979 for all those interested or involved in the China exchange process in order to better acquaint those who participated with university procedures and to determine the extent of the widespread efforts of Chinese students to obtain information or admission to the University. The meeting was attended by persons from the Foreign Student Office, the Business Office, Admissions Office, the English Language Center, the Asian Studies Center, and the various departments in the University that had expressed a desire for involvement. Dr. Benson explained the normal channels required for graduate student admission. It was generally agreed that every effort should be made to have applicants adhere to the normal proce- dures insofar as possible, even if it meant a delayed admission. Some exceptions were made in the waiving of the TOEFL examination, but this was understood to be temporary until such time as the Chinese were able to administer the test in China. Visiting scholars are a separate category, not requiring the use of normal channels in that they are not enrolled as students in degree programs. Since the majority of the cases coming to M.S.U. during the first two years of the resumed exchange program were 188 scholars, a process for their admission was detailed. A department faculty person may act as a sponsor for a visiting scholar; and, after working out the funding arrangements, the University issued a document to the Chinese applicant, describing the terms of the visit. This document enables the applicant to obtain a Chinese passport and, subsequently, an American visa good for two or three years. After arrival, the visiting scholar is the responsibility of the department in which he or she is doing research. A university-wide China Relations Committee was called into being in 1979 to develop and coordinate various aspects of the exchange process, both formal and informal. This Committee is largely respon- sible for the administration of the formal institutional agreements signed in 1980. One objective of the Committee is to assure the development of mutual and bilateral exchange programs that would pro- vide opportunities for American faculty and students from M.S.U. to do research in China. At this time, most M.S.U. officials agree that the procedural problems of admitting Chinese students and scholars to the University have been worked out and that a clearer understanding of those procedures exists, both in China and on the M.S.U. campus. Profile of the Chinese Nationals at M.S.U. As is the case in other U.S. institutions, the Chinese stu- dents and scholars come from a wide variety of institutional affilia- tions in China. As is to be expected because of M.S.U.'s history and areas of academic strength, many are here to do researchiriagricultural 189 fields. The following Chinese schools are represented: are schools that have an exchange agreement. Guangzhou (Canton) Teacher's College Nanjing Teacher's College (2) China Medical College, Shenyang Xi'an Microwave Equipment Factory Agricultural College of Anhui *Sichuan University, Chengdu (7) Hunan University, Changsha Sichuang University Guangxi University Peking Agricultural University *Jiangsu Agricultural College *Nankai University, Tienjin (2) Fudan University, Shanghai Shanghai University of Science and Technology Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Peking Fruit Tree Research Institute Institute of Zoology Institute of Mechanization Sciences those starred The latter three institutes are part of the Academy of Agricultural Sciences in Peking. The 49 persons on campus in the fall of 1981 were studying or engaged in research work in the following departments at Michigan State University: Biophysics (3) Physics (4) College of Medicine Crop and Soil Science Agricultural Engineering (2) Computer Science (4) Pediatrics and Human Development 190 Electrical Engineering (3) History (2) Entomology Horticulture (2) Forestry Chemistry (4) Botany and Plant Pathology (5) Animal Science (3) Mathematics Physiology Cyclotron Laboratory (2) Plant Research Laboratory (2) Mechanical Engineering English/Linguistics (2) Astronomy Music Agricultural and Natural Resources Education Respondents to the Questionnaire at M.S.U. TWenty-six of the 40 questionnaires distributed to the students and scholars at M.S.U. were completed and returned. A separate analysis of the M.S.U. profile, scores, and cross-tabulations revealed very little overall difference between their answers, either individually or as a group, and those of the other Chinese students and scholars in the sample. However, some differences pertinent to the M.S.U. Chinese did emerge, and some of these were followed up in the interviews conducted with the two groups. Information obtained from the 26 M.S.U. students and scholars showed that 80% of them were visiting scholars as opposed to 68%” nationally. Only 23.1% of those at M.S.U. were in the fields of 191 engineering as opposed to 42% nationally, while the percentage of those in agricultural studies was significantly higher at M.S.U. than in other U.S. institutions as a whole. Another noted difference was that only 19% of those Chinese respondents at M.S.U. stated that they had studied English for more than five years, whereas 43.8% of the national sample of respondents stated they had a language-training background of more than five years. Further, 88% of those at M.S.U. stated that their advanced preparation was "fair" or "poor" compared to 73% nationally who stated the same. The Michigan State University respondents are also more insular as a group than they are nationally according to the survey responses. Ninety-two percent of those at M.S.U. live with other Chinese students and scholars compared to 53.6% nationally. Simi- larly, higher percentages of them spoke primarily Chinese and spent time with other Chinese than did those respondents in the national sample at large. However, such practices among the M.S.U. Chinese nationals did not lead to a significant difference in overall scores or in their exposure to the U.S. culture and interaction with Americans as measured in the questions in Section VI of the survey. Reasons for this became apparent in the interview sessions held with individual Chinese. The high percentage of interaction with Americans despite the lack of a great deal of English-language training, an advanced preparation evaluated "fair" or "poor.' and the highly "Chinese" atmosphere in the living situation among the M.S.U. Chinese appears to refute the major hypothesis put forward in this dissertation, 192 suggesting instead that interaction with American society could also be related to other factors. Interview Sessions With Two Groups of Chinese Students and Scholars Studyinggat Michigan State University The purpose of meeting with groups of students and scholars currently at Michigan State University was to be able to obtain an elaboration of, and supplement to, areas of questions asked on the survey questionnaire. Further, it would be possible in the informal discussion format to find out what areas of their stays in this coun- try the participants felt were significant, successful, lacking, and so forth. Two such sessions were held, one in mid-November and one the first part of December 1981. The group interviews were held in the home of a local member of the US-China Peoples Friendship Asso- ciation. The leader of the group of Chinese scholars on campus was contacted and an open invitation extended for up to ten Chinese par- ticipants who wished to get together for a few hours to discuss the survey and any other aspects of the exchange program and/or their impressions of their stay in the U.S. Seven persons attended the first session, all of them men. A similar invitation was then extended individually to each of the eight women scholars and gradu- ate students from China for the second group session. Six of them attended, with the other two expressing regrets that a conflict in schedule would not allow them to participate. Both sessions con- sisted of free and open discussion in the areas laid out in the chap- ter on methodology. resulting in a great deal of information and 193 mutual exchange of insights into the two cultures, often in areas ranging far beyond the scope of the survey questionnaire. What follows is a synopsis of the most pertinent areas of those discus- sions. Settling In: Impressions and Expectations Among those students and scholars taking part in the discus- sions, the experience of being in the United States is one that no one had imagined would ever be part of their experience. It is regarded as a privilege, one bringing sacrifice (leaving one's family in China for a period of one to two years), pressure to succeed because of their commitment to China's modernization program, and the realiza- tion that they had strong obligations to fulfill by making best use of their time because they are, certainly at this phase of the exchange program, a very select group. Most of the scholars were faculty mem- bers or research personnel at their home institutions in China, often selected to come to the U.S. because of the nature of the work they were doing at home and through agreement of the institutional leader- ship. The funding, i.e., the monthly stipends received from the Chinese government, were granted not to them as individuals, but to the home institution. The individual university or research institute in China makes application to the government, either to the Ministry of Education or the other ministries that have priorities and funds to disperse as part of the modernization campaign. Once such funds are granted, it is not so much the individual professor who applies for the grant to come to the U.S. as it is a joint decision of the 194 departments and leadership of the institution approaching certain individuals they feel would best benefit from the opportunity because of the institution's priorities for upgrading certain departments or initiating new programs. The selection of Michigan State University resulted from one of three possible channels: the existence of a formal exchange agreement (established between M.S.U. and seven Chinese institutions in 1980); personal contacts between individual scholars/colleagues in the two countries; or, depending on the priorities and needs of the Chinese institution, several schools in the U.S. were contacted regarding their interest in having a government-sponsored person come for advanced research in a particular area for which the U.S. insti- tution was well known. 