East Asian Students’ Social and Academic Integration and their Satisfaction with Learning Outcomes at Norwegian Higher Education Institutions

(1)

East Asian Students’ Social and Academic Integration and their

Satisfaction with Learning Outcomes at Norwegian Higher Education

Institutions

Yuki Hirano Master’s programme

30 credits

Master of Philosophy in Higher Education Faculty of Educational Sciences

University of Oslo

December 2021

(2)

I

Abstract

The number of international students from East Asian countries at Norwegian higher education institutions is rapidly increasing. Despite the increased number of East Asian students, there has not been enough research done on these students. Considering East Asian students’ unique challenges such as in language and cultural gaps, this study aims to

contribute to the understanding of East Asian international students’ integration and

satisfaction with learning outcomes at Norwegian higher education institutions. In this study, an analytical framework developed from Tinto’s student integration model and Biggs’ 3P (Presage-Process-Product factors) model was applied. The data used in this study was collected by the Norwegian Agency of International Cooperation and Quality Enhancement in Higher Education (DIKU) in 2019 (Paulsen, 2020). DIKU has collected data from 5094 international students at Norwegian higher education institutions, of these, 360 had

citizenship from East Asian countries (China, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan).

The data was processed and analyzed statistically using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).

The study has confirmed the adoptability of the analytical framework based on Tinto’s student integration model and Biggs’ 3P model to a good extent on East Asian international students at Norwegian higher education institutions. From statistical analysis, firstly, there were found significantly lower levels of social and academic integration and satisfaction with learning outcomes among East Asian students compared with Nordic students group and English-speaking countries’ students group with the exception of the mean difference of social integration level between East Asian students and Nordic students group, which was not statistically significant. Secondly, there was found a significant weak positive correlation between social integration level and satisfaction with learning outcomes, and a significant moderate positive correlation between academic integration level and satisfaction with learning outcomes. Finally, the presage factors (personal characteristics and teaching environment) were found to be important factors to decide students’ levels of social and academic integration and level of satisfaction with learning outcomes as it was expected in the analytical framework based on Tinto’s student integration model and Biggs’ 3P model.

Among the personal characteristics that were statistically analyzed, age, student type (exchange or degree student), academic level, and motivations were found to be significant factors for social and academic integration. Among the teaching environments, academic workload and attitude of academic staff and Norwegian students were found to be significant

(3)

II factors for social and academic integration, and satisfaction with learning outcomes. Gender, citizenship (country of origin within East Asia), fields of study, and students’ accommodation type were found not significantly related to students’ level of social and academic integration, nor the level of satisfaction with learning outcomes in this study.

(4)

III

Acknowledgement

I am thankful for all who has supported me through this enjoyable journey writing a thesis on something I was really interested in. I got such a great support socially and

academically from my family, my friends, and the academic staff at the University of Oslo.

To my supervisor, professor Peter Maassen, thank you so much for your patient guidance all the way through writing the master thesis. Your expert advice and feedback had been always accurate and helpful. Without your guidance, the writing journey has not been possible.

I would also like to give a huge thanks my biggest supporter and husband, Torbjørn.

Without your daily support, understanding, and warm hugs, I could not complete my degree.

I am super thankful for my good, nice, cool, and smart friends at master in Higher Education - JD, Jenny, Heike, BJ, Alina, and Philip. Even though it made us difficult to socialize sometimes because of COVID, it had been such an enjoyable time discussing academic and other fun stuff over lunch and hanging out in Oslo and in Bergen (and on Zoom, of course). Thank you so much JD for the super help on the professional proof- reading.

To my family in Japan - Thank you so much for always supporting me not choosing an easy path. I hope I can explain what I wrote about when I come back to Japan.

Thank you so much, Kristi, the program coordinator, for supporting us all the way through the program. Your kind consideration and professional work made me possible to enjoy the whole years being a master student.

(5)

IV

List of Abbreviations

ANOVA - Analysis of Variance

DBH - Database for Statistics about Higher Education df - Degrees of freedom

DIKU - Norwegian Agency for International Cooperation and Quality Enhancement in Higher Education

EEU - European Economic Union

EHEA - European Higher Education Area EQF - European Qualification Framework EU - European Union

GDP - Gross Domestic Product GPR - Gross Participation Rate HEIs – Higher Education Institutions M - Mean

MEXT - Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology in Japan NKR - Nasjonalt kvalifikasjonsrammeverk for livslang læring (Norwegian qualification framework for lifelong learning)

NOKUT - Nasjonalt organ for kvalitet i utdanningen (Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance in Education)

OECD - Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development TOEFL iBT - Internet-based Test of English as a Foreign Language SACQ - Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire

SD - Standard Deviation

SSB - Statistisk Sentralbyrå (Statistics Norway) Vai - Level of academic integration

Vsa - Level of satisfaction with learning outcomes Vsi - Level of social integration

(8)

VII

List of Tables

Table 1 The number of exchange agreements with universities in selected countries in East

Asia (2021)... 4

Table 2 Relative share of public, private, and international expenditure on educational institutions (tertiary), by the final source of funds, in Japan, South Korea, Norway, OECD average, EU 23 average (2017) ... 8

Table 3 Learning outcome descriptors by NOKUT for level 6 (Bachelor) ... 20

Table 4 TOEFL iBT average scores by native country (East Asian countries and Nordic countries)... 23

Table 5 Home continent of international students ... 32

Table 6 Field of study, academic level, and types of student of international students... 32

Table 7 Citizenship and gender distribution among East Asian students ... 32

Table 8 Field of study and types of student, academic level distribution among East Asian students ... 33

Table 9 Comparison of means of Vsi, Vsa, and Vai among East Asian, Nordic, and English- speaking countries' students group ... 34

Table 10 Tests of Homogeneity of Variances (include “the other international students group”) ... 38

Table 11 Tests of Homogeneity of Variances (does not include “the other international students group”) ... 39

Table 12 ANOVA (East Asian students, Nordic students, and English-speaking countries’ students) ... 40

Table 13 Multiple Comparisons (East Asian students, Nordic students, English-speaking countries’ students) Tukey HSD ... 41

