internationalization at home in korean higher education

http://jsi.sagepub.com/Education

Journal of Studies in International

http://jsi.sagepub.com/content/17/4/455The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1028315312468329

January 2013 2013 17: 455 originally published online 25Journal of Studies in International Education

Jae-Eun JonIntercultural Competence

Promoting Domestic Students' Interaction with International Students and Realizing Internationalization at Home in Korean Higher Education:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Association for Studies in International Education

at: can be foundJournal of Studies in International EducationAdditional services and information for

http://jsi.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jsi.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jsi.sagepub.com/content/17/4/455.refs.htmlCitations:

at UNIVERSIDAD DEL ROSARIO on May 5, 2014jsi.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIVERSIDAD DEL ROSARIO on May 5, 2014jsi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jsi.sagepub.com/

http://jsi.sagepub.com/content/17/4/455

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.asie.org

http://jsi.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jsi.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://jsi.sagepub.com/content/17/4/455.refs.html



What is This?

- Jan 25, 2013OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Aug 16, 2013Version of Record >>

at UNIVERSIDAD DEL ROSARIO on May 5, 2014jsi.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIVERSIDAD DEL ROSARIO on May 5, 2014jsi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jsi.sagepub.com/content/17/4/455.full.pdf

http://jsi.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/01/24/1028315312468329.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



Journal of Studies in International Education17(4) 455 –470© 2013 Nuffic

Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1028315312468329jsi.sagepub.com

468329 JSI17410.1177/1028315312468329Journal of Studies in International EducationJon

1Korea University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

Corresponding Author:Jae-Eun Jon, Higher Education Policy Research Institute, Korea University, Anam-Dong, Seongbuk-Gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea. Email: [email protected]

Realizing Internationalization at Home in Korean Higher Education: Promoting Domestic Students’ Interaction with International Students and Intercultural Competence

Jae-Eun Jon1

Abstract

Increased international student mobility worldwide necessitates studying its impact on students, particularly for domestic students who have been neglected in research but who are greater in number than mobile students. It is also important that higher education institutions facilitate domestic students’ relationships with international students and promote their international education. Using mixed methods, this study examined the effect of institutional intervention to promote domestic students’ interaction with international students and its impact on intercultural competence in Korean higher education. The results of a path analysis showed that campus programs involving Korean and international students had a positive and direct effect on Korean students’ interaction with international students, and a positive and indirect effect on their intercultural competence. Interview findings also revealed that Korean students’ interactions with international students enabled their meaningful intercultural experience and influenced their future educational and career decisions. Implications of this study for higher education internationalization efforts, the contact hypothesis, and the larger host society are discussed.

Keywords

internationalization of higher education, IaH, international students, intercultural competence, contact hypothesis, Korea

Article

at UNIVERSIDAD DEL ROSARIO on May 5, 2014jsi.sagepub.comDownloaded from


456 Journal of Studies in International Education 17(4)

Higher education institutions and governments in many countries have made various efforts to recruit international students and send their own students abroad. However, these endeavors and the related literature have tended to focus on mobile students, while little focus has been paid to non-mobile students, those who remain at home campuses and receive international students. This “third perspective” from domestic students is missing in the literature (Harrison & Peacock, 2009, p. 127); nevertheless, domestic non-mobile students are more numerous and deserve significant consider-ation for how they can also benefit from international education. Leask (2009b) noted that domestic students are “most resistant to having an international experience at home, yet they have potentially the most to gain” (p. 14). This is reflected in the idea of Internationalization at Home (IaH), which includes all students for international education, regardless of their being “internationally mobile or not” (Mestenhauser, 2003; Teekens, 2007, p. 6). Researchers have suggested that domestic and interna-tional student diversity can facilitate the realization of IaH (Leask, 2007; Otten, 2003; Paige, 1983; Stier, 2003). Importantly, the mere presence of international students on campus does not equal meaningful internationalization, nor does it necessarily lead to their interaction with domestic students (Harrison & Peacock, 2009, 2010; Leask, 2006; Peacock & Harrison, 2009). Engaging both domestic and international students by participating in curricular and extracurricular activities can lead to their mutually beneficial experiences.

A group of studies have researched both domestic and international students in major destination countries such as the United States and Australia. However, non-Western countries have not received much attention on this topic. As Asian countries such as China, Japan, and Korea are considered emerging players in attracting interna-tional students (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2010), it is necessary to investigate the impact of international student mobility on domestic students, especially in Asian higher education. In terms of international mobility, Korea shows a contrasting picture as the top sending country worldwide after China and India, and as the smallest host country among developed nations (Davis, 2003; OECD, 2010). However, Korea had the fourth fastest growing international stu-dent population among OECD countries in 2008. International students in Korea increased from 6,160 in 2000 to 83,842 in 2010, which can be attributed to efforts by the government and individual institutions, including the Study Korea Project (Ministry of Education and Human Resource Development, Korea [MOE&HRD], 2003, 2004; Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, Korea [MEST], 2010). This study uses a Korean case and investigates domestic students’ interaction with interna-tional students and its impact on domestic students in Korean higher education.