0f the scholars interviewed, some had come to M.S.U. through each of those channels. For Chinese-government-sponsored graduate students, the process of being selected and selecting a U.S. school was similar. Those graduate students who received their funding in the form of scholarships or assistantships from the American institution, however, had applied to a number of different schools and accepted the best offer they received. In general, that process took longer and involved more bureaucratic stipulations in both countries. In both the cases of the visiting scholar and the graduate student, the timing of the completion of all arrangements, including passport, visa, and flight, did not necessarily correspond to the U.S. academic term, leaving the individual with the choice of arriving in the middle of a term or waiting until the start of the next term. In most cases, 195 the scholar or student was reluctant to accept the second choice. A couple of persons indicated this was out of eagerness to get started and a fear that if they waited something might come up to prevent the trip later, although these suspicions were not based on any particular knowledge of impending changes in the direction of the exchange pro- gram. The initial impressions of the U.S., among those students and scholars participating in the interviews, can be summarized by the following three observations: first, they were all impressed by the level of technology that touches the daily lives of Americans; second, they commented on the diversity and abundance they encountered; and third, they stated that everything was so expensive. They acknowledged that they had been told about all of these things, but to experience them first hand was something else. For most of them, coming to the U.S. was a series of "firsts" with a technology that most Americans take for granted or experience at an early age: first airplane ride, first experience with an escalator and revolving door, first use of a pay telephone, and so on. With very few home telephones in China, they were all enjoying the ease and efficiency with which they were able to make arrange- ments and to communicate in the U.S. The diversity of people, opinions, goods, and services was more difficult to get used to than the technology. Even though it was expected, some felt that it was a double-edged sword. Some felt it was good that each person could speak his or her own mind and that so many publications were available to help formulate those opinions. 196 This is something that China can learn from America, said some. Others said that because of such diversity and variety, it was diffi- cult to "know" what the overall direction of America was, or how to pick and choose among goods, such as breakfast cereals, which all seemed to provide the same thing. Some people said that the "free for all“ in social conversation and discussion made it difficult to know what was expected of them, so that they often did not partici- pate in such conversations, not wanting to be misunderstood. The third area in which they had noted great variety was in that of cost of goods, a practice generally unknown in China. Simi- lar items were priced differently in different types of stores, and while they understood why this was so, they felt it would be very helpful to have friends or contacts provide assistance in this prac- tical area. Some of them had received such help, either from indi- vidual professors, other Chinese nationals who had been here longer, or from members of the US-China Peoples Friendship Association. None of them knew that there were individuals at the university, i.e., the Foreign Student Office or the Community Volunteers for International Programs, who offered this kind of service. Most of them found the atmosphere at Michigan State Univer- sity and East Lansing to be more congenial than expected. They had anticipated the U.S. to be very congested with people, industry, and traffic and a hectic pace of life. They found the latter to be true because of their academic and research programs, but living in a town the size of Lansing much easier to get around in than anticipated, and certainly easier than in China, where all of them came from 197 metropolitan areas considerably larger than that of Lansing. None of the persons interviewed could drive, but all felt that they could get easily to any needed destination by bicycle or public transporta- tion. Occasionally, for large grocery shopping expeditions, they were able to call upon friends or colleagues who had offered assist- ance in this area. Academic Experience All but three of those interviewed were visiting scholars, and as such worked closely with colleagues in a particular department. They found the facilities and relationships to be commendable, an excellent environment in which to carry out their work. The greatest problem mentioned was that of time: they felt there was so much to be learned. Many of them were working in specialized areas. One person mentioned that he was having to think constantly how the type of project he was working on could be adapted to China--not the knowledge itself, but the different types of equipment to carry out the same experiments. China is fast acquiring sophisticated technology, he stated, but in some cases, they would have to make do for some time with a different level of technology. He did not think this would be a great problem. The graduate students experienced different demands from the scholars. They also stated that there was a great deal to learn in a short time and were enjoying the facilities of the library, which were much more comprehensive than in Chinese universities. One person felt that there was more to be learned from interacting in the classroom 198 itself with the greater emphasis in America placed on student dis- cussion of issues. At the present, she was not taking advantage of this method of learning because it was so new to her. At least six of the Chinese at Michigan State University were being partially supported through teaching assistantships. Two of these participated in the interview sessions and indicated that, while this opportunity was in itself a valuable learning experience, it also made great demands upon their time. They worried about their English level and spent a great deal of time preparing for their teaching. They were very satisfied, however, with the support and advice from M.S.U. faculty, who were readily available for consulta- tion about academic matters, both for their teaching and for their own degree programs. Internal Organization/Network Amongithe M.S.U. Chinese As mentioned earlier in this chapter, the Chinese students and scholars at Michigan State University are a close-knit group. having considerably more contact with each other outside their aca- demic programs than they do with American or other foreign students or with the community at large. Thirty-seven of the 49 currently at M.S.U. live on campus in Cherry Lane or University Village apartments, formerly reserved for married student housing. One person lived in Owen Graduate Hall, where a number of foreign students live, and the others lived in community housing off campus. Of the 11 who lived off campus, only 2 of them lived with American students or an American 199 family; the others shared an apartment with other students or scholars from the PRC. They all felt that their living arrangements provided the best environment for them to do their studies with the exception of the person who lived in Owen Hall, who would have preferred to live elsewhere, citing that Owen was too expensive, too noisy, and too far away from most of her work on campus. Living in Cherry Lane and University Village seemed to have a certain prestige which allowed daily living to proceed with the least bother, as residents divided up the tasks of shopping and cooking. It also provided a support system of other Chinese to relate to in case of problems. Those who had come recently said that they had relied on those who had been at M.S.U. for a longer period of time to assist them in knowledge of social customs in America and in the practical day-to-day matters that they did not wish to bother their American friends with. They did not feel that living with other Chinese was an obstacle to getting to know Americans better, although several of them stated that they were sure their English would improve if they were forced to use it more often. Living together even facilitated some of their academic work as they could consult with other nationals if they had a language problem or wanted to discuss methods or techniques that they had questions about. More will be said about the effects of this group support in the sec- tion on interaction with the community. In addition to the support system provided by the living arrangements, there is a more formal organization