Table 14 Correlations (East Asian students) ... 43

Table 15 Gender (East Asian students) ... 45

Table 16 Levene's Test for Equality of Variances ... 45

Table 17 t-test for equality of means (gender, East Asian students) ... 45

Table 18 Age (A1: age under 22, A2: 23-25, A3: 26-30, A4: over 31) ... 47

Table 19 ANOVA (Age groups - East Asian students) ... 47

Table 20 Types of student (East Asian students) ... 49

Table 22 t-test for equality of means (types of student, East Asian students) ... 49

Table 23 Academic level (East Asian students) ... 50

Table 25 t-test for equality of means (Academic level, East Asian students) ... 51

Table 26 ANOVA (East Asian groups: China, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong) ... 53

Table 27 Motivation I East Asian students ... 54

Table 29 t-test for equality of means (Yes\No, East Asian students) ... 55

Table 30 Motivation II East Asian students ... 56

Table 32 t-test for equality of means (Yes\No, East Asian students) ... 56

(9)

VIII

List of Figures

Figure 1 Academic level among exchange and degree students... 5

Figure 2 Simple boxplot of Vsi by different region groups (East Asian students, Nordic students, English-speaking countries' students, other international students group) ... 35

Figure 3 Simple boxplot of Vai by different region groups (East Asian students, Nordic students, English-speaking countries' students, other international students group) ... 35

Figure 4 Simple boxplot of Vsa by different region groups (East Asian students, Nordic students, English-speaking countries' students, other international students group) ... 36

Figure 5 Histogram of Vsi (the whole sample) ... 37

Figure 6 Histogram of Vai (the whole sample) ... 37

Figure 7 Histogram of Vsa (the whole sample) ... 37

Figure 8 Scatter plot of Vsi by Vsa (East Asian students) ... 44

Figure 9 Scatter plot of Vai by Vsa (East Asian student) ... 44

(10)

1

1 Introduction 1.1 Background

People have been moving across borders more than ever and the number of students who study abroad is increasing rapidly in the last few decades. In addition, as higher

education developed from elite to mass education, and in many countries to universal access, students with a much greater variety of backgrounds have access to higher education (Trow, 1970) and the need for higher education inclusive of students with different backgrounds is sharply increasing. This globalization and the extended access to higher education for students with various backgrounds resulted in the increased number of immigrant students and international students at Norwegian higher education institutions (SSB, 2019). According to Statistisk Sentralbyrå (2019), which is referred to as SSB, about 10% of students at higher education institutions in Norway are born outside Norway to non-Norwegian parents. This includes students who move to Norway in order to study; mainly exchange students and graduate students, and for other reasons like refugees, family, and work. The focus of this study are international students who came to Norway in order to study but were born outside Norway and have foreign citizenship. Those who came to Norway for other reasons like refugees, family, and work will be referred to as immigrant students in this study. Especially among the increased number of international students, the increase in the number of

international students from East Asia at Norwegian higher education institutions is

remarkable. During the last 10 years from 2008 to 2018, the number of international students from East Asian countries (China, Japan, and South Korea) at Norwegian higher education institutions has more than doubled. During the period from 2008 to 2018, the number of Chinese international students in Norway has increased from 762 to 1391, with Japanese students also increasing from 87 to 255, and South Korean students increasing from 106 to 246 (DIKU, n.d.). In this statistic, the number of international students was the sum of the number of exchange students and full-time international students enrolled in Norwegian master programs. The number of international students enrolled in the Norwegian bachelor program was not included because there were too few international bachelor programs available in Norway. Despite the increased number of East Asian international students, Asian students’ social integration has not drawn attention from researchers nor been studied much compared with a great number of studies on refugee students and various support schemes for refugee and asylum seeker students. For example, in 2015, the University of

(11)

2

Oslo made a call for ‘Academic dugnad’ aiming to “remove barriers for the integration of refugees with a focus on students and scholars” (University of Oslo, n.d., a) through organizing internships for refugees with an academic background and giving opportunities for refugees and asylum seekers to get to build local networks through various events. There have also been many research projects done on refugee students’ social and academic integration in higher education (Kontowski & Leitsberger, 2018; Yildiz, 2019). However, there have not been many studies done on Asian international students specifically. Asian international students are said to have different challenges in higher education, for example in language, cultural gaps, and difficulty in social integration (Lin & Scherz, 2014; Trice, 2003).

This might be because there are more students with refugee backgrounds than students from East Asia. There were no statistics available for the ratio of refugee students in Norwegian higher education institutions, but about 4.5% of the population in Norway has a refugee background (SSB, 2021) while only 0.28% of the population is from East Asia (China, South Korea, North Korea, Japan, and Taiwan) (SSB, 2021). So, it is possible that the smaller number of East Asian immigrants than refugees resulted in less attention to East Asian students’ integration at Norwegian higher education institutions. However, the smaller population of East Asian students does not mean their integration can be ignored.

Considering the rapid increase in the number of Asian international students and the lack of knowledge on their academic and social integration, it is important to look at East Asian students separately regarding their culture, value, and language. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic from 2020 and the shift from physical to digital classrooms following the

lockdowns reminded the higher education sector of the importance of students’ social and academic integration. The report published by an expert group from several higher education institutions and government institutions in Norway (Ekspertgruppe, 2020) reports that many of the higher education institutions and students in Norway are worried about the lack of social and academic belongingness caused by the use of digital classrooms and the closing of campuses, and the lacking meeting places at higher education institutions. It is for these reasons that research on social and academic integration in relation to students' satisfaction is an under-researched field that deserves more attention.

1.2 Who are East Asian Students in Norway?

Each East Asian country has different characteristics such as its language, culture and religious views, history, and economical settings. However, there are also some similarities

(12)

3

among them. In this section the definition of East Asian countries will be presented and the different groups of international students will be discussed, followed by highlighting the differences and similarities within those countries in terms of culture and identities in educational settings.

