Championing International Students’ Agency and Voice Through Equitable Assessments

Have you ever paused at a survey question asking your race or ethnicity, feeling none of the boxes truly represent your story? Well as international students, we have. This article calls for U.S. higher education institutions to reevaluate their assessment practices, shifting from domestic-centric framework to inclusive approaches which better recognize international students’ unique experiences and voices.

Championing International Students’ Agency and Voice Through Equitable Assessments

What should U.S. HEIs reconsider in assessing international students?

 

What’s with these student surveys?

As international students, we have always wondered what to check when asked about our race and ethnicity in surveys and forms. Most of the time, we are asked about our race and ethnicity through this list from Versta Research (2020):

Figure 1

Short Race and Ethnicity Question in Surveys

 

This alphabetical list of races/ethnicities seems straightforward. We also appreciate how the last option is worded to avoid “Other,” the usual term to end lists. With the “othering” of international students by U.S. higher education institutions (HEIs) (Suspitsyna & Shalka, 2019, p. 303; Liu & Qian, 2023), campus surveys and lists must acknowledge that using the word “other” connotes exclusion and indifference and negates the sense of belongingness HEIs advocate for. Postcolonialism posits that such colonized identities of the “other” must be addressed to bolster social equity for minoritized groups, including international students, especially from the global South (Bhati, 2022, p. 203).

However, there are other issues subsumed in race and ethnicity questions. First, the list is significantly limited in encapsulating all international students’ situations. What if someone grew up in Asia but was born white due to Caucasian parents? Will checking both “Asian” and “White” be better? We, the researchers, are Asian, but we are not a “Pacific Islander,” so should we consider ourselves part of the group? How about for an African international student who is not black? What if an individual’s country of citizenship (e.g., Jamaica) does not match any race/ethnicity society expects of them (e.g., Latinx or Black)? We contend, therefore, that such lists are written with domestic students in mind, forgetting the 5.6% international student population in U.S. HEIs (IIE Open Doors, 2023). 

This is just one of many instances where international students are forgotten in HEI programs and assessments and reproduce the deficit notions they encounter in U.S. campuses and being left out in inclusive initiatives (Tavares, 2021). Oduwaye et al. (2023) concluded that international students continuously face challenges, as summed up in their meta-analysis of over 175 research studies about international students’ deficits – sociocultural (82.9% of the articles), academic and language (82.3%), psychological (63.4%), and economic (19.4%) issues. However, in higher education assessment, practitioners normally neglect international students and consider them as a whole cohort or define them by U.S.-centric concepts (Steinmetz et al., 2020). We argue that HEIs must always consider international students’ backgrounds in assessments to better recognize their struggles, address these issues, and thereby embody diversity, equity, inclusion, and social justice (DEIJ) on campuses fostering higher education internationalization rationales. 

Inclusive Higher Education Internationalization

One landmark improvement to higher education internationalization is including a DEIJ lens to the Model for Comprehensive Internationalization of Higher Education by the American Council of Education (ACE). Revised in 2021, ACE encourages HEIs and scholars to view international student policies and services, including assessments, with a DEIJ perspective, as a response to the void of DEIJ practice in international student affairs (Cunningham et al., 2023; Li, 2022). Li (2022) adds a three-fold intersecting process practitioners and scholars can use with the framework. This process involves:

1. undoing deeply ingrained mindsets and models that do not contribute to DEI,

2. weaving international education into campuswide DEI efforts, and

3. adopting frameworks and practices that center DEI as a guiding lens for international higher education (Li, 2022, p. 1).

Figure 2. 

ACE Model for Comprehensive Internationalization

 

International students’ assessment concerns

To address equitable programs and assessments for international students, HEIs must acknowledge first the issues raised in conducting evaluations with international student populations. We have collated them from several literatures that might guide student affairs professionals in understanding international students’ perspectives on assessments. We have divided the concerns into assessment methods (quantitative and qualitative), language issues, content of assessments, assessment timeline, and complementarity in assessing other areas aside from students. 

Table 1

Assessment Concerns of International Students

 

 

Rethinking international student assessments using the ACE Framework

International students can benefit from DEIJ-guided student affairs services and assessment programs (Li, 2022). Using ACE’s revised model, HEIs will ensure that international students are considered in university-wide initiatives, addressing their concerns and inducing a sense of belonging. As Li (2022) pointed out in his intersectional process, practitioners and researchers must forego adopting assimilation, acculturation, and policy compliance mindsets in international student services and assessments that emphasize the dominant culture and objectify international students as business clients rather than humans. Second, campuses must include international students’ voices in all activities and assessments. To truly embody HEIs’ mission of internationalization inclusion, the voices and experiences of international students must be valued. Third, frameworks and implementation steps that back student affairs services and assessments must translate to assist and support all student populations, especially international students. 