within the community of Chinese scholars on campus. This is not unusual in that many 200 groups of foreign students, i.e., the organization of Islamic or African students, have formed a loose organization to allow opportu- nities for fellow nationals or those with a common cultural base to relate to one another for matters of mutual concern. While the Chinese scholars do not have a named organization that Speaks for them, they do have a hierarchy among themselves which serves that function on many occasions. In most institutions, as well as at M.S.U., the scholars have an elected leader who takes on many tasks. He is the link with the Chinese Embassy should people have problems or questions about their visas; he is also in charge of representing the Chinese at formal functions and is the liaison person should either the Chinese or the Americans wish to make arrangements or invitations to the Chinese nationals at large. The role is a voluntary one with no specific time period; nor does it exclude other Chinese from taking leadership roles or initiative within their own individual programs or activities. It was explained as a practice that is one of con- venience. And depending on the leader's personality and willingness to Spend time on the tasks, the role could interfere with the academic program. A leader may serve in this capacity for as little as three months or as long as a year, with a new one being chosen by consensus whenever needed. Although on some campuses this formal networking included only the Chinese-government-sponsored scholars, at M.S.U. it was open to all persons from the PRC given their small numbers and easy access to each other. This formal network did not mean that when problems arose the Chinese did not use University channels for solving those problems, but it often meant that they were first 201 discussed among the group and then presented to the appropriate body if they could not be solved internally. It provided a support system and forum with which the Chinese seemed to be comfortable. Interaction with the Lansing- East Lansj ng Community Despite their living arrangements and, in some cases, because of it, the Chinese pursuing studies at Michigan State University had developed extensive outside contacts with Americans. They felt that the University community was a warm and friendly one providing many opportunities to them, individually or as a group, to get together with Americans. All had accepted invitations to visit in homes of University professors and to talk freely about their stay in the U.S. Most of these contacts were made individually; none of the persons participating in the interviews had done anything that was organized for foreign students through the formal apparatus of the Foreign Student Office. Neither had they heard of the Community Volunteers for International Programs, which makes its services for foreign students known through the University. Most of their dealings with Americans within the University or in the community at large had come through individual contacts. The one formally organized community group with which they had had a great deal of contact was the Greater Lansing Chapter of the US-China Peoples Friendship Association. In many respects, this group played a similar role to that of the Community Volunteers for International Programs. Persons from the Friendship Association had assisted them by providing automobile transportation for grocery 202 shopping from time to time, helping individuals to locate necessary clothing items such as heavy winter coats, and, in general, being there to provide information in case of misunderstandings. On a more formal basis, the Friendship Association provided social get- togethers open to all the Chinese students and scholars in the form of potluck dinners on special occasions such as Chinese National Day or New Years and on American holidays also. For many of the Chinese, the Friendship Association organized sightseeing visits to other cities and places in the area that they might otherwise not have had an opportunity to visit. Over the past year, there were group expe- ditions to Greenfield Village in Detroit, a long week-end in Michigan's Upper Peninsula at the summer home of a Friendship Association member, and two group visits to Chicago. These visits were organized by volunteers who provided drivers and cars for the outings with all individuals participating chipping in for their share of the expenses of gas and other miscellaneous items. Lodging in cities outside Lansing was arranged by other members of the Friendship Association in those cities, making the ventures affordable. During one of the visits to Chicago, the Chinese prepared food in advance, taking dishes that needed only to be stir-fried. This was done to save the Chicago hosts trouble and to avoid taking time from actual sight- seeing, but it was later confirmed that it was also because they preferred to eat Chinese food! All of these visits enabled Chinese students and scholars to see a bit more of the diversity of the American people, geography, and culture. In 1982, the M.S.U. group of scholars has plans to 203 organize a visit to Niagara Falls, but they realize this trip will take perhaps more money and administration because it is so far. In later discussions with members of the Lansing Friendship Association, the Americans stated that doing things with the Chinese was mutually beneficial in that it had revitalized the organization. Arrangements were not all that difficult to make, and the network among the Chinese made it easy to extend invitations to the group at large. Contact could be made with the group leader and within a few days the Friend- ship Association would know the degree of interest in the outing and how many persons could be expected to participate. Both the Chinese and the Americans stated that the opportunities for interaction were plentiful, limited only by the busy schedules of each and the time that it took to make such arrangements. Summar From the University perspective, most persons consulted felt that the exchange process was going smoothly and what small problems there were were being worked out satisfactorily as far as concerns the incoming students and scholars from the PRC. Dr. Warren Cohen felt there were still problems and obstacles to the sending of Ameri- cans to China in order to make the exchange a truly bilateral one. The problems were on both sides, but mechanisms were being put in place to alleviate the problems and expedite the exchange in the other direction. Although the Chinese students and scholars felt that their living arrangements were the best ones and the most conducive to 204 enabling them to concentrate on the prime objective of study or research, those at the English Language Center did not necessarily feel that this was so. Graduate students at M.S.U. coming from abroad are required to take an English-language examination and seek remedial help if it is indicated. Most of those graduate students coming from China did not need to take additional courses as their English was quite good. But the large majority of Chinese nationals at M.S.U. are visiting scholars and as such are not required to submit to University regulations. Mrs. So Wuyi, an instructor at the English Language Center, feels this is not a good thing as it leaves the scholars out of many opportunities to avail themselves of University services in general and those of the English Language Center in par- ticular. She was instrumental in initiating a once-a-week informal English conversation session to take place between interested Ameri- cans and the Chinese students and scholars at M.S.U. The success has varied from term to term, depending on the binational make-up of the class and the voluntary attendance policy. However, she is pleased that many scholars as well as graduate students have sat in on the sessions, both from the point of view of the English-language prac- tice and from that of the opportunities the class affords for cultural interaction. The Chinese scholars and students at M.S.U., both those who completed the questionnaire and those who participated in the inter- view sessions, expressed overall satisfaction with their interaction with the American culture as well as with their academic work. Their complaints, modestly phrased, had to do with their being absent from 205 their families for such a long period of time, and in their sometimes erring judgments on what part of American culture to become exposed to. In general, they preferred to interact with American culture in a group that contained Americans rather than to go on their own. Some who had gone to the movies without prior consultation with Ameri- cans had been disappointed at not understanding the films because of cultural differences. The movies in question were 19_and Raiders of the Lost Ark. They felt that they were making progress in their academic work and that the tasks could be completed in the time frame they had been allotted, provided that they worked very hard. Most of them indicated that they would be returning to the same position that they held at their home university or research institute, where they would be called upon to share the training they had received either in the form of teaching assignments or in work on new projects. They did not yet know, or were unprepared to comment on, what effect their stay in America would have on their personal outlook, but they sin- cerely hoped that the growth of strong ties between China and the United States would continue. 206 Footnotes--Chapter VI 1Report of Michigan State University's First Mission to the People's Republic of China (East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1980), p. 17. 