1.2.1 Definition of the East Asian Countries

According to the United Nations Geoscheme, East Asian countries include China, Hong Kong (Special administrative region), Macau (Special administrative region),

Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), Japan, Mongolia and the Republic of Korea. In addition, Taiwan is often considered an independent region in many studies as it has its own identity and educational system (Teng et al., 2019; DIKU, 2019). Database for Statistics about Higher Education (DBH) gives different country codes to Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan (DBH, n.d.). In many of the universities in Norway, Hong Kong and Taiwan are categorized separately from China when they list exchange agreements by countries (University of Oslo, n.d., b.; University of Bergen, n.d.). Therefore, this research would include Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan as countries and regions in East Asia.

However, because of the limited number of international students from Macau, Mongolia, and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) in Norway, and the limited number of exchange agreements between universities in Norway and universities in those countries, this study will be only focusing on China, Hong Kong, Japan, the Republic of Korea (from here only referred as South Korea to avoid confusion), and Taiwan.

1.2.2 Who are the international students from East Asia

Among the East Asian international students in Norway, there are two main types of international students - one is exchange students and the other is degree-seeking students.

DBH defines foreign students as students at universities or colleges who have foreign citizenship. However, this includes those who already have moved to Norway before they started their studies. In this study, the focus is international students who came to Norway for the purpose of study, so those who were in Norway prior to their study will be excluded from this study’s target demographic. Exchange students are those who come to Norway as a part of their degree program in their home institution. The exchange students’ home institutions have exchange agreements with Norwegian higher education institutions and those exchange

(13)

4

students stay relatively shorter periods in Norway from one semester and mostly up to one year. According to the information retrieved on 29^th July 2021, as Table 1 shows, the University of Oslo has 847 exchange agreements with universities in the world and 56 of them are with universities in Asia. Among those 56, most of the agreements are with universities in East Asian countries, and there are 13 agreements with China, six with Taiwan, three with Hong Kong, 20 with Japan, and seven with South Korea (University of Oslo, n.d., b). Similarly, the University of Bergen has 1259 exchange agreements and of those exchange agreements, 20 are with China, 0 are with Taiwan, seven are with Hong Kong, 17 are with Japan, and three are with South Korea. (University of Bergen, n.d.).

Table 1

The number of exchange agreements with universities in selected countries in East Asia (2021)

A: university-wide agreements B: faculty level agreements, and C: department level agreements.

Country University of Oslo University of Bergen

Total in the world 847 1259

China 13 (A:2, B:7, C:4) 20 (A:4, B:15, C:1)

Taiwan 6 (A:0, B:2, C:4) 0

Hong Kong 3 (A:3, B:0, C:0) 7 (A:4, B:3, C:0)

Japan 20 (A:0, B:3, C:17) 17 (A:12, B:5, C:0)

South Korea 7 (A:1, B:6, C:0) 3 (A:2, B:1, C:0)

Note The number of exchange agreements with universities in selected countries in East Asia (2021) A: university- wide agreements B: faculty level agreements, and C: department level agreements.

References: University of Oslo (n.d.) retrieved on 29^th July, 2021 Exchange agreements

https://www.uio.no/english/studies/exchange/agreements/ University of Bergen (n.d.) retrieved on 29^th July, 2021 Exchange agreements https://www.uib.no/en/exchange-agreement

Exchange agreements are first categorized into three levels, which are A) university- wide agreements B) faculty level agreements, and C) department level agreements.

According to the University of Oslo (n.d., c), university-wide agreements are those which are open to basically all the students at the university with some limitations. Faculty level

agreements are those which are open only to students who are enrolled in the programs at the faculty even though there can be some exceptions for students in other faculties. Department

(14)

5

level agreements are limited to students enrolled in only one or a few programs within the department. While most exchange agreements with universities in Europe are funded through the Erasmus+ program, in which Norway is participating as one of the program countries, exchange agreements with universities in East Asian countries are mainly in the form of bilateral agreements between universities, specific programs, or faculties. Many of those exchange students on both the Erasmus+ program and other bilateral agreements are on the bachelor’s level (DIKU, 2019). On the other hand, degree-seeking students are those who are affiliated to the higher education institutions in Norway, not to any of their home countries’

institutions, and they come to Norway in order to undertake a complete degree. Because of the lack of tuition fees at all the public universities and colleges for all the students and the possibilities for part-time work on the side of their studies, Norway has been ranked one of the most attractive countries for international students (OECD, 2019). In contrast to exchange students, most of the degree-seeking students are on the master’s level (DIKU, 2019).

According to the survey conducted by DIKU in 2019 targeted to international students in Norway, among respondents on bachelor level, 24% were degree students and 76% were exchange students, while among respondents on the master’s level, 83% were degree students and 17% were exchange students. This is most likely because most of the courses in the bachelor require a certain level of Norwegian proficiency for the entrance while many of the master programs are available in English.

Figure 1

Academic level among exchange and degree students (N=4808)

Note The graph shows the respondents’ level of academic (bachelor/master) and the distributions of exchange and degree students from the survey conducted by DIKU (2019). Reformatted the figure from “International Students in Norway:

Contributors to Quality in Higher Education” (p.17) by R. Tungesvik, T. Holme, M. Pausen & A. A. Didriksen, 2019, DIKU (Norwegian Agency for International Cooperation and Quality Enhancement in Higher Education)

Between degree-seeking students and exchange students, it is easy to expect that the level of social integration and academic integration level will be different because of the length of their stay and different motivations for study. Even though most of the exchange

(15)

6

students are going to stay in Norway for 1-2 semesters, many of the degree-seeking students will be staying in Norway for 2-3 years and some of them even stay longer after their studies to work or to continue their studies. This length of study would affect the number of

occasions to interact with other international and Norwegian students, faculty members and the Norwegian community outside the universities. In addition, exchange students’

motivation to stay in Norway or move back to Norway is considerably lower than that of degree-seeking students, many of whom consider staying in Norway after their studies to work or to keep studying (DIKU, 2019). According to Tronstad and Andreassen (2013), about 20% of those who came to Norway to take education in universities and colleges in 2000-2001 were still staying in Norway in 2011, and about 40% of students who came to Norway from third countries (all the countries except EU and EEU countries) in 2007 were still staying in Norway in 2011, while only 22% of students who came to Norway from EU and EEU countries in 2000-2001 were still staying in Norway in 2011. It is expected that the stronger intention to stay in Norway after their studies the students have, the more students will engage with the work environment through traineeship or internships and engage seriously in their studies, and therefore achieve better academic and social integration.