Speaking of support, Bihn (2019) contends that HEIs must uphold DEIJ critical areas for support of international students navigating new environments. Attending such areas will define how campuses welcome international students and thus project a social justice perspective extended to them. These critical areas or challenges for international students are housing, transportation, academic support programs (i.e., English language support), registration placement, the whole college process, social life and cultural adjustment, and financial support (Bihin, 2019; Lin, 2012). Therefore, practitioners and researchers must delve into international students’ experiences in these areas when assessing student affairs programs to capture a uniquely different side of U.S. higher education faced by students of various cultures, ethnicities, religions, languages, and backgrounds. Additionally, ACE widely believes of the impact of international student inclusion and success on college campuses in the U.S.: improved intercultural awareness of domestic students, enriched learning environment, valuable addition to group settings, international goodwill, generating research and knowledge, and economic appreciation (Helms & Spreitzer, 2021).

Other ideas Bihn (2019) and Helms and Spreitzer (2021) suggest in capturing DEIJ work for international students are:

1. intentionally selecting team members to lead the work for international students (e.g., experiences living abroad, training in DEIJ),

2. conducting an audit of institutional policies and practices through an international student’s lens,

3.  understanding the second or foreign language acquisition process and outlining language accommodations, if possible, 

4. assisting faculty and staff who encounter international students,

5. engaging with international students regularly and communicating with their families and sponsors, and

6. remaining vigilant to the impact of current events to international students and the larger college community. 

Focusing on assessment practices, student affairs practitioners and researchers should evaluate policies that affect international students’ academic and social conditions. As mentioned, language plays a critical role in connecting with international students, so questionnaires and survey forms must be linguistically accessible. Providing possible translations or identifying different means of delivering assessments may be considered to accommodate international students’ vast needs. A demographic section that asks about international student status may be included, and the race/ethnicity question should also consider international students’ prior knowledge and perspective. Versta Research (2020) suggests that this approach (Figure 3) should be used to ask about race and ethnicity in survey forms. The word “other” and the categories under each race and ethnicity group must be questioned, though. 

Figure 3

New Race and Ethnicity Question for Surveys

 

Championing international students’ agency and voice

As we look back at the survey question posed in the introduction of this article, we wonder continuously how the Western notion of identity formation is enforced on international students (Nasser, 2019). Historically, U.S. HEIs have also limited their views on internationalization to international student recruitment, study abroad participation, and research partnerships (Cunningham et al., 2023), forgetting the holistic experiences and professional development of international students during their entire stay. Hence, campuses are encouraged to deconstruct their current internationalization practices and assessments, which might portray a colonial, neoliberal hegemony, and move toward a socially responsible assessment framework. Lundquist et al. (2022) identify a socially just assessment as both a process and a goal, nurturing the promotion of social justice in a global context. HEIs must provide avenues for international students to advocate for their needs, be invited to discuss and adjust expectations, evaluate the biases and cultural appropriations in campus programs, and reflect with administration and staff on just ways for international student programming and assessment. Doing all of these will hopefully attain the goal of internationalization that the HEIs aspire to achieve by reflecting on social justice and deconstruction as processes. Therefore, continuously interrogating HEI internationalization initiatives through assessment activities must be pursued if campuses truly champion international students. With the current political climate antagonizing immigration to the country, international students need all the protection from HEIs, who should first rally for the rationale and benefits of internationalization – for global citizenship, for the free flow of ideas not limited to the U.S., for transnational partnerships beyond the borders of geography, culture, time, and peoples. 

Application 

For student affairs practitioners involved in international students’ services and assessments, here are reflection activities we encourage you to work on.

1. Assess this short survey to be distributed to international students re: Campus Safety. What are its pros? What are areas for improvement to ensure inclusion, equity, and international student agency? 

Figure 4

Sample Survey Draft on International Students’ Campus Safety

 

2. Choose a component or critical area from ACE Model for Comprehensive Internationalization (Figure 2) on which you would reflect on your HEI office’s assessment practices. Identify a relevant student affairs assessment or survey you would give out related to the component/critical area. Plan the assessment process for international students. Ensure that it undoes stereotypes and ingrained mindsets about international students, fosters internationalization at home, and is inclusive and equitable. Describe your plan with a colleague or supervisor for feedback and possible implementation for the next academic semester/year. 

