Tryton ERP

International Students

By comparing the ‘before’ and ‘during’ social network analysis diagrams together (Appendix 2a – 2d), it can easily be seen that a large number of social relationships were formed by almost all of the research participants. The social network analysis diagrams do not identify the factors at play that promoted the formation of the social relationships, however when comparing the large number of social relationships that were formed and the characteristics of the FSP course then it would appear that the common course of study played an important role.

Traditionally, the formation of social relationships has been based on a range of human and temporal factors (Berscheild, 2010), in that it is an individual’s characteristics, such as level of self-confidence, past experience etc, along with having time to interact with others that are the driving factors in the formation of social connections. While these factors still hold true as being important determinants of the formation of a social connection between people, this research has strongly identified that the environment also plays an important element in connection formation. The environment can both inhibit and allow the formation of social connections. An environment that promotes interactions between people, both through having an individual in close proximity and presenting them with time in which to interact with each will see more social connections being formed between the individuals involved.

The social situation in which the research was undertaken was one in which all research participants spent a lot of time studying together in the same environmental space. Given that a complex web of social relationships had been formed, as indicated in the social network analysis diagrams located in Appendix 2, this is not surprising as the environment and situation provided a good combination of events, conditions and derived beneficial needs that have been identified in the literature (Kelley et al, 1983). The research participants were a very diverse group of students with a wide range of educational and cultural backgrounds. It is these differences that can often make it difficult for relationships to be formed and have been specifically mentioned

Page | 144 throughout the interview analysis, for example in Section 4.4.2 – Social/Cultural Experience and Section 4.4.1 – Language and Understanding.

The results from the thematic analysis in Section 4.4 indicate the environment the participants were located in while studying presented positive factors that appeared to influence social relationship formation; the opportunity to interact and get to know each other; time to interact and develop their social relationships; and a common location in which all participants were geographically co-located. These three factors were strongly indicated in the interview analysis, for example Section 4.4.1 - geographic factors, desired type of interaction & time factors; Section 4.4.2 – social environment, social opportunities & social experience; and Section 4.4.3 – social experience & tiers of relationship). These three factors are inter-related with each other in the promotion of the social relationships of the international student participants.

Opportunities to interact were provided by the actual nature of the FSP course. The course promotes the interaction of students via a range of different classes and a focus on group work for many pieces of assessment. In addition there were opportunities outside of class time to interact as a majority of classes are held in the same location on campus and with the same group of students.

The FSP course was a 32 week program, which is a significant amount of time for students to be studying and interacting together. During the 32 weeks of study the participants attended the same classes with the same people and it was this extended period of time and overall consistency in their study routine that promoted the formation of the social relationships. The differences between the FSP course and an average University course and their roles in promoting social interactions and relationships is mentioned in Section 4.4.2 under the Social Environment and Experience theme.

All of the research participants studied together in the same location during their course of study. Additionally, some participants lived in the same geographic location with each other as indicated in Figure 4.14. Living with Other Participants. As the FSP course is taught out of a single physical location, the students were geographically co- located and so were able to, and in some cases required to, interact with each other on a face-to-face basis. The opportunities for close personal interaction would have strongly encouraged the formation of social relationships with each other as can be seen in the changes in connections indicated in the social network diagrams located in Appendix 2a and 2b and as indicated throughout the interview analysis: for example in Section 4.4.1 – geographic factors; Section 4.4.3 – social environment and experience.

Page | 145 When examining the factors of time, opportunity and location that were seen in the thematic analysis undertaken in Section 4.4, it is obvious that these external factors play just as much of an important role in the formation of social relationships as the personal and human factors identified by Kelley et al (1983). Other research by Dykstra (1990) and Fischer and Oliker (1983) specifically identified the importance of having opportunities to be able to interact. Duck (1991) and La Follette (1996)’s identification of the benefits that a friendship offers are also dependent on the external factors that promote the formation of social relationships being present in the first place. In educational environments social support and benefits are seen as being important to all students and especially international students (Misra, Crist & Burant, 2003; Campbell, 2004) giving students the opportunities for (and potentially forcing) interactions. Research by Milardo and Wellman (1992) indicated the role that the social context plays in relationship formation and the results from this research do seem to support this determination.

Analysis of the social network analysis diagrams located in Appendix 2, are not able to illuminate the role of the psychological and physiological factors (Berscheild, 2010) that also play an influencing role in social relationship formation. This is a weakness of the social network analysis approach and thus while it can be assumed that these factors were also in play, due to the diversity and inconsistency of the relationships shown, they cannot be accurately determined from this methodological approach. The reality is that the study of social relationships is a complicated area of study (Glenn, 1990) so there will always be limitations on the accuracy and detail that can be obtained.

Universities have generally social environments due to the large numbers of students that are brought together with a common purpose in mind. These environments do encourage social interaction and formation through many means such as social events, societies and communal eating areas. However, classroom environments themselves would appear to be the best place to promote these interactions and social formations. While some students will be able form social relationships with each other, many others, especially international students, struggle with this due to the specific psychological, sociological (Berscheild, 2010) and gender/cultural barriers (Dykstra, 1990; Fischer & Oliker, 1983) that are present in university environments in Australia. These ‘barriers’ can lead to hardship and difficulty in not just a student’s study life but their greater life as well. Using the class room environment could be key to improving the educational outcomes of students. However this possibility is hampered by the way the current model of tertiary education operates using many socially restricting methods of teaching such as lectures and online classes. While students are still able to be social and interact with each other during lectures and

Page | 146 other such restrictive environments, these settings do little to promote the social interactions that can lead to the formation of social relationships.