1.2.3 Higher Education Model in East Asian Countries: Similar but not Homogeneous

Some of the commonalities in East Asian countries’ higher education systems are the high rate of participation in tertiary education, the relatively high share of higher education costs financed by private households, and the stiff competition to get into universities.

Firstly, the tertiary participation rate in East Asian countries is higher than the global average. The world’s average tertiary gross participation rate (GPR: % of the total enrollment to the population of the age group that corresponds to the level of education; The World Bank, 2020) is 38.8% in 2019. According to the data by the World Bank (2020), the GPR of China is 54% as of 2019, Hong Kong is 81% as of 2019, and South Korea is 96% as of 2018.

The enrollment rate in higher education among the population between the age of 18 and 21 is 84% in Taiwan in 2016 (China Statistical Yearbook, 2018). According to OECD (2020), 61.5% of the population aged between 25-34 are having completed higher education in Japan in 2019, which is by far higher than the OECD average of 44.9%. The high enrollment rate in higher education in Japan is supported by the growth of the number of private higher

education institutions (private universities and private junior colleges) and the growth of

(16)

7

female participation in higher education (Huang, 2012). More recently, according to the report by MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology in Japan) in 2021, the number of private universities in Japan is still increasing from 471 to 593 between 2000 and 2020. However, the number of private junior colleges in Japan has decreased from 460 to 291 between 2000 and 2020, and many of the private junior colleges are struggling to recruit new students. In 2020, at about 35% of private junior colleges in Japan, the number of new students was less than 80% of the quota of their college (MEXT, 2021). Some of the reasons for this tendency are the decreasing population of younger generations and more female students who began to choose four-year universities rather than junior colleges (MEXT, 2021; Saito, 2017).

Secondly, in those East Asian countries, the share of higher education costs financed by households is higher compared to the OECD average and the public expenditure on higher education is relatively low. According to the statistics by OECD (2020), public expenditure on higher education as a percentage of GDP was 0.6% in South Korea and 0.4% in Japan, 0.9% in the United States, and 1.8% in Norway. The average of OECD countries is 1.0%.

Similarly, private expenditure on higher education as a percentage of GDP was 1.0% in South Korea, 1.0% in Japan, 1.7% in the United States, and 0.1% in Norway. The average of OECD countries is 0.4% (OECD, 2020). The private expenditure includes tuition fees, which are mainly paid by students and their families, and expenditure by other private entities, which include private businesses and non-profit organizations. As shown in Table 2, Japan and South Korea depend highly on household expenditure, which comes mainly in the form of tuition fees. One of the reasons for these high tuition fees is the large number of private higher education institutions. Because of the stiff competition to get into national and public universities, many of the students who are less qualified choose to go to private higher education institutions. In Japan, 82.4% of higher education institutions (universities and junior colleges) are private and 74.8% of students are enrolled in private higher education institutions as of 2019, and in South Korea 84% of higher education institutions are private and 79.9% of students are enrolled in private higher education institutions as of 2018

(MEXT, 2020). In addition, unlike the UK and the US, where the level of tuition fees is also high, the availability of public and private scholarships is limited in Japan and South Korea.

(17)

8 Table 2

Relative share of public, private, and international expenditure on educational institutions (tertiary), by the final source of funds, in Japan, South Korea, Norway, OECD average, EU 23 average (2017)

Country Public sources

Private sources International sources Household

expenditure

Expenditure by other private entities

All private sources

Japan 31 53 16 69 0

South Korea 38 43 19 62 x

Norway 92 4 3 7 1

OECD average

68 21 9 29 3

EU 23 average

73 16 7 22 4

Note: x means no data available; This is a table showing the share of public, private, and international expenditure on tertiary education in Japan, South Korea, Norway, and the average in OECD countries and EU 23. The sources are after transfers between public and private sectors, which means the indirect public financing through the private sector, such as public subsidies for tuition fees "Relative share of public, private and international expenditure on educational institutions, by the final source of funds (2017): After transfers between public and private sectors, by the level of education",

in Financial resources invested in education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi-org.ezproxy.uio.no/10.1787/9d8ca612-en.

In China, 21.5% of financing on higher education is covered by tuition fees in 2016 according to the statistics by the Ministry of Education in China (2017), and the share of private higher education institutions is 28.4% and 22.8% of students are enrolled in private higher education institutions as of 2017 (MEXT, 2020). China has a relatively lower share of household expenditure on higher education and fewer private higher education institutions compared to Japan and South Korea. In China, traditionally university students did not have to pay tuition fees. Until the higher education reform in China in 1978, universities were owned by the state and seen as a political tool for revolution. However, as the Chinese

economy developed and the number of students increased, university education has increased its role to develop the economy and university education came to be considered as “an

investment in a person’s future”. As the financial burden on the state increased and the role of university education shifted, tuition fees were introduced in 1999 (Kang, 2004). Because of the long history of universities owned by states as a political tool, the number of private

(18)

9

universities is still relatively low and the share of financing on higher education covered by tuition fees is still relatively low.

Thirdly, entering universities in those East Asian countries is highly competitive. The prestige of the university where a student graduates directly affects his/her future job

prospects, so there is a strong competition to enter “good” (highly ranked in research and education, prestigious, and with a good reputation) universities. China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, and South Korea each have a standardized entrance exam, which is conducted once a year. China has The National College Entrance Examination (NCEE), which is called Gaokao in Chinese, Taiwan has General Scholastic Ability Test (GSAT) and Advanced Subject Test (AST), Hong Kong has the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination (HKDSE), Japan has Common Test for University Admissions, and South Korea has College Scholastic Ability Test (CSAT). The results of the exam strongly influence the chances of a student entering the university, course, and program of their choice, so many of the students are pressured into rigid study routines. Many of them go to private cram schools¹ after the classes at their high school to prepare for those exams. Because of the relatively high cost of education often paid by parents to prepare them for those exams, combined with a culture where parents often influence a lot their children’s choice of university and their programs, many parents pressure their children to enter prestigious universities (Marginson, 2010;

Komatsu & Rappleye, 2018).

