EL DIRECTOR GENERAL LIC JOSÉ LUIS VALLE COSÍO

The third theme that emerged from participant’s narratives about their academic experiences was understanding and navigating the differences between U.S. higher education and the educational systems of their home countries. From the sample of 10 students, six

the new educational setting. As the manifestation of this particular challenge differed among the participants, the following three sub-themes were developed: (a) differences in content

terminology; (b) differences in content delivery; and (c) differences in demonstrating content mastery.

Sub-theme 1: Differences in Content Terminology

Of the participants who shared that they were challenged by unforeseen academic differences, five students defined these experiences as difficulties in understanding course terminology. As many of them clarified, these difficulties did not stem from studying in another language, as they consider themselves fluent in English. From their perspectives, this particular challenge was the outcome of different terms, formulas, and measurement systems, to name a few, that were foreign to the education in their home countries. As Nathan explained:

The Anthropology class was really tough for me, but I managed to score C in it. The terminology was really difficult. And not only Anthropology. College Algebra as well. It was a very tough class for me because the system of math that we are taught back home is different. Like, it gives you the same answer but the way of doing it is totally different. So we had to learn the way they do it here. Cause if we did it using the method taught at home, then we wouldn’t be able to get the full marks (Nathan, personal communication, January 13, 2019).

Jennifer’s narrative further supported this stance. She shared that, despite having a strong background in science classes, she still struggled with chemistry and mathematics. As she explained, performing well in these classes was particularly challenging due to the differences in course terminology of which she had no prior knowledge:

Right now, I’m so lost. Because studying in America it’s very different from other countries. And also the American way to do things. Like some measurements we use in chemistry, they only have in America. And I didn’t know them because we don’t have them in Brazil, so it would be good to know that. Not to teach us all that, but it would be just good to know about it. For someone to show us the differences in America; in general, anything that is so different in America (Jennifer, personal communication, January 18, 2019).

For some participants, such as Colin, unforeseen differences had a substantial negative impact on their academic self-efficacy and made them doubt their ability to successfully perform in a particular class. For example, before coming to the U.S., Colin passed his mathematics placement test with an excellent score. Unlike many of his international peers in the Institute, he was placed in an advanced mathematics class. However, Colin did not perceive this as an

accomplishment. Instead, he was overwhelmed with fear, anxiety, and self-doubt:

I was very scared of American math. I came to my advisor and I said – No, I will not take this math. I cannot do it. But after talking to the director of the Institute, I said OK. And I had A for that class. But I was really scared at first. I was scared that it’s going to be different. Because American math is way more different than in Russia. It’s completely different. For example, the names of the formulas, some definitions, and the way how they write it (Colin, personal communication, January 30, 2019).

Sub-theme 2: Differences in Content Delivery

This sub-theme emerged from students’ narratives about their experiences with different lecture styles. In particular, Colin shared that his first semester was characterized by difficulties in understanding his professors in both small and large classes:

The speech of some professors was very fast. And it’s not about the language. I

understand them, but I didn’t like that in Russia either, that type of speech. For example my Sociology professor. Her speech is very fast and she didn’t use the microphone in the lecture and I couldn’t even hear her. Then I asked her to use it and she started doing it, but it almost didn’t make any difference because her speech was still so fast (Colin, personal communication, January 30, 2019).

Conversely, Colin felt that he learned more in classes where professors were mindful of the fact that they had international students in the audience and allowed for additional time for students to take notes or ask questions. However, in the classes with no such opportunities, Colin admitted resorting to passive acceptance of the situation: “When I have fast talking professors, umm… I can’t really do anything. I just read the book”.

Sub-theme 3: Differences in Demonstrating Content Mastery

The third sub-theme was extrapolated from the narratives of two participants who experienced difficulties in demonstrating content mastery through written assignments. As both students explained, these difficulties were not the outcome of language barriers, but the result of either cultural differences or the lack of prior academic experiences of that kind.

For Derek, writing papers constituted the greatest challenge during his first year of college. As he explained, despite fully mastering the course content, the actual writing process was particularly difficult due to his deeply rooted Chinese values, customs, and, habits:

The biggest challenge for me would be writing because I cannot think in a Western culture way, to write something in a Western style. My thinking style, my process of thought, is mainly in Chinese. The values are different, so I have to adjust my way, and learn how to write here (Derek, personal communication, January 24, 2019).

Even though her cultural heritage did not impede with her ability to successfully express herself in writing, Jennifer shared the same challenge. In her case, however, this challenge was reflected in the lack of familiarity with the variety of structures, types, and styles of written work expected of students in America. Realizing how much of her academic success depended on mastering academic writing, Jennifer admitted: “I wish someone talked more about the types of the essays and showed us how the writing works.”

Relationship of Theme 3 to the Theoretical Framework

Even though the comparison of the first two themes and 4S transition model revealed a clear relationship of each theme with a corresponding factor from the framework, Theme 3 embodied two factors simultaneously: situation and self (Table 10). Additionally, the evidence of several sub-factors for each of the two factors was identified in relation to this theme.

Comparable to Theme 1, the specific evidence of the situation factor, prior experience, was also identified in participants’ narratives related to Theme 3. As the previously discussed findings demonstrate, the majority of academic differences reported by participants were attributed to their lack of experience with a similar transition. Examples of this sub-factor

include students’ challenges in understanding new terminology or difficulties in demonstrating content mastery through a modality with which they were not familiar.

At the same time, however, the presented evidence demonstrates that the self factor had an equally powerful impact on students’ attempts to reconcile the academic differences they encountered. As Schlossberg (1984) stated, the self factor encompasses all personal and demographic characteristics of an individual in transition, (e.g., socioeconomic status, gender, age, health, ethnicity), as well as any psychological resources these individuals rely on during the transition, (e.g., personality, ego, self-efficacy, commitment, values, outlook toward a transition).

The evidence of psychological resources is clearly illustrated in the narratives of participants whose challenges stemmed from their outlook toward transition, self-efficacy, commitment, and values. At the same time, however, students’ responses did not reveal clear evidence for any of the personal and demographic characteristics identified by the 4S transition model (socioeconomic status, gender, age, health, or ethnicity). For this reason, when coding the interview data and developing themes, the researchers agreed to establish a separate sub-category within the realm of personal and demographic characteristics that would most accurately

correspond to students’ narratives. Students’ narratives revealed that, for some of them,

reconciling academic differences was particularly hard due to the strong influence of their home cultures. This approach resulted in developing a sub-factor of culture. The researchers

determined that a culture sub-factor would serve as the most genuine representation of the self factor.

Theme 4: Lack of Institutional Understanding and/or Opportunities Denied