2First Mission to the People's Republic of China, preparatory handbook andfdescriptive information (East Lansing: Michigan State University, July 1980), pp. 41-60. 3Report of Michigan State University's First Mission, op. cit., pp. 6-7. 4Dr. H. T. Tien graciously provided me with access to his file of correspondence with Chinese scientists and officials at a number of universities. As early as December 1978, Provost Yao Changrei of Sichuan University in Chengdu was pressing for an institutional exchange with Michigan State University in four areas: (1) ublica- tions, (2) short-term faculty exchanges of several weeks, (3) long- term exchange of visiting scholars, and (4) a request for scientific and technical materials. Michigan State University was between Presi- dents and it was not until March 6, 1980, that President Mackay wrote to the President of Sichuan University, Gang Nai'er, to inform Dr. Gang that a Michigan State University delegation would be coming to China and that the delegation would like very much to proceed to discuss such exchanges. FINAL OBSERVATIONS, COMMENTS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS This dissertation, as are all research projects of this nature, is subject to a number of limitations. In this case, given the recent resumption of educational exchanges between the United States and China, it was not possible to conduct research that would measure the adaptive factors of Chinese students and scholars over time as did some of the research mentioned in the review of the literature. Such research would certainly have merit and should be possible within a few years when the exchange process is firmly in place and the numbers of degree students increased. Further, although the numbers of returned questionnaires were a sufficient representative of the sample population of Chinese stu- dents and scholars now in the United States to show some differences due to sponsorship and status, the number of graduate students who participated in the survey was not a large proportion of that sector of the sample, making conclusions about the responses of graduate students as a whole difficult to assess. Certainly, areas of concern arise over the inclusiveness or exclusiveness of the content selected in the questionnaire as an instrument, the specific analyses applied to the data received, and the imperfect means of informal interviews with selected individuals in order to gather information about the broader aspects of their experience in the U.S. However, these tools were selected as those 207 208 best suited to accomplish the research objectives, which were to obtain a description of the population of Chinese nationals in the U.S. at this time and to determine specifically the nature of the relationship that existed between any advanced preparation they may have received before leaving China and their subsequent interaction with American culture after they arrived. Within the limitations as stated, these objectives have been achieved. The results of the analyses of the data received from the questionnaires, combined with the additional information received from interviews with Chinese stu- dents and scholars, would seem to indicate that the amount of orienta- tion and advanced training per se does not affect the amount of interaction that took place with American culture after they arrived. Rather, the amount of contact they had with American culture appeared to be a function of other factors: time in the U.S., free time to allocate to such pursuits subject to individual initiative and per- sonalities, and the presence of outside support groups, either formal or informal, within the university or outside communities who also took time and initiative to contact the Chinese students and scholars and to make arrangements for them to become better acquainted with the community. All of these factors suggest other areas for further research. The findings of this dissertation, along with its limitations, suggest several other areas that could benefit from additional study or research: 1. A study into the role that community groups play in the adaptation processes of foreign students. Such a study could be done 209 in terms of the impact of a given community group over time in one location or a documentation on a broader scale of the kinds of ser- vices and programs offered by many groups across the country with an evaluation of their effects. 2. A study of what components make up an effective predepar- ture orientation program for those planning to do study or research abroad. The study in this dissertation was only able to achieve a documentation of what kinds of exposure the Chinese students and scholars had to American culture before their arrival. There was no means to judge that exposure in terms of content or specific effect. APPENDICES 210 APPENDIX A "UNDERSTANDING ON THE EXCHANGE OF STUDENTS AND SCHOLARS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA" 211 APPENDIX A "UNDERSTANDING ON THE EXCHANGE OF STUDENTS AND SCHOLARS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA" An understanding on educational exchanges between the United States and China was reached in Washington, D.C., in October 1978 during discussions between the Chinese education delegation headed by Dr. Chou Peiyuan, Acting Chairman of the PRC Science and Technology Association, and the U.S. education delegation headed by Dr. Richard C. Atkinson, Director of the National Science Foundation, as follows: 1. Both sides agreed they would pursue a program of educational exchange in accordance with and in implementation of the spirit of the Shanghai Communique; 2. There will be a two-way scientific and scholarly exchange which will provide mutual benefit to both countries; 3. The exchanges will include students, graduate students and visiting scholars for programs of research and study in each country; 4. The two sides exchanged lists of fields in which its students and scholars are interested and lists of institutions where they wish to work. Each side will use its best efforts to fulfill the requests of the other for study and research opportunities. Each side will expeditiously grant visas for such exchanges in accordance with its laws and regulations; 5. The sending side will pay the costs associated with its par- ticipants; 6. Both sides may take full advantage of any scholarships which may be offered; 7. Each side will be responsible for the implementation of the program in its territory, including responsibility for providing advice to the other side and relevant information and materials about the universities and research institutions concerned; 8. The two sides agreed that the students and scholars sent by both sides should observe the laws and regulations and respect the customs of the receiving country; 212 213 9. The Chinese side indicated it wishes to send a total of 500 to 700 students and scholars in the academic year 1978-1979. The United States side indicated it wishes to send ten students in its national program in January 1979 and 50 students in its national pro- gram by September 1979 as well as such other numbers as the Chinese side is able to receive. Both sides agreed to use their best efforts to implement such programs; 10. To set each year the number of students and scholars to be exchanged and to discuss the progress of the program of exchanges, the two sides will meet when necessary. Consultations on important matters may also be held by the governments of the two countries. In addition, both sides will encourage direct contacts between the universities, research institutions and scholars of their respective countries. 11. Both sides believe that the discussions mark a good beginning and have opened up the prospect of broadened opportunities for exchanges between the two countries in the fields of science, technology and edu- cation as relations between them improve. Both sides also believe that such exchanges are conducive to the promotion of friendship and under- standing between their two peoples. APPENDIX B AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA ON COOPERATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 214 APPENDIX B AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA ON COOPERATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY The Government of the United States of America and the Government of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Contracting Parties); Acting in the spirit of the Joint Communique on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations between the United States of America and the People's Republic of China; Recognizing that cooperation in the fields of science and tech- nology can promote the well-being and prosperity of both countries; Affirming that such cooperation can strengthen friendly relations between both countries; Wishing to establish closer and more regular cooperation between scientific and technical entities and personnel in both countries; Have agreed as follows: ARTICLE 1 l. The Contracting Parties shall develop cooperation under this Agreement on the basis of equality, reciprocity and mutual benefit. 