1.2.4 Culture in Relation to Higher Education in the East Asian Countries

Among East Asian countries, the influence of Confucianism is still strong.

Confucianism is a philosophical doctrine taught by Confucius and many other Chinese scholars beginning around 6^th-5^th century BCE in China, and it has spread to many other countries in East Asia. Confucianism has impacted education, politics and the way of life in these countries (Slote & De Vos, 1998; Huang & Gove, 2015).

One of the important elements of Confucianism is the value of filial piety. Filial piety means to respect and care for your own parents and ancestors (Hwang, 1999; Yeh, 2003). As it is expected to take care of parents when they get sick or when they get older, the pressure for children from their parents to achieve better academic performance to be successful in

1 Private cram schools in East Asia are where students get extra teaching from their private tutors by paying fees. It is common for students in South Korea, Japan, China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan to go to those cram schools in order to prepare for their high school and university entrance exams.

(19)

10

their career to support their parents is quite strong (Yeh, 2003). Another important cultural norm is social class. Education is tightly connected to social class in Confucianism.

According to occupation, the population was divided into four social strata: scholars, farmers, workers, and businessmen, with scholars ranked the highest of all in this social class (Huang

& Gov, 2015). Therefore, pursuing higher academic attainment and entering higher ranked universities is seen as a way to attain social status and many people in East Asia often strive to get into higher ranked universities. Asian parents, especially mothers are often called "tiger parents" or "tiger mothers" who pressure their children harshly to attain better academic achievement (Chua, 2011; Huang & Gove, 2015). Behind this is the Confucian value of filial piety and the tight connection between education and social class (Marginson, 2010).

1.3 Aims of this Research

This research aims to contribute to the understanding of how students’ characteristics and their environment impact their integration and satisfaction and find out what kind of models or theories can be adopted for the relation between the East Asian international students’ level of social and academic integration and their satisfaction with their learning outcomes. Using the data collected by the Norwegian Agency for International Cooperation and Quality Enhancement in Higher Education (DIKU) in 2019², this thesis will examine the correlation between Asian students’ level of social and academic integration and students’

satisfaction with their learning outcomes under various factors such as characteristics of students and teaching environment. There has not been much research done on specifically East Asian students’ social and academic integration and their satisfaction with learning outcomes at Norwegian higher education institutions. In addition, there has not been enough quantitative research using a large number of samples in the field of students’ integration and satisfaction. This quantitative research focusing on East Asian students’ integration and satisfaction with learning outcomes would contribute to giving more reliable and objective insights in this area of studies through advanced statistical analysis methods and a large amount of data engaged.

1.4 Research Questions

2 International Cooperation and Quality Enhancement in Higher Education (DIKU) became a part of the Directorate for Higher Education and Skills (HK-dir), which was established on 1, July, 2021.

(20)

11

Taking the above considerations as a starting point, the following research questions will be addressed in this study.

Research Question 1: How does the level of social and academic integration and satisfaction with the learning outcomes among East Asian students in Norwegian higher education institutions compare with the level of social and academic integration and satisfaction with the learning outcomes of the whole international student population in Norway and with selected groups of international students?

Research Question 2: What is the correlation between the level of (social and academic) integration and the satisfaction with the learning outcomes among international students from East Asia registered at Norwegian higher education institutions?

Research Question 3: Among East Asian students registered at Norwegian HEIs, what are the main factors influencing different levels of (social and academic) integration and levels of satisfaction with learning outcomes?

2 Literature Review

This literature review will be written in the following order: 2.1 will look at related studies on social and academic integration, 2.2 will look at related studies and background on learning outcomes and 2.3 will examine theories and models relevant to this research. The literature to be reviewed was chosen based on the frequency cited in recent relevant studies and relevancy to this study, which focuses on international students in Norway.

2.1 Studies on Social and Academic Integration

Students’ integration at higher education institutions has been a key interest of many studies in higher education (Tinto 1975, 1993; Severiens & Schimidt, 2009). International students’ social integration has gained more and more attention recently because the

interaction between international students and domestic students is considered beneficial not only for the international students themselves but also for domestic students from the

perspective of ‘Internationalisation at Home’ (Beelen, 2014). The term ‘Internationalisation

(21)

12

at Home’ (I@H) refers to internationalization which occurs in “curriculum and programs, teaching/learning processes, extra-curricular activities, liaison with local cultural/ethnic groups and research or scholarly activity” without sending students abroad (Beelen, 2014, p.288). This I@H is also considered to be an important factor to improve quality of education in Norway, as the Norwegian Agency for International Cooperation and Quality

Enhancement in Higher Education (DIKU) states that “International classrooms can bring about improved learning outcomes and intercultural skills for both international and domestic students. Additionally, they foster international networks between students and hence build social capital, which can be beneficial for the students’ future lives and careers” (2019, p.54).

According to Tinto (1993), academic integration derives from academic performance and faculty/staff interactions (academic systems), and social integration occurs through

extracurricular activities and peer group interactions (social systems). Tinto defines academic systems as “entire formal education of students” and the academic systems include activities in “the classrooms and laboratories of the institution and involve various faculty and staff whose primary responsible for the formal education of students” (Tinto, 1993, p.106). Social systems are described as “the daily life and personal needs of the various members of the institution, especially the students” and it consists of “interactions among students, faculty, and staff that take place largely outside the formal academic domain of the college” (Tinto, 1993, p.106). On the other hand, Severiens and Schmidt (2009) explained social integration and academic integration by dividing them into formal and informal integration. They argue that formal social integration includes contacts with peer students in academic activities, while informal social integration involves social contacts with other students outside the academic contexts including student activities. Similarly, they explain that formal academic integration involves the contacts between teachers and students in the context of studying, informal academic integration includes the contacts between teachers and students which happens outside the classroom. They claim that each of these integration forms takes an important role in students’ academic attainment.