Literature ReviewAmong three groups of students related to the internationalization of higher education—incoming students, outgoing students, and students who stay at their home campus, a substantial amount of literature has concentrated on incoming international students.



Jon 457

These international students are understood to benefit from engaging with domestic students for their psychological adjustment and social integration, but their lack of interaction with domestic students has been a consistent issue, in addition to the per-sistent neglect of domestic students’ experience in past studies (Dunne, 2009; Kashima & Loh, 2006; Peacock & Harrison, 2009; Pritchard & Skinner, 2002; Trice, 2004; Volet & Ang, 1998; Ward, 2001; Zhang & Goodson, 2011). Only recently have domestic students’ experiences emerged as an important research topic.

Notably, research involving international and domestic students in U.S. and Australian higher education has indicated the positive effect of their interactions on domestic students (Barger, 2004; Geelhoed, Abe, & Talbot, 2003; Nesdale & Todd, 2000; Parsons, 2010; Williams & Johnson, 2011). For example, Barger (2004) demon-strated that interactions with international students bring positive effects on American students’ educational, social, and cultural experiences. In her study on U.S. and Australian institutions, Parsons (2010) showed that efforts to internationalize curricu-lum, promote study or travel abroad, and facilitate contact with international students have a positive impact on a wide range of outcomes, including language proficiency, international knowledge, cross-cultural skills, and international attitudes and behav-iors. In the case of Korea, Jon (2009) claimed that Korean students’ participation in an international summer program with international students and faculty in Korea con-tributed to their growth in intercultural learning and development. Nevertheless, researchers have noted that domestic students can feel challenged and reluctant to interact with international students due to cultural differences, language barriers, bias, and pressure for academic performance (Harrison & Peacock, 2009, 2010; Kimmel & Volet, 2012; Leask, 2009a; Montgomery, 2009; Peacock & Harrison, 2009; Trice, 2004; Volet & Ang, 1998).

In order to overcome these difficulties and promote positive interactions between domestic and international students, researchers have found institutional involvement to be effective. Nesdale and Todd (2000), for example, examined the effectiveness of interventions on domestic and international students in Australia living in resident halls. Their analysis of pre- and post-tests showed that interventions such as orienta-tion programs, hall tutorials, and floor-group activities were significant for domestic students’ intercultural acceptance, cultural knowledge, and openness. Other relevant studies also showed that domestic students grew in intercultural learning and develop-ment from participating in class projects or campus programs with international stu-dents (Eisenchlas & Trevaskes, 2007; Geelhoed et al., 2003; Gordon & Newburry, 2007; Klak & Martin, 2003; Leask, 2009a).

Still, several limitations in the previous research necessitate a more focused study. First, despite the extant research on the effectiveness of institutional intervention, its “structural paths” with other variables have rarely been examined to help reveal the net impact of institutional intervention (Engberg, 2004, p. 505). Engberg (2004) sug-gested using path analysis or structural equation modeling. Similarly, Leask (2009b) noted the difficulty in establishing a direct link between institutional intervention and student experiences among domestic and international students. Second, previous




studies measuring interaction among culturally diverse students have not considered its quality. Rather, they examined the quantity aspect alone, such as the frequency of different activities and the number of friends, but not the depth of their relationships. Third, the majority of studies have highlighted intercultural development as a positive outcome of interactions; however, in many cases, their theoretical ground in construct-ing dependent variables was unclear, relying on only a few self-reported survey items. Finally, the popular and English-speaking destination countries alone have been the main focus of research. Considering these limitations, this study uses a Korean case and examines the effectiveness of campus programs on Korean students’ interaction with international students, as well as Korean students’ intercultural competence, con-sidering their direct and indirect relationships.

Conceptual FrameworkThis study drew upon Allport’s contact hypothesis (1954) in examining the relation-ship between student intercultural interaction and intercultural competence. The his-tory of the contact hypothesis began with research focusing on intergroup relationships within a multicultural society. However, the subjects, target groups, and approaches to the contact hypothesis have crossed over into many different academic fields over time. The contact hypothesis posits that intergroup contact may reduce prejudice under the conditions of equal group status, common goals, institutional support, and intergroup cooperation. For the latter half of the 20th century, a great deal of literature has examined, affirmed, criticized, and promoted Allport’s original idea of the contact hypothesis. For instance, the findings of a meta-analysis supported the contact hypothesis, suggesting that four conditions may serve as facilitators instead of neces-sary ones (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2000). Importantly, this meta-analysis showed that “intergroup friendship” and “structured programs for optimal contact” are signifi-cantly effective in creating a favorable impact from intergroup contact (p. 269). Pettigrew and Tropp (2005) also maintained that there is still an urgent need to study specific groups, given that different outcomes were found across groups.