2. The principal objective of this Agreement is to provide broad opportunities for cooperation in scientific and technological fields of mutual interest, thereby promoting the progress of science and technology for the benefit of both countries and of mankind. ARTICLE 2 Cooperation under this Agreement may be undertaken in the fields of agriculture, energy, space, health, environment, earth sciences, engineering and such other areas of science and technology and their management as may be mutually agreed, as well as educational and scholarly exchange. ARTICLE 3 Cooperation under this Agreement may include: a. Exchange of scientists, scholars, specialists and students; b. Exchange of scientific, scholarly and technological informa- tion and documentation; c. Joint planning and implementation of programs and projects; d. Joint research, development and testing and exchange of research results and experience between cooperating entities; 215 216 e. Organization of joint courses, conferences and symposia; f. Other forms of scientific and technological cooperation as may be mutually agreed. ARTICLE 4 Pursuant to the objectives of this Agreement, the Contracting Parties shall encourage and facilitate, as appropriate, the develop- ment of contacts and cooperation between government agencies, univer- sities, organizations, institutions and other entities of both coun- tries, and the conclusion of accords between such bodies for the conduct of cooperative activities. Both sides will further promote, consistent with such cooperation and where appropriate, mutually bene- ficial bilateral economic activities. ARTICLE 5 Specific accords implementing this Agreement may cover the sub- jects of cooperation, procedures to be followed, treatment of intel- lectual property, funding and other appropriate matters. With respect to funding, costs shall be borne as mutually agreed. All cooperative activities under this Agreement shall be subject to the availability of funds. ARTICLE 6 Cooperative activities under this Agreement shall be subject to the laws and regulations in each country. ARTICLE 7 Each Contracting Party shall, with respect to cooperative activi- ties under this Agreement, use its best efforts to facilitate prompt entry into and exit from its territory of equipment and personnel of the other side, and also to provide access to relevant geographic areas, institutions, data and materials. ARTICLE 8 Scientific and technological information derived from cooperative activities under this Agreement may be made available, unless other- wise agreed in an implementing accord under Article 5, to the world scientific community through customary channels and in accordance with the normal procedures of the participating entities. ARTICLE 9 Scientists, technical experts and entities of third countries or international organizations may be invited, upon mutual consent of both sides, to participate in projects and programs being carried out under this Agreement. 217 ARTICLE 10 l. The Contracting Parties shall establish a US-PRC Joint Commis- sion on Scientific and Technological Cooperation, which shall consist of United States and Chinese parts. Each Contracting Party shall desig- nate a co-chairman and its members of the Commission. The Commission shall adopt procedures for its operation, and shall ordinarily meet once a year in the United States and the People's Republic of China alternately. 2. The Joint Commission shall plan and coordinate cooperation in science and technology, and monitor and facilitate such cooperation. The Commission shall also consider proposals for the further develop- ment of cooperative activities in specific areas and recommend measures and programs to both sides. 3. To carry out its functions, the Commission may when necessary create temporary or permanent joint subcommittees or working groups. 4. During the period between meetings of the Commission, addi- tions or amendments may be made to already approved cooperative activi- ties, as may be mutually agreed. 5. To assist the Joint Commission, each Contracting Party shall designate an Executive Agent. The Executive Agent on the United States side shall be the Office of Science and Technology Policy; and on the side of the People's Republic of China, the State Scientific and Tech- nological Commission. The Executive Agents shall collaborate closely to promote proper implementation of all activities and programs. The Executive Agent of each Contracting Party shall be responsible for coordinating the implementation of its side of such activities and programs. ARTICLE 11 1. This Agreement shall enter into force upon signature and shall remain in force for five years. It may be modified or extended by mutual agreement of the Parties. 2. The termination of this Agreement shall not affect the valid- ity or duration of any implementing accords made under it. DONE at Washington this 315t day of January 1979 in duplicate in the English and Chinese languages, both equally authentic. FOR THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Jimmy Carter Deng Xiaoping APPENDIX C SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE SENT TO CHINESE STUDENTS AND SCHOLARS IN FORTY U.S. INSTITUTIONS 218 APPENDIX C SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE SENT TO CHINESE STUDENTS AND SCHOLARS IN FORTY U.S. INSTITUTIONS August 1981 Dear Friends and Colleagues, In the few short years since the establishment of diplomatic relations between our two countries, many exchanges of nutual benefit have been initiated. Among the most important is your arrival, along with more than 5,000 other Chinese scholars and students, for extended stays at American universities and research institutes. We welcane your arrival and wish you success as you pursue advanced study in the United States. Living in another country brings with it many new experiences. The exchange process includes many aspects: language, social and cultural differences, admissions and financial requirements, and academic adjustments. Because of the differences in our two cul- tures and the past thirty years of little contact between our two countries, there is nuch that we can learn from each other. The enclosed questionnaire requests information about your stay in the U.S. in order to find out how well the exchange pro- cess is working. The questionnaire is prepared by Mary Kay Hobbs who is presently the Director of the Center for Teaching about China of the US-China Peoples Friendship Association in Chicago. She has visited China several times in the past four years under the auspices of Luxingshe and the Chinese Association for Friend- ship with Foreign Countries. She is now working on her Ph. D. at Michigan State University. This survey is being conducted in more than fifty cities in the United States with the assistance of persons who have agreed to distribute the questionnaire to as many of you as possible. Other research projects of this nature have been conducted with other groups of foreign students in the U.S. and in other coun- tries in order to determine the elements that lead to a success- ful experience. This is the first such project to work with persons from the People's Republic of China who are now in the U.S. We encourage you to take a few minutes to answer these questions. The completed questionnaire may be returned in either one of two ways: first, staple the booklet closed, and then 1.) return it to the distributor who will return it with the others fran your university or institute as a 870019; a 2. you may put it in the mail yourself (no postage stamp is necessary). It is important for the success of the survey to have a large number of participants. Your effort is greatly appreciated. Thank you very much for ~your cooperation. Nhry Kay Hobbs Please return questionnaire WIII'llFl ten days 219 220 35» £99)” MIG/1n (MM.- 6 viii»: £me @flliflid ma ha?) Kikuyu/fit?ibfldfllfibfi’fléfih awning/swig ’é. mmfizmfiavm ml iii-TIL? 356(11)- film a MI»! 1% Jr: i Mare] 4 Maura» m. 7.3.4.1345, a r mam 3% r mm: mantra Mara/xvi aammu a 7. new; mallard/1 mew/lax NJ @1116! ire/’2 MW. r17 3 ilrrmril’M/fiafl fur. @134in a 1 fun] a M ’I/xwlaflifi. rm mt] , M M 15 a I? ’5 aarm‘. . ilk/r131 m1 2; a9 a 93. A M d 1%] WM amt} ML’HuMaiflasfiw. 61mm: ifkfiifibéflifi/Afifid. snarl; ea raw-M Maura. Mfiuziuirmraaimér iiaaawafiymw [rm-99w. adiwfivfi 5.}.3rwaarzzzrwmafia-war l 3%. magma/2331a,i-rariaimaa $1M airmai- ">51 «mm?! iii/3’ ”in A9. a 15m 514") am: E; 1% 54M] rm era rm. mamamMahafirnélmmm 473M. zfltér’raaammgamgma1m) MM. {M'Jfi/Hiiéfirflildfiiu»?HAM/J1 makmmma Mama! era/halal} M m a m Marmara. marina “mama.artmmmra. Liam zmtazamr‘aaamraiu m. {M raxfimfimmmri). 3.42;];po yaw-ram rm. rm r 4) mama IAW-Wfifl’rxx 1981JT/i 221 I. PERSONAL DATA/INFORMATION Name 1. Sex: 1. (M) ___ or 2. (Fl '—Tpin yin X Chinese) Birthdate Birthplace month year YTity & ProvincEF Address in the Hnited States what is your university or work place in fhina? Occupation (check one) l. graduate student 2. professor/teacher 3. research scientist 6. other (specify) Has anyone in your family studied in the U.S. in the past? 1. yes 2. no --—— ___— Do you now have relatives living in the United States? 1. yes ___ 2. no Have you ever lived outside China before for more than three months? (Exclude your present stay in the U.S.) 1. yes ____ 2. no ls this your first visit to the United States? 1. yes ____ 2. no When did you arrive in the U.S.? month year 7e 10. 11. 12. 222 How long have you been in the U.S.? (check one) 1. l-6 months_____ 2. 7-12 months _____ 3. more than one year_____ 4. more than two years How long will you stay in the U.S.? (check one) 1. l-G months 4. two years 2. 7-12 months ____ 5. more than 2 years 3. one year 6. not sure What American university/institute are you working at? What is your status at this university? (check one) 1. undergraduate 3. special student 2. graduate student 4. research scholar 5. other (specify) Are you enrolled in a degree program? 1. yes : 2. n0 What is your field of study? (check one) l. Engineering _____ 5. Natural a Life Sciences _____ 2. English _____ 6. Business a Management _____ 3. Education _____ 7. Social Sciences _____ 4. Humanities _____ 8. Other (specify) Does your university in China have an official exchange agreement with an American university? 