2.2 Studies and Background on Learning Outcomes

As student mobility in higher education has taken a more important role in European higher education over the last few decades, the recognition of educational qualifications (in the forms of credit points and degrees earned) and quality assurance practices in each country’s higher education systems have become important to discuss. Considering the need

(22)

13

for coherent higher education systems across Europe, the Bologna Process was established from the Sorbonne Declaration in 1998 and Bologna Declaration in 1999. The Bologna Process seeks to converge specific features on national higher education systems in Europe and increase the academic mobility among European higher education institutions through establishing the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). Under Bologna Process, the need for a tool to understand and compare other participant countries’ education increased, and therefore an agreement to create a framework of qualifications for the EHEA was reached at the ministerial meeting in Bergen in 2005. The Bologna framework (also referred to as EHEA-QF) was developed under the Bologna process, and refers to bachelor level, master level, and Ph.D. level as the first, second, and third cycle, setting the learning outcomes for each level. In February 2008, the EU adopted "a recommendation on the establishment of a European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning" (the European Qualifications Framework – EQF). The EQF is a common European reference framework, which is intended to make educational qualifications more readable and understandable across different countries and systems. The core of the EQF consists of eight so-called reference levels defined in terms of three types of learning outcomes, that is knowledge, skills, and competencies (or autonomy-responsibility). Learning outcomes express what individuals know, understand, and are able to do at the end of a learning process. In the context of EQF,

“knowledge is described as theoretical and/or factual”, “skills are described as cognitive (involving the use of logical, intuitive and creative thinking) and practical (involving manual dexterity and the use of methods, materials, tools, and instruments)”, and “responsibility and autonomy is described as the ability of the learner to apply knowledge and skills

autonomously and with responsibility” (European Union, n.d.).

In Norway, using the principles of the European Qualifications Framework (EQF), the Norwegian qualification framework for lifelong learning (in Norwegian abbreviated as NKR) was developed. NKR defines learning outcomes as “statements of what a learner knows, understands and is able to do on completion of a learning process, which is defined in terms of knowledge, skills and competence” (Norwegian Ministry of Education and

Research, 2014). Knowledge is “understanding of theories, facts, principles, procedures in subject areas and/or occupations”, skills is “ability to utilize knowledge to solve problems or tasks (cognitive, practical, creative and communication skills)”, and general competence is

“ability to utilize knowledge and skills in an independent manner in different situations”

according to the definitions by NOKUT (n.d.).

(23)

14

Biggs (1989), on the other hand, classifies the learning outcomes into quantitative, qualitative, institutional, and affective outcomes. Quantitative outcomes refer to how much was learned, qualitative outcomes refer to how well was learned, institutional outcomes refer to the grades and accreditation the student receives, and affective outcomes refer to how students are satisfied with their learning (Biggs, 1989, p.12). Lizzio et al. (2002) took a similar starting point as Biggs (1989) to define learning outcomes, but they have instead classified learning outcomes into two; hard and soft. Hard learning outcomes refer to the students’ academic achievements like grades and the acquisition of credit points, while soft learning outcomes refer to students’ satisfaction and development of generic skills (Lizzio et al., 2002).

2.3 Theories and Models

Tinto’s student integration model is one of the most commonly used models for studying students’ integration and satisfaction (Tinto, 1975, 1993; Rienties et al., 2012;

Smith, 2015; Ploner, 2012). Tinto (1975) drew a schema for dropout from college, and there he argues that academic integration and social integration lead to goal commitment and institutional commitment, which decides if students drop out or not. He also claims that a variety of factors like gender, ethnicity, ability, experiences, family backgrounds, and cultural background have impacts on performance in college (p.94). He further claims that “it is the individual’s integration into the academic and social system of the college that most directly relates to his continuance in that college” (p.96). However, the relationship between students’

country of origin and integration is still unclear even though he argued that “it is clear that race is an independent predictor of dropout” (p.119). Tinto’s framework of social integration and drop-out is often used in different studies on social integration in higher education institutions.

As Tinto (1975) suggested, social and academic integration is said to be dependent on students’ backgrounds. Rienties et al. (2012) divided students into three groups, which are local students, Western international students, and non-Western international students, which suggested that students’ different cultural and social background has a great impact on their process and outcomes of their social and academic integration. Rienties et al. (2012)

conducted cross-institutional research on the difference in academic performance and the level of academic and social integration between local and international students in five business schools in Netherlands and found that non-Western students had a lower level of

(24)

15

social integration than Western students, while they had a quite similar level of academic integration. They also found that better academic integration led to students’ higher level of academic performance for local students and Western students, however, the correlation between academic adjustment and academic performance for non-Western students was weak. They suggest that it is important to divide these non-Western students into smaller groups so that they can look closer into them.

While Tinto (1975) and Rienties et al. (2012) researched the students’ side of characteristics and adoption to universities, Ploner (2018) on the other hand conducted research into the characteristics and commitment of higher education institutions. Ploner (2012) studied international students’ experience of transition to be socially integrated and academic hospitality at universities in the UK. The author has used the concept of “academic hospitality”, which “involves openness and reciprocity towards others by way of sharing and receiving, and by developing meaningful conversations with knowledges that are perceived as ‘other’ or opposite to one’s own beliefs, ethics and values” (p.167) and claimed that the academic hospitality includes material, virtual, epistemological, linguistic and touristic hospitality, and they help international students to be socially integrated at higher education institutions.

Another frequently adopted model in the studies of students’ characteristics, teaching environment, and learning outcomes is Biggs’ 3P model (Biggs, 1989, 1993; Lizzio et al., 2002; Zhang, 2000). Biggs (1989) introduced the 3P model to explain what reasons determine students’ quality of learning. 3P refers to presage factors, process factors, and product factors. Presage factors are the factors that exist prior to students’ learning, such as student characteristics and teaching context (Biggs, 1993). Student characteristics include prior knowledge, abilities, preferred ways of learning, values, motivations, and expectations of students, and teaching contexts include course structure, content, methods of teaching, and assessment (Biggs, 1989;1993). Students’ perception of teaching context impacts the way students engage in their learning (Biggs, 1993). Presage factors such as student characteristics and teaching contexts decide how students perceive their learning tasks, for example, if they think a task is interesting or boring, and how they will engage with those task components.

