INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS IN A TAIWAN UNIVERSITY
The cross-border mobility of international students constitutes a critical element of the internationalization of higher education. Heightened interest in recent decades has shifted traditional mobility patterns from an elitist experience characterized by scholarship or fellowship recipients to the mass movement of individuals and groups (Teichler & Jahr, 2001). In the 21st century a select number of students define themselves as members of elite groups enrolled in high-quality degree programs in popular host destinations; the majority, however, leave home nations to obtain degrees at any personal financial expense. Others are motivated to acquire international experiences that complement concurrent academic programs in home nations. Traditionally international students migrated for association with world renowned scholars or to further a disciplinary knowledge base in nations such as the United States or Britain; in the contemporary era university students are more likely to study in the global arena in newly established host destinations for advancement of degrees, diplomas, or professional certification (Williams, 1981).
The Institute of International Education (IIE) definition of an international student is, “one who undertakes all or part of his/her higher education experience in a country other than the home country (Project Atlas, 2004). More broadly, cross-border education is classified as a borderless asset of the global education industry that redefines traditional patterns and trends of international student mobility (Kwiek, 2005). Since 1995 the total number of international students has all but doubled, reaching nearly 2.7 million (OECD, 2006). Correspondingly the demand for global cross-border education is forecasted to increase from 1.8 million international students in 2000 to 7.2 million in 2025 (Bohm, Meares, & Pearce, 2002). Analysts predict that 70 percent of the global demand will be generated within the Asia Pacific region (Olsen, 2003).
In the contemporary era many nations have shifted foreign student policies from an aid approach to a trade rationale (Smart & Ang, 1993). Thus, signaling that
cross-border education is a commodity of free trade rather than a public responsibility (Kirp, 2003). Given this the market for international students has become a dynamic growth industry sustained by universities, government agencies, private corporations, and entrepreneurs motivated by financial profit (Altbach, 2003).
National governments are keen to sustain active involvement through their Ministries of Education or dedicated promotional agencies (Kemp, 2007) that capitalize on the benefits of international student populations as linked to skill migration, economic growth, public diplomacy, and research associated with a knowledge society (Kishun, 2008).
Contemporary patterns of cross-border mobility encompass a complex, contradictory, and expansive discourse shaped by the discussions, policy issues, and mission statements of individual universities as well as the themes of education policy and global trade within the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) (van der Wende, 2001). This discourse impacts newly established competitor nations that are expanding incoming international student enrollments, as well as the United States and Western Europe as leading yet declining host nation destinations (Zachrisson, 2001). The case of China exemplifies this position. In 2004, China was a leading sending country as defined by the nation’s 343,126 university degree seeking students who studied abroad annually (UNESCO, 2006). In recent years China has also emerged as a popular host nation, as noted by expanding incoming international student enrollments from less than 45,000 in 1999 to more than 141,000 in 2005 (McCormack, 2007). Similar trends are occurring in Japan, South Korea, India, Malaysia, Thailand, and Taiwan.
Trends in Taiwan reflect traditional East Asian patterns; substantial numbers of university students from Taiwan studied in the United States and Britain while very few incoming international students chose the island nation as a host destination. In recent years the influx of international students to Taiwan has increased significantly, rising from 6,380 in 2001 to 21,005 in 2007 (Ko, 2008). Between 2001 and 2005 incoming international student enrollments from Central and South America increased 208 percent and 95 percent from European nations. Incoming students from Vietnam comprise the largest group, followed by Malaysia, Indonesia, Japan and the United States. Scholars attribute the rising population of incoming international students to the global popularity of Mandarin studies, the growing reputation of Taiwan universities as world class institutions, and availability of scholarships administered by the Taiwan Ministry of Education (MOE) (Ko, 2008).
While increasing international student enrollments in Taiwan universities are applauded by academic communities; scholarship examining the educational context and complexity of the international student experience remains limited (Ko, 2008). In response the following article details a mixed methods study conducted during the 2007 – 2008 academic year at the National Chengchi University (NCCU) in Taipei Taiwan. The research underscores the importance of international students’
interpretations of the multiple meanings associated with their academic and social experiences in Taiwan and the sense of belonging within the NCCU community.
Implications are offered as an East Asian exemplar and point of reference for the vision of internationalization at the NCCU.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The examination of globalization and internationalization as distinct processes is essential for serious scholarship addressing contemporary trends in higher education.
Globalization is a multifaceted phenomenon enveloped by economic, social, political and cultural dimensions that meld 21st century higher education to international endeavors. The impact of globalization poses challenges to the role of nations as the sole providers of higher education and to academic communities as the primary voice for education decision-making. Processes of globalization within university settings transcend the integration of research, the use of English as the language of academia, the expanding international market for scholars, the growth of multinational publishing, and reliance on information technology (Altbach, 2003).
Scholars agree that processes of globalization are unalterable while those representing internationalization remain fluid and changeable (Mok, 2007).
Internationalism, says, Elkin, Devjee and Farnsworth (2005, p. 326) “is not something that is either achieved or not achieved: rather it is an engagement with a range of dimensions.” Processes of internationalism are intertwined with a multiplicity of university administration policy, initiatives, and practices adopted in response to the affects of globalization (Scott, 1998) as noted by association with terminology such as:
transnational, global, world, international, and cross-border education (Knight, 2002).