1. yes 2. no 3. not sure 13. 14. 15. 16. 223 If yes. are you in the U.S. as a member of that exchange? 1. yes _____ 2. no How many others from your Chinese university/work place are in the U.S. at this time? (check one) l. 0-5 3. ll-ZO 5. not sure 2. 6-10 4. more than 20 How many Chinese scholars and students (from all parts of China) are studying at the American university where you are? l. l-lO 4. 50-100 2. ll-25 5. more than 100 3. 26-50 6. not sure How is your stay in the U.S. financed? (check all that apply) 1. Chinese government scholarship ____ American university scholarship _____ Sponsored by family or friends ____ American university assistantship U'UbWN . Other (specify) 17, What are the main goals you hope to achieve by your study in the U.S.?)(List in order of importance with number l the most impor- tant. l. Obtaining a degree _____ 2. Developing research skills 9.: Receiving skills and knowledge in your field b . Getting a broader education _____ 5. Improving your level of English ____ 6. Getting to know U.S. people in your field ____ 7. Gaining practical experience in your field _____ 8. Learning about the United States 224 II. PREPARATION TO COME TO THE UNITED STATES 18. How did you hear about the U.S. university where you are now studying? (check one) 1. Chinese university has a direct exchange _____ 2. Other Chinese students or scholars ____ 3. Recommended by foreign experts 4. You wrote to the U.S. university for information _____ S. Other (specify) 19. Did you see any American university literature or catalogues before you came to the U.S.? 1. yes 2. no English Language Preparation 20. How long did you study English before coming to the U.S.? (check one) 1. less than six months 2. six months to one year 3. one to two years 4. two to five years 5. More than five years 21.How did you jiggt learn English? (check one) l. middle school ____ 2. university _____ 3. self-taught____' 4. correspondance or radio courses 5. other (specify) 22. What methods of learning English did you use in the past two years before coming to the U.S.? (check all that apply) 1. scientific English only 2. special course for more than two months 22KB 3. more than two hours a day 4. less than two hours a day 5. other (specify) 23- Did your study of English include conversation? 1. yes 2. no 24. Did you study English in China with foreign experts as teachers? 1. yes 2. no 25. How often did you use your English in your work in China? l. daily 2. often 3. rarely 26. Has your use of rnglish primarily (check one) 1. reading? 3. speaking? 2. writing? 4. some of all three? 27. In China, did you study other subjects besides the English lang- uage where English was the language of instruction? 1. yes 2. no *— -————— 28. Does your university or institute in China have an English Club or other informal English language group? 1. yes 2. no ___— _— 29, If yes. how often did you participate in the programs? 1. usually 2. sometimes 3. rarely 30- Before you came to the United States, did your university or work place in China give any English language tests to deter- mine your level of English? 1. yes 2. no 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. in English 226 Learnigg about Life in the United States Before coming to the U.S. did you have any special preparation or introduction to American life and culture? 1. yes 2. no Did your university or institute offer classes to prepare you for your stay in America? 1. yes 2. no If yes. for how long? (check one) 1. one or two sessions 2. less than one month _____ 3. one to three months _____ 4. other (specify) Did you have talks with American foreign experts in China to discuss life and culture in the U.S.? 1. yes 2. no Did you talk with Chinese scholars or students who had returned from the U.S.? 1. yes 2. no __- Did you correspond with other Chinese scholars who were in the U.S. before your arrival? 1. yes 2. no Before leaving China, did you learn about American culture through any of the following means? (check all that apply.) 1. read American short stories and novels read American magazines and Journals read American newspapers #0)“) . go to American movies 5. talk with American tourists 22?7 38. ( 1. read American short stories and novels 2. read American magazines and Journals in Chinese ( translations 3. read American newspapers 4. go to American movies I 39.Did you listen to the Voice of America radio in China? yes no 40.1f yes, how often? (check one) l. every day _____ 2. sometimes _____ 3. rarely _____ 41. Now that you are in the U.S., what do you think, in general, about your advanced preparation and knowledge of the U.S.? 1. very good ____ 2. adequate ____ 3. good in some areas and not in others.____ 4. not enough preparation 42. Based on your experience. what areas need more informa- tion and knowledge before coming to the U.S.? (check all that apply) "' 1. information about academic programs 2. more practice in English 3. information about American social custans 4. other (specify) III. LIFE IN THE UNITED STATES 43. who met you upon your arrival in the U.S.? l. U.S. university people 2. relatives 3. other Chinese scholars/students 4. other (specify) 228 44. where do you live now? (check one) 1. dormitory 2. apartment or house _____ 3. room off campus with cooking facilities 4. room off campus without cooking facilties 45. with whom do you live? (check one) l. alone 2. relatives 3. U.S. student(s) 4. U.S. family ‘. other foreign students F. Chinese students 46. Which best describes your eating situation? 1. eat in the school cafeteria _____ 2. cook for yourself 3. eat with relatives or ”.5. family _____ 47. Do you eat primarily (check one) l. Chinese food _____ 2. American food 7. some of both _____ 48. What is your primary means of transportation? (check one) 1. walking 2. bicycle 3. drive a car 4. public transportation (bus or subway) S. depend on friends who drive 49. Do you have a radio and/or television set at your living place? 1. yes 2. no 50. If yes, how often do you listen to it? (check one) ‘ l. Cally 2. sometimes 3. rarely 51. How often do you read an firerican newspaper? I. daily 2. sometimes 3. rarely 229 52. After your arrival in the U.S., did you attend any sessions to learn about life in America? 1. yes 2. no 53. If yes, who arranged these sessions or programs? 1. the foreigr student office a .. other (specify) 54. How long did the sessions last? (check one) 1. 1-2 hours 3. half day 3. full day 4. other (specify) 55. What subjects were covered? (check all that apply) 1. life on campus (housing, food, library, etc.) 2. sessions on American history and culture 3. information about social customs 4. academic information (registration, grading, financial matters, etc.) 5. other (specify) English Language Skills 56. Which area of the anlish language gives you the least_ problems? 1. reading 2. writing 3. understanding 4. speaking S7.which area of the English language needs the most improve- ment? 1. reading ‘ 2. writing 3. understanding 4. speaking _'___ 58. Upon your arrival in the ”.S., were you required to take an English language examination before starting your work? 1. yes 2. no 230 59. If yes, did you take supplementary English languages courses as the result of the testing? l. yes 2. no 60. If yes, for how long? 1. one semester 2. more than one semester 61. If you are taking additional work in the English language, is it (check all that apply) l. full time 2. part-time 2. in a class 3. with a tutor 5. informal or self study 62. How often do you read materials in English outside of your academic studies, such as newspapers, journals, or novels? l. often 2. sometimes 3. rarely 63. Outside of your academic work or research do you speak (check one) l. primarily English 2. primarily Chinese 3. some of both _____ Learnigg about American Life We are aware that your academic studies and research take a great deal of time. However, we hope that you also have the opportunity to learn about the Ameri- can culture and people during your stay. 64. Outside of your academic work or research, do you spend your time primarily with (check one) l. Chinese people 2. foreign students 3. American peonle 4. a combination 65. Outside of your academic work or research, have you made other contacts in the community where you live? l. yes 2. no 23] 66. If yes, are these contacts (check all that apply) 67. 68. 69. 70. l. 2 3. 4. 5. other students and teachers ____ . American families and/or friends Chinese-Americans primarily relatives other (specify) How did you make these contacts? (check all that apply) I. 2. 3. 4. 5. through university groups __ through contacts with other students __ through the foreign students' office __ through relatives __ other (specify) Do you consider most of your contacts outside your academic life to be (check one) 1. 2. 3. casual acquaintances long term contacts/friendships sane of both Would you like more contact with Americans? 1. yes 2. no If you do not now have many contacts with Americans, what are the main reasons? (check all that apply) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Not in the U.S. long enough _ Too busy in acadanic life and research __ Difficult to make contacts _ Prefer to spend time with Chinese people __ Do not wish more contacts Other (specify) 232 71. Are you familiar with the following groups who are in— IETCSt ed in knowing and assisting foreign/Chinese students? (check all that apply) 1. 2. 3. 