The relations between presage factors and process factors were studied quantitatively by Lizzio et al. (2002). In the study, they have used prior academic achievement, academic workload, and ways of teaching conducted as presage factors. They found that the heavy workload and inappropriate assessment led students to adopt surface approaches to study, and students who perceive their teaching environment positively adopted deep approaches to

(25)

16

study while those who perceive their teaching environment negatively adopted surface

approaches to study (Lizzio et al., 2002). The way students engage with their learning tasks is called process factors and Biggs identifies three approaches to learning tasks that students adopt depending on their motives, which are surface, deep, and achieving approaches (Biggs, 1989). The surface approach is an approach that students adopt when they have an extrinsic motive such as seeing the university as a tool to obtaining a better job, resulting in them not wanting to fail but also not wanting to work too hard. Students have more focus on limited, concrete and literal aspects of task components than the underlying meaning in the task components. The deep approach, on the other hand, is an approach that students adopt when they have an intrinsic motive such as to satisfy their curiosity in the topic. Students have more focus on underlying meaning than literal aspects, and they discuss more with others and try to relate one task component with other components and other tasks. The achieving approach is an approach that students adopt solely to achieve high grades. Students try to optimize the use of time and effort to achieve the best grade in the most effective way (Biggs, 1989, p.13; Biggs, 1993, pp.75-76).

According to Biggs (1989), these different ways of students’ approaches to a task lead to different levels of learning outcomes. This relation between process factors and learning outcomes is proven in many other quantitative studies. For example, Shum et al. (2021) found that a deep approach to learning positively predicted learning achievements, and Lizzio et al. (2002) found that a deep approach positively predicted students’ self-reported

development of generic skills. A surface approach was found to positively predict students’

grade (grade points average), which Lizzio et al. (2002) assumes due to course grades are often evaluated based on the memorization of factual knowledge rather than actual mastery of the curriculum (p.37). Biggs classifies the learning outcomes into quantitative, qualitative, institutional, and affective outcomes. Quantitative outcomes refer to how much was learned, and qualitative outcomes refer to how well was learned, and institutional outcomes refer to the grades and accreditation the student receives, and affective outcomes refer to how students are satisfied with their learning (Biggs, 1989, p.12).

Biggs’ 3P model is also adopted in the studies on students’ learning in East Asian countries. Zhang (2000) conducted quantitative research on students’ learning approaches in three countries (China, Hong Kong, and the U.S.) and found that Biggs’ 3P model was adoptable in many cases. For the relation between process factors and product factors, they found that students who used the deep approach got higher grades among students in the U.S.

and China, which supports Biggs’ 3P model, while the result varied depending on subjects in

(26)

17

Hong Kong. For the relation between presage factors and process factors, they found that age was an important deciding factor for the achieving approach that older students used the achieving approach less often in the U.S. and China. Gender was also found to be a factor deciding the learning approach. Male students used a more deep approach than female students in China, and female students used a more achieving approach than male students in Hong Kong.

Tan (2010), on the other hand, claims that Biggs’ 3P model lacks the perspective from a non-Western context. He shows the importance of considering cultural differences and the need for a culturally sensitive framework. For example, Tan (2010) claims that Confucian culture has more of a focus on memorization traditionally, and therefore learners in East Asia use the memorization approach to achieve deep learning not by just focusing on only deep or achieving approaches.

Considering the literature, there has not been enough research on the specific effects of students’ country of origin (especially for those who have a non-Western background) on the relationship between students’ characteristics, teaching context, students’ social and academic integration and academic attainment, even though culture is acknowledged in the academic literature to be an important factor to decide students’ ways of learning and their learning outcomes at the higher education institutions. Conducting research on East Asian students’ social integration and academic attainment from student perspectives as well as institutional perspectives will contribute to the inclusion in future research of the perspective of the impact of the culture on students’ social and academic integration and academic attainment.

3 Analytical Framework

3.1 Bigg's 3P (Presage factors, Process factors, and Product factors) Model and Tinto's Student Integration Model

This study uses the 3P model introduced by Biggs (1989) and the “Student Integration Model” proposed by Tinto (1975; 1993) as the main analytical perspectives. In both

perspectives, students’ integration to universities is described from both the individual students’ perspective and the institutional perspective. Those two models are relatively old but used and applied in many other studies because of their clear description and simplicity of the models. But in the last century, a lot of things have changed in higher education. For

(27)

18

example, the university and colleges are no longer for a limited number of elites but for a large part of the population participating in higher education. Therefore, there is much more diversity among students like diversity in their family background, educational background, and country of origin, and for this reason, it is beneficial to reconsider the adaptability of those models to higher education again. In addition, neither Biggs nor Tinto has focused on European higher education when they built those models. It is also a possibility that their models cannot be applied in a European context and therefore it is interesting to examine if those models can be utilized in the Norwegian higher education context.

Biggs (1989) introduced the 3P model to explain what reasons determine students’

quality of learning. 3P stands for presage factors, process factors, and product factors.

Presage factors refer to the factors that exist prior to learning, which are students’ personal characteristics like abilities, expectations, and motivations for learning and teaching environment like the way of teaching and the workload. Process factors refer to students’

approaches to learning, which are deep, surface, and strategic/achieving (Biggs, 1989).

Students adopt different ways of approaches to learning depending on the presage factors like their motivation to the studies, their preferred learning style, and their perception of the teaching environment. And the last is product factors, which refer to learning outcomes. This includes how much and how well a student learned (quantitative, qualitative outcomes), what grades or accreditation students got (institutional outcomes), and how a student feel about their learning (affective outcomes) (Biggs, 1989, p.12), which is determined by what learning approach a student uses.

Tinto’s student integration model explains the students’ social and academic integration from individual characteristics. Tinto (1975, 1993) claims that students’ pre- college experiences, family background, and individual characteristics influence to what extent students get integrated into higher education institutions. He continues that the better students are integrated academically and socially at higher education institutions, the more likely students fulfill their degree successfully. Through interaction between and within these different types of environments around students, individuals (students at higher education) are supposed to decide (or to be forced) how much they will integrate at university/college socially and academically, which might lead to their satisfaction with their learning outcomes according to Tinto’s student integration model.

3.2 Adoption of Models on this Research

(28)

19

Based on Tinto’s student integration model and Biggs’ 3P model, the following analytical framework was drawn. The model shows that students’ personal characteristics and teaching environment influence the level of students’ social and academic integration through the enforcement by student commitment and institutional commitment, and better social and academic integration leads students to have better satisfaction with their learning outcomes.