 

References

Bhati, A. (2022). What can postcolonial theory contribute to the study of social equity? Public Administration Review, 83, 203-209. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/puar.13523  

Bihn, M. (Fall 2019). Helping international students through the lens of diversity, equity, and inclusion. National Association of Independent Schools. https://www.nais.org/magazine/independent-school/fall-2019/helping-international-students-through-the-lens-of-diversity,-equity,-and-inclusion/   

Cunningham, T., Mendoza, P. B., Ruegamer, T., Sanchez, C. E., Sendoya, I. M., Schulte, S., & Wise, T. (2023). Intersections of diversity, equity, and inclusion and internationalization: A framing guide. American Council on Education DEI/IZN Community of Practice, 1-22. https://www.acenet.edu/Documents/DEI-IZN-Framing-Guide.pdf 

Deuchar, A. (2022). The problem with international students' 'experiences' and the promise of their practices: Reanimating research about international students in higher education. British Educational Research Journal, 48, 504-518. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3779  

Elturki, E., Liu, Y., Hjeltness, J., & Hellmann, K. (2019). Needs, expectations, and experiences of international students in pathway program in the United States. Journal of International Students, 9(1), 192-210. https://www.ojed.org/index.php/jis/article/view/274   

Gatwiri, G. (2015). The influence of language difficulties on the wellbeing of international students: An interpretive phenomenological analysis. Inquiries Journal/Student Pulse, 7(5), 1-7. http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1042/the-influence-of-language-difficulties-on-the-wellbeing-of-international-students-an-interpretive-phenomenological-analysis  

Hammons, L., Lee, Y-H., Akins, R., Somasundaram, U. V., & Egan, T. M. (2004, March 3-7). An evaluation case study of an international student services office: Assessing satisfaction and productivity [Conference presentation]. Academy of Human Resource Development International Conference, Austin, TX, United States. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED492110  

Hanassab, S. & Tidwell, R. (2002). International students in higher education: Identification of needs and implications for policy and practice. Journal of Studies in International Education, 6(4), 305-322. https://doi.org/10.1177/102831502237638  

Helms, R. M. & Spreitzer, S. (2021). International student inclusion and success: Public attitudes, policy imperatives, and practical strategies. American Council on Education. https://www.acenet.edu/Documents/International-Student-Inclusion-Success.pdf  

IIE Open Doors (2023). 2023 Fast Facts: International Students. Open Doors. https://opendoorsdata.org/fast_facts/fast-facts-2023/  

Li, W. (2022). Centering diversity, equity, and inclusion in international higher education. Teachers College Record, 1-4. https://journals.sagepub.com/pb-assets/cmscontent/TCZ/Commentaries%20Collection/2022%20Commentaries/Centering%20Diversity,%20Equity,%20and%20Inclusion%20in%20International%20Higher%20Education-1667339299.pdf   

Lin, M. (2012). Students of different minds: Bridging the gaps of international students studying in the US. US-China Education Review A(3), 333-344. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED532905.pdf  

Liu, Y. & Qian, Y. (2023). Causes, mechanisms and consequences of othering international students in higher education. In J. Mittelmeier, S. Lomer, & K. Unkule (Eds.), Research with International Students (1st ed., 54-63). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003290803-8  

Lomer, S. & Mittelmeier, J. (2023). Mapping the research on pedagogies with international students in the UK: A systematic literature review. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(6), 1243-1263. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13562517.2021.1872532   

Lundquist, A., Henning, G., & Heiser, C. A. (2022). Beyond culturally responsive assessment: Socially just assessment [Webinar]. Campuslabs. https://www.anthology.com/webinar/beyond-culturally-responsive-assessment-socially-just-assessment   

Lundquist, A. & Henning, G. (2022). Deconstructed assessment: Using assessment to foster social justice [Webinar]. Campuslabs. https://www.anthology.com/webinar/deconstructed-assessment-using-assessment-to-foster-social-justice   

Martirosyan, N. M., Bustamante, R. M., & Saxon, D. P. (2019). Academic and social support services for international students: Current practices. Journal of International Students, 9(1), 172-191. https://www.ojed.org/index.php/jis/article/view/275  

Nasser, R. (2019). Identity beyond borders: National identity and the post-colonial alternative. Social Semiotics, 29(2), 145-171. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2018.1425317   

Oduwaye, O., Kiraz, A., & Sorakin, Y. (2023). A trend analysis of the challenges of international students over 21 years. SAGE Open, 2023, 1-14. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440231210387  

Steinmetz, C., Thompson, S., & Marshall, N. (2020). Surveying international university students: The case of the 5% response rate. Issues in Educational Research, 30(3), 1105-1125. https://www.iier.org.au/iier30/steinmetz.pdf  

Suspitsyna, T. & Shalka, T. (2019). The Chinese international student as a (post)colonial other: An analysis of cultural representations of a US media discourse. The Review of Higher Education, 42, 287-308. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2019.0053   

Tavares, V. (2021). Feeling excluded: International students experience equity, diversity and inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 28(8), 1551-1568. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.2008536  

Versta Team (April 2020). How to ask race and ethnicity on a survey. Versta. https://verstaresearch.com/newsletters/how-to-ask-race-ethnicity-on-a-survey  

Zhang, Y. & Mi, Y. (2010). Another look at the language difficulties of international students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14(4), 371-388. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315309336031