4. National Association of Foreign Student Affairs International Club at your university US-China Peoples Friendship Association China Council of the Asia Society 72. In which of the following activities have you participated? (check all that apply) . visits with an American family . visits to U.S. farms . visits to U.S. factories been to the movies . been to a cultural event (concert, play, etc.) . been to a sports event sightseeing visits in your city ____ sightseeing visits in other cities 73, Were the arrangements for these visits made primarily by (check one) 1. foreign students office ____ 2. relatives 3. other Chinese students/scholars _____ 4. American friends/students S. a cmbination of the above 74, Who acccmpanied you on these visits? (check one) 1. a group of foreign students ____ 2. other Chinese students 3. relatives ____ 4. a mixed group of Chinese and Americans . you went on your own . other (specify) 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 233 Have you been asked to speak to American groups about life in China? 1. yes 2. no If yes, have you accepted the invitation? 1. yes 2. no Have you been invited to lecture or present papers at American conferences? 1. yes 2. no If yes, have you accepted the invitation? 1. yes 2. no If you have not yet had the opportunity to visit outside your cannunity, do you plan to do so before you return to China? 1. yes __ 2. __ If yes, when do you plan to do so? (check all that apply) 1. between terms for a few days __ 2. din-ing the manner for several weeks _ 3. extended travel before returning to China At this time in your stay in the U.S., how satisfied are you, in general, with your academic progress? 1. very satisfied __ 2. satisfied _ 3. only sanetimes satisfied __ 4. not very satisfied __ At this time in your stg in the 018., how satisfied are you, in general, wi your familiarity with the Nuerican people and customs? 1. very satisfied __ 2. satisfied __ 3. only sunetimes satisfied _ 4. not very satisfied THE END Thank you very much for taking the time to assist in this project. We wish you success in reaching your goals while you are in the United States. Please return this questionnaire to the Center for Teaching about China on or before October 1, 1981. APPENDIX D LIST OF AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS THAT PARTICIPATED IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE 234 APPENDIX D LIST OF AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS THAT PARTICIPATED IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE Written questionnaires were sent to contact persons in August and September l981 for distribution among Chinese graduate students and visiting scholars in the following institutions: No. . . a No. . . No. Percent InStItUt1°n Sentb D1Str19' Returned Returned uted American Graduate School of Interntl. Management, AZ 5 5 2 40.00 Argonne National Laboratory Argonne, IL l0 l0 3 30.00 Columbia University, NYC 25 22 2 9.l0 Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, IL 20 8 7 87.50 George Washington University, Washington, D.C. 30 23 0 0.00 Goshen College, Goshen, IN ll ll 6 54.50 Illinois Institute of Tech- nology, Chicago, IL l7 l7 8 47.l0 Indiana University Bloomington, IN 20 20 3 15.00 Loras College, Dubuque, IA 2 2 2 l00.00 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, MA 25 0 0 0.00 Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 40 40 26 65.00 Mt. Sinai Hospital, Chicago, IL 3 3 l 33.33 Northeastern University Boston, MA 25 21 2 9.50 235 236 No. . . a No. . . No. Percent Institution Sentb D1SESAE' Returned Returned Northwestern University Evanston, IL 30 30 17 56.66 Oberlin College, Ohio 3 3 2 66.66 Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio 40 10 4 40.00 Oregon State University Corvallis, OR 12 12 4 33.33 Portland State University Portland, OR 15 15 2 13.33 Princeton University, NJ 10 O O 0.00 Purdue University, IN 50 50 16 32.00 Seton Hall University East Orange, NJ 10 10 5 50.00 Sienna Heights College Adrian, MI 8 8 1 12.50 Southern Illinois University Carbondale, IL 4 3 3 100.00 Tennessee State University Knoxville, TN 15 O O 0.00 UCLA Medical Facilities Los Angeles, CA 18 18 10 55.50 University of California, Berkeley, CA 150 148 44 29.70 University of Chicago, IL 20 20 8 40.00 University of Florida Gainesville, FL 20 9 O 0.00 University of Houston, TX 27 24 O 0.00 University of Illinois Circle Campus, Chicago, IL 11 11 8 72.70 237 No. I . . a No. . . _ No. Percent "St1tUt10n Sentb DIStr1E Returned Returned uted University of Maryland Baltimore, MD 50 O O 0.00 Roosevelt University Chicago, IL 10 6 1 16.66 University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 70 50 24 48.00 University of Pittsburgh, PA 10 3 3 100.00 University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 7 7 3 42.80 University of Virginia Charlottesville, VA 15 15 6 40.00 University of Wisconsin Madison, WI 100 58 9 15.50 Washington University St. Louis, MO 25 19 O 0.00 Western Illinois University Macomb, IL 3 3 1 33.30 University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA 30 O 0 0.00 Totals 996 714 233 32.90 aAlphabetical. bAccording to estimates submitted by the contact person. cActual number sent or given to individual students and scholars from China. When the number distributed was less than the number sent, it was for one of the following reasons: (1) The number of PRC nationals at the school was less than that estimated by the contact person origi- nally or the students and scholars were not reached because of changes of address; (2) The contact persons withdrew from participation due to personal reasons. APPENDIX E COVER LETTER TO U.S. CONTACT PERSONS IN COLLEGES. UNIVERSITIES, AND RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS 238 APPENDIX E COVER LETTER TO U.S. CONTACT PERSONS IN COLLEGES, UNIVERSITIES, AND RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS August 1981 Dear As you know, I am in the process of completing a doctoral program at Michigan State University in Comparative and International Education. As a thesis topic, I have chosen a subject area that closely follows my interest in China and which, hopefully, will also provide some insights in the area of current U.S.-China Exchanges. I am conducting a survey of Chinese students and scholars in Ameri- can universities and research institutes at some forty locations through- out the U.S. Your help in distributing the questionnaires to the students and scholars in your area is most appreciated. The questionnaire itself includes a note of explanation in English and Chinese. Per your indica- tions and the best information I have, I enclose here copies of the survey. Any person who is in the U.S. from the People's Republic of China on a study or research program is eligible to participate. It is espe— cially desirable to reach both government-sponsored ggd_privately spon- sored persons who are engaged in research programs as well as in standard degree programs. Approximately 1000 questionnaires are being distributed with the hope that a high percentage of them will be returned. As a con- tact person who works closely with those Chinese students and scholars at your institution, your assistance in the distribution of the survey along with words of assurance to the scholars and students that their participation is voluntary and confidential will play a large part in the success of the project. Please feel free to contact me if you have further questions regarding the questionnaire itself or procedural matters. Again, thank you for your willingness to cooperate in this survey. During the spring of 1982, after the completion of the dissertation, a summary report on the findings of the survey will be available upon request. Sincerely yours, Mary Kay Hobbs Center for Teaching About China 407 S. Dearborn, Suite 945 Chicago, Illinois 60605 213-663-9608 239 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 240 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Althen, Cary, ed. Learning Across Cultures. Washington, D.C.: National Association forForeign Student Affairs, 1981. Cieslak, Edward C. The Foreign Student in American Colleges. Detroit, Mich.: Wayne State University Press, 1955. Coelho, George. Changing Images of America: A Study of Indian Students' Perceptions. M.I.T.--Center for International Studies. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1958. Coombs, Philip. World Educational Crisis: A System's Analysis. New York: Oxford university Press, 1969. Dubois, Cora. Foreign Students and Higher Education in the United States. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1956. Dunnett, Stephen, ed. Needs of Foreign Students From Developin%_ Nations at U.S. Colleges and Universities. Washington, D. .: National Association forTForeign Students Affairs, 1981. Eide, Ingrid, ed. Students as Links Between Cultures. Oslo: Univer- sitetsforlaget, 1970. Faure, Edgar, ed. Learning to Be: The World of Todgy and Tomorrow. London: UNESCO, 1972. Feintech, Lynn. China's Four Modernizations and the United States. Headline Series #255. New York: Ffireign Palicy Association, 198] O Frolic, 8. Michael. Mao's People: Sixteen Portraits of Life in Revo— lutionary China. *Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980. Gottschang, Karen T. China Bound: A Handbook for American Students, Researchers and Teachers. Washington, D.C.: U.S.-China Educa- tion Clearinghouse, 1981. Goulet, Denis. The Cruel Choice: A New Concept in the Theorygof Develgpment. New York: ’Atheneum, 1975. 