In this framework, students' integration (academic and social) and learning outcomes are important keywords, so in the following section, those terms in this research will be defined.

3.3 Definition of Social and Academic Integration

There are some disagreements on how to define social and academic integration in the academic literature in this area. In this study, the researcher will use the definition of social integration as “integration which happens in relation to social activities and interaction outside the academic activities” and academic integration as “integration which happens in relation to academic activities” regarding the literature reviewed in the former section. The frequency of academic interactions of international students with Norwegian students inside and outside the classroom and the frequency of academic interaction of international students with academic staff inside and outside the classroom are used as measures of the level of academic integration, and the frequency of socializing of international students with other international students from other countries, their home countries, and Norwegian students,

(29)

20

and the frequency of joining the student activities are used as measures for the level of social integration.

3.4 Definition of Learning Outcomes

In this research, borrowing from the definition of NKR, learning outcomes are defined as knowledge (understanding of theories, facts, principles, procedures in subject areas and/or occupation), skills (ability to utilize knowledge to solve problems or tasks), and competence (ability to utilize knowledge and skills in an independent manner in different situations). The learning outcomes which students are expected to have by the time they complete bachelor’s degree are described as follows (Table 3) in terms of knowledge, skills, and competence.

Table 3

Learning outcome descriptors by NOKUT for level 6 (Bachelor) The candidate…

Knowledge – has broad knowledge of important topics, theories, issues, processes, tools and methods within the academic field

– is familiar with research and development work in the field – can update his/her knowledge in the field

– has knowledge of the history, traditions, distinctive character and place in society of the academic field

Skills – can apply academic knowledge and relevant results of research and development work to practical and theoretical problems and make well- founded choices

– can reflect upon his/her own academic practice and adjust it under supervision

– can find, evaluate and refer to information and scholarly subject matter and present it in a manner that sheds light on the problem

– masters relevant scholarly tools, techniques and forms of communication Competence – has insight into relevant academic and professional ethical issues

– can plan and carry out varied assignments and projects over time, alone or as part of a group, and in accordance with ethical requirements and

principles

– can communicate important academic subject matters such as theories, problems and solutions, both in writing and orally, as well as through other relevant forms of communication

– can exchange opinions and experiences with others with a background in the field, thereby contributing to the development of good practice

– is familiar with new thinking and innovation processes

(30)

21

Since the direct measurements for these learning outcomes are unavailable, students' self-evaluated satisfaction levels on their learning outcomes were used as an index to measure students' achievement of their learning outcomes. As learning outcomes, more specifically, theoretical knowledge, knowledge of scientific work methods and research, experience with research and development work, discipline- or profession-specific skills, critical thinking and reflection, cooperative skills, communication skills, innovative thinking, ability to work independently were asked to students to self-evaluate their satisfaction with each of them.

Those components of learning outcomes correspond to the descriptions of learning outcome descriptors by NOKUT shown in Table 3. Theoretical knowledge, knowledge of scientific work methods and research, and experience with research and development work are part of knowledge described as (the candidate…) “has broad knowledge of important topics, theories, issues, processes, tools and methods within the academic field”, and “is familiar with research and development work in the field”. Critical thinking and reflection are part of skills described as (the candidate…) “can apply academic knowledge and relevant results of research and development work to practical and theoretical problems and make well-founded choices”, “can reflect upon his/her own academic practice and adjust it under supervision”, and “can find, evaluate and refer to information and scholarly subject matter and present it in a manner that sheds light on the problem”. Cooperative skills,

communication skills, innovative thinking, and ability to work independently are part of competencies described as (the candidate…) “can plan and carry out varied assignments and projects over time, alone or as part of a group, and in accordance with ethical requirements and principles”, “can communicate important academic subject matters such as theories, problems and solutions, both in writing and orally, as well as through other relevant forms of communication”, “can exchange opinions and experiences with others with a background in the field, thereby contributing to the development of good practice”, and “is familiar with new thinking and innovation processes”.

3.5 Hypotheses Following the Analytical Framework

The first hypothesis derived from the analytical framework is that the country of origin would impact the level of students' integration socially and academically, and the level of satisfaction with learning outcomes. The analytical framework implies that students’

personal characteristics including their country of origin affect the level of students’

(31)

22

integration socially and academically. Therefore, students from different cultural

backgrounds would show different levels of integration socially and academically. Tinto (1975) and Rienties et al. (2012) consider students’ country of origin as one of the factors which affect the level of students’ integration even though the direct relationship between students’ country of origin and the level of students’ integration is not statistically proven yet.

Biggs (1989) also claims that student characteristics affect the way how students approach their learning tasks even though Biggs did not mention students’ country of origin as student characteristics. However, he claims that students’ personal characteristics like students’ prior knowledge, abilities, preferred ways of learning, values, motivations, and expectations of students affect the way students engage in their learning (Biggs, 1989;1993). Considering that students from different countries would have different prior knowledge, abilities, preferred ways of learning, values, motivation, and expectation through their home countries’ culture, social value, native language, and education system, it is expected that students’ country of origin would affect the way students engage in their learning, such as how actively they engage in their social and academic activities.

Especially for East Asian international students, it is often argued that the language proficiency and cultural gaps have been one of the largest challenges in terms of integration (Lin & Scherz, 2014; Trice, 2003). In order to highlight the challenges in language and culture, English-speaking countries' students and Nordic students were chosen as groups to compare with East Asian students. Considering the English proficiency and cultural gaps for international students from East Asian countries compared with Nordic students and English- speaking countries’ students, the East Asian student group would probably show the lowest integration level of all. For example, English proficiency levels are generally not high in East Asian countries. TOEFL iBT is one of the English proficiency tests, which is often required for international students to fulfill a certain score in order to come on an exchange program or enter a study program in Norway. The test has four sections which are reading, listening, speaking, and writing, and each section is scored 0-30. The maximum total score is 120.

According to the report from TOEFL iBT in 2019, the average scores of those from East Asian countries and Nordic countries (except Norway) are the following:

East Asian Students’ Social and Academic Integration and their Satisfaction with Learning Outcomes at Norwegian Higher Education Institutions