The changing landscape of international student mobility signals significant shifts associated with the 21st century. Table I highlights the United States as the most popular destination, followed by the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Australia, and Japan. The 21 leading host countries include 12 member states of the European Union. Combined, these countries host nearly three quarters of a million international students, approximately 25 percent more than the United States.
Table I
Leading Host Nation Destinations (David, 2003)
Country Quantity Country Quantity Country Quantity United
States
547,092 Belgium 37,789 Netherlands 13,949
United Kingdom
222,576 Canada 34,536 Jordan 12,154
Germany 185,179 Austria 30,064 Portugal 10,998 France 134,783 Switzerland 24,729 New
Zealand
7,603
Australia 69,668 Italy 21,229 Denmark 7,124 Japan 59,656 Sweden 20,631 Ireland 5,564 Spain 40,506 Turkey 17,635 Korea 2,737
The profile of ideal host destinations, as suggested by the mobility patterns of international students, are nations that use English as an academic language, are recognized as industrialized, and maintain stable systems of higher education.
The examination of international student mobility trends and patterns is well established by a body of research identified with the push-pull framework (Lee, 1966;
Sirowy & Inkeles, 1985; Fry, 1984; Cummings, 1993; Agarwal & Winkler, 1985;
Altbach 1997). This research suggests that international students progress through developmental stages of decision making beginning with commitments to study internationally and ending with the selection of host institutions. Researchers defined research push factors as conditions in home nations that engender interest in university education beyond national borders. Pull factors are attributes of a host nation that attract international students and affect the decision-making process for study at particular institutions (Mazzarol, 1998).
Agarwal and Winkler (1985) quantified pull factors for the United States as a host destination among students from 15 developing nations. They noted that the percentage of international students enrolling in United States universities has declined in recent years. This shift was attributed to the rising cost of United States tertiary education and the multitude of university program options in students’ home nations. As such a contemporary trend is involves nations that traditionally sent large
numbers of students abroad; in recent years these nations have also become successful international centers via the offering of degree programs in English at a low expense (Chan & Ng, 2008).
In a related study McMahon (1992) used a push-pull model to statistically examine the mobility patterns of international students from 18 developing countries.
Findings suggested that student flow was dependent on the level of economic wealth, the degree of involvement of the destination country in the world economy, and the priority placed on education by the home nation government. McMahon noted a negative correlation between economic prosperity in home countries and the volume of international student flow. Significant pull factors included the size of host nation economies and their political interests as evidenced by foreign assistance, transnational cultural links, and availability of international student scholarships.
In a summative study Massarol (1998) surmised that six pull factors consistently influence students’ selection of host nations and institutions. The overall level of knowledge, access to information, and awareness of the destination nation within students’ home country represented a critical pull factor. The reputation of host institutions for quality and the recognition of their degrees in students’ home nations were significant attributes of this factor. A second pull factor was the number of personal recommendations students received from parents, relatives, friends and gatekeepers. The third factor related to financial issues, including the expense of fees, living, and travel along with social costs, such as crime, safety and racial discrimination. The presence of other students from home nations and the option for part-time work were important attributes of this factor. Additional factors included:
the environment, as related to perceptions about the climate in the host country; the geographic and time proximity between home and host nations; and social links defined as family or friends residing in the destination country.
The utility of the push-pull framework is apparent given the identification of factors affecting mobility patterns and trends of university international students from developing nations. Yet in some respects this framework compromises attention to the complexities associated with the international student experience. Limitations are noted in terms of the exclusion of international students from developed countries who pursue tertiary level education in either developing or other developed nations.
The design of the push-pull framework, moreover, locates the national identity of international students as a reference for commonality; thus international students are defined as a homogenized group rather than as clusters of individuals who have significant differences between and within their nationalities.
Critics argue that scholarship addressing the complexities of the international student experience remains on the fringe of cross-border education literature due in part to a deficit of concepts to articulate the multidimensional complexities of international students’ experiences. In response, a transnational lens is offered to illuminate theoretical and critical interpretations intended to examine the “persistent pull of ‘locality’ as a social space of identity formation” (Smith & Guarnizo, 1998, p.
22).
A transnational lens is defined as “an unbounded terrain of interlocking egocentric networks that extends across the borders of two or more nation-states and that incorporates participants in the day-to-day activities of social reproduction in these various locations” (Fouron & Schiller, 2001, p. 544). Case study research presented in the text, Crossing Customs: International Students Write on U.S. College Life and Culture, exemplifies this definition. An emphasis on participant voice was considered a central method to examine international student experiences in terms of contrasts between familiarity and differences of daily life experience and the academic arena of host institutions. Guiding themes reveal the importance of renegotiating identities and developing habits of mind to consider the multitude of personal and professional options offered by the international student experience. The case study research contributes to discourse that (a) addresses the intersections of students’ past, present, and future; (b) challenges critical interpretations of the issues and dilemmas surrounding the international student experience and; (c) refutes generalizations that international students are a homogeneous group who share common experiences in host nations (Smith & Guarnizo, 1998).