241 242 Hull, W. Frank IV. Foreign Students in the United States of America: Coping Behavior Within the Educational Environment. New York: Praeger, 1978. Incomparable Journey: A Leader's Handbook. Putney, Vermont: Experi- ment in International Living Press, 1968. Klineberg, Otto. The Human Dimension in International Relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964. . International Educational Exchange: An Assessment of Its Nature andItsTProspgcts. PUBlication of the International Social Science Council, Vol. 18. The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton, 1976. , and Hull, W. Frank IV. At a Foreign University: An Inter- national Study of Adaptation and Coping, New York: Praeger, 1979. Morris, Richard T. The Two-Way Mirror: National Status in Forei n Student Adjustment. MihneapOlis: University of Minnesota ress, 1960. Murphey, Rhoads. The Fading of the Maoist Vision: City and Country in China's Development. New York: Methuen, Inc., 1980. Open Doors: 1978/79 Report on International Educational Exchangg, New York: Institute of’International Education, 1980. Resolution on CPC History. Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 1981. Rising, Muriel, and Copp, Barbara. Adjustment Experiences of Non- Immigrant Foreigg Students at the University of Rochester, 1967-68. Rochester, N.Y.: University of Rochester—Press, 1968. Sanders, I., and Ward, J. Bridges to Understanding. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970. Selltiz,i3.,et a1. Attitudes and Social Relations of Foreign Students in the United States. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1963. Shane, Harold, ed. The United States and International Education. Sixty-Eighth Yearbook ofithe National Society for theTStudy of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969. Shi Minghu and Seifman. Toward a New World Outlook: A Documentary History of Education in the Pegple's Repfiblic of China, 1949-1976. New York: AMS Press, 1976. Spaulding, Seth, and Flack, Michael. The World's Students in the United States. New York: Praeger, 1976. 243 Suttmeier, Richard. Science, Technology and China's Drive for Modernization. Stanford, Calif}: Hoover Press, 1980. Watt, Donald 8. Intelligence Is Not Enough. Putney, Vermont: Experiment in International Living Press, 1967. Articles, Dissertations, Monographs, and Papers Barendsen, Robert 0., ed. The 1978 National College Entrance Examina- tion in the People's Republic of China. OE Publication No. 79—19138, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1979. Basu, A. K., and Ames, Richard. "Cross-Cultural Contact and Attitude Formation." Sociology and Social Research 55 (1970): 5-16. Bettleheim, Charles. "The Great Leap Backward." Monthly Review, July/August 1978, pp. 37-130. Blumenthal, Peggy. "Foreign Study in China--Ha1f—Open Door." NAFSA Newsletter 31,6 (March 1980). Washington, D.C.: National Asso- ciation for Foreign Students Affairs, 1980. Burn, Barbara. Higher Education in a Chaggjng World. International Council for Educational DevelopmeniiConference Report #3. New York: ICED, 1976. Chang, Hwa-Bao. "Attitudes of Chinese Students in the United States.“ Sociology and Social Research 58 (1973): 66-77. Conroy, John. “The Stranger." The Reader, Vol. 11, no. 5, Friday, October 30, 1981. Chicago: Reader Newspaper Press, 1981. Cowan, J. R.; Light, Richard; Mathews, 8. Ellen; and Tucker, G. Richard. "English Teaching in China: A Recent Survey." TESOL Quarterly 13,4 (December 1979): 465-82. Dickey, Karlene. "People's Republic of China: Educational Country Profile." Washington, D.C.: NAFSA, 1980. . "People's Republic of China: A Kaleidoscopic View of Edu- cation." Washington, D.C.: U.S.-China Education Clearinghouse, 1980. Donovan, Katherine. Assisting Students and Scholars From the People's Republic of China:—A Handbook for Community Groups. Washington, D.C.: U.S.-China Education Clearinghouse, 1981. Edgerton, Wallace. "Trends in Educational Exchan e." International Educational and Cultural Exchange 11,1 (1975) 244 Faust, Stephen. "Dynamics of Cross-Cultural Adjustments: From Pre- arrival to Re-entry." In Learning Across Cultures. Washington, D.C.: NAFSA. 1981. Fenwick. "The People's Republic of China: Increasing Culture Specific Knowledge." NAFSA Newsletter 31,3 (December 1979). Washington, D.C.: NAFSA, l979. Fingar, Thomas, and Reed, Linda. "Survey Summary: Students and Scholars From the People's Republic of China in the United States, August, 1981." Washington, D.C.: U.S.-China Education Clearinghouse, 1981. Flack, Michael. "Results and Effects of Study Abroad." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 324 (1976). Hobbs, Mary Kay. "New Patterns in Teaching and Learning: A Look at the People's Republic of China." Occasional Paper #2. Non- Formal Education Information Center, Institute of International Sgggies in Education. East Lansing: Michigan State University, Jenkins, Hugh, Rapporteur. "Briefing/Workshop on Students and Scholars From the People's Republic of China and United States Universities and Colleges." Washington, D.C.: NAFSA, 1979. . The Relevance of U.S. Education to Students From Developing Countries. Report on the Fourth AID/NAFSA Workshop. Washington, D.C.: NAFSA, 1980. Kajornsin, Samnao. "A Study of Foreign Graduate Students: Their Aware- ness of, Utilization of and Attitude Toward Selected Student Per- sonnel Services Available to Them at Michigan State University." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1979. Kaplan, Robert. "NAFSA in the Mod Mod World." Exchange 6,2 (1970). Klassen, Frank, and Schultz, Raymond, eds. Higher Education and the World. Proceedings of the National Foreign Policy Conference for Eeaders in Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of State, May 1972. Korzenny, Felipe. "Communication and Problem-Solving Across Cultures." In Learning Across Cultures. Washington, D.C.: NAFSA, 1981. Lysgaard, Svenne. "Adjustment in a Foreign Society: Norwegian Fulbright Grantees Visiting the United States." International Social Science Bulletin 7,1 (1955): 45-51. MacCallum, E. "China, in Crash Program, Will Send 10,000 Students Overseas." Chronicle of Higher Education, September 5, 1978, pp. 3-4. 245 Mestenhauser, Josef. "Selected Learning Concepts and Theories." In LearningpAcross Cultures. Washington, D.C.: NAFSA, 1981. Perrolle, Pierre. "U.S.-China Exchanges Discussed." NAFSA Newsletter 31,6 (March 1980): 155. , and Reed, L. An Introduction to Education in the People's Republic of China and U1S.-China EducationalExchangee, Washing- ton, D.C.: U.S.-China Education Clearinghouse, 1980. Pincus, Fred. "Higher Education and Socialist Transformation in the People's Republic of China Since 1970: A Critical Analysis." Review of Radical Political Economy 11,1 (Spring 1979). Porter, John W. "The Development of an Inventory to Determine the Problems of Foreign Students." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1962. Pusch, Margaret. "Cross-Cultural Training." In Learning Across Cultures. Washington, D.C.: NAFSA, 1981. Reed, Linda. Survey Summary: Students and Scholars From the People's Republic of China Currently in the Uniied States, April 1980. Washihgton, D.CI: U.S.-Chiha Education Clearinghouse, 1980. . "TOEFL and GRE to Be Administered in the PRC." NAFSA Newsletter 32,7 (June 1981). Rose, Peter 0. "Academic Sojourners: A Report on the Senior Fulbright Programs in East Asia and the Pacific." Washington, D.C.: Department of State, Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs, Office of Policy and Plans, 1976. Roudiani, Iraj. "Foreign Students: A Comparative and Correlational Study in Frames of Reference, Length of International Experiences, and Patterns of Interaction in a Multi-Cultural Environment." Ph.D. dissertation: Indiana University, 1976. Seybolt, Peter J., ed. "1979 National Unified Entrance Examination for Institutions of Higher Education." Chinese Education 12,3 (Fall 1979). White Plains, N.Y.: M. E. Sharpe, Inc., 1979. Shih, Ching. "50 Chinese Visiting Scholars to Study in the U.S." China Features. Beijing: China Features Press, May 1979. Sinauer, Ernst. "Orientation for Foreign Students." NAFSA Newsletter 32,8 (Summer 1981). Washington, D.C.: NAFSA, 1981. "Sources of Financial Aid Available to Students and Scholars From the People's Republic of China." Washington, D.C.: U.S.-China Education Clearinghouse, 1980. 246 Walter, Jane. "Counseling Appropriateness: An Exploration From a Cross-Cultural Perspective." Research in Education. ED 159 751. 1978. Wong, Jan. "China's Leap to American Campuses." New York Times Magazine, November 16, 1981, pp. 82-100. Documents and Further Sources of Information Agreement on Science and Technology and Memorandum of Understanding on .Educational Exchanges Between the United States and China. Issueleanuary 31, 1979, ih Washington, D.C. First Mission to the People's Republic of China. East Lansing: MichiganState University, July 1980. Joint Communiqge on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations Between the United States of AmeFica and the PeopleTs Republic of China. ISsued on December 14, 1978, in Peking and Washington, D.C.: "Michigan State University Handbook for Foreign Students." East Lansing: Michigan State University, Foreign Student Office, 1980-81. Notes From the National Committee. New York: National Committee on U.S.-China Relations. ' "A Report on the Scholar Orientation Program." New York: National Committee on U.S.-China Relations, 1981. Report of Michigan State University's First Mission to the People's Republic of China. East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1980. U.S.-China Agreement: Shanghai Communique. Issued in Shanghai, February 28, 1972. U.S.-China Exchange Notes. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. U.S.-China Review. Los Angeles: US-China Peoples Friendship Associa- tion. ‘ "Welsome to Our Community." East Lansing, Mich.: Community Volunteers for International Programs, 1981-82. Xinhua News. Peking and London: Xinhua News Agency. MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES llIIIWillillllllllllllllllllllll1111111 31293104371798