In conceptualizing intercultural competence, Deardorff’s model of intercultural competence (2006) and Bennett’s (1993) Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) were used as its theoretical basis. Despite its wide use in higher education, the definition of intercultural competence has been unclear. Deardorff’s model provides an inclusive and fundamental understanding based on an extensive review of similar terminology and a Delphi study with intercultural experts and higher education administrators. Importantly, this model includes the behavioral and com-municative dimensions of intercultural competence, while other similar concepts tend to focus on attitudinal and cognitive dimensions. Bennett’s DMIS also helps to under-stand intercultural competence and specifically to measure it, using an instrument, the intercultural development inventory (IDI). The DMIS conceptualizes how people understand and respond to cultural differences as ethnocentric (denial, defense, and minimization) to ethnorelative (acceptance, adaptation, and integration). For exam-ple, at the minimization stage, individuals may no longer evaluate cultural difference



Jon 459

negatively, but may overemphasize cultural similarities as human universalities, hid-ing cultural differences. Moving toward ethnorelativism, those at the acceptance stage recognize and embrace cultural difference as a necessary component in human interac-tions. At the adaptation stage, people integrate cultural differences and can shift frames of reference between different cultures.

MethodResearch Design and Sample

This study used a two-phase mixed methods design, using the explanatory sequential design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). In the first phase, the quantitative data were collected and analyzed. In the second phase, qualitative data were collected and ana-lyzed to explain and elaborate the quantitative results.

Data were collected from Korean undergraduates at a private university in Seoul, Korea, which is known for its strong support of internationalization. For example, the university has recruited international students for exchange programs, degree pro-grams, international summer school, and Korean language programs. The institution also provides international students with various scholarship opportunities, dormitory accommodations, and support programs, such as buddy programs with Korean stu-dents, as explained below.

Quantitative PhaseParticipants in the first quantitative phase were recruited separately for the interven-tion and the nonintervention groups. The former were recruited from two campus programs: the buddy program and the culture and language exchange program. Both were designed to promote Korean students’ relationships with international students and to support international students’ life in Korea. The non-intervention group was recruited from the general undergraduate population. A total of 256 Korean students took two online surveys in the Korean language: the IDI (50 items) and the survey developed for this study on intercultural interaction and intercultural behavior sce-narios (20 items). After an examination for the accuracy of the data entry, missing data, and the assumptions for the multivariate analysis, the final sample of 244 par-ticipants was used for the analyses. Table 1 shows the composition of the final sample.

MeasuresIntercultural competence measures. The IDI and Intercultural Behavior scores were used

to measure Korean students’ intercultural competence. The IDI produced numeric scores for individuals’ developmental stages of intercultural development —denial/defense (DD), reversal (R), minimization (M), and acceptance/adaptation (AA). These scores were used in the analysis to better detect the differential impact of the predictors instead of a total IDI score. The intercultural behavior scores were produced from open-ended responses to intercultural behavior scenarios in the survey. These scenarios, adapted from one of




the intercultural training tools—critical incidents, asked for Korean students’ responses to culturally challenging encounters with international students in Korea (Herfst, Van Oudenhoven, & Timmerman, 2008; Wight, 1995). Responses were coded numeri-cally by multiple experts in intercultural training and education.

Intercultural interaction score. The intercultural interaction score was generated using the survey items on Korean students’ interactions with international students: frequen-cies of meeting, having conversations, the number of international student friends on campus, and five intercultural friendship variables created by multiplying different levels of relationships (i.e., acquaintance, friend, close/best friend, romantic relation-ship) and degrees of closeness (i.e., not at all close to very close). An exploratory fac-tor analysis using principal component analysis was conducted with the above eight items. A single factor was extracted, producing factor scores, which were included as the intercultural interaction score in the path analysis.

Program participation. A program participation variable reflects the intensity of the programs based on their design and the number of programs that Korean students joined.

Previous international experience. This variable consisted of averaging the length of time having traveled abroad, lived abroad prior to college, and studied abroad during college.

Analysis. In the quantitative phase, the path analysis using the Amos program exam-ined the initial model, which was constructed based on the contact hypothesis and previous univariate and multivariate analyses.

Qualitative PhaseIn the second, qualitative phase, interviewees were selected from survey participants based on their survey results. A total of 30 interviews were conducted, which were digitally recorded with permission. The interview protocol included prior international experience, motivation to participate in intervention programs, overall experience in the programs, its impact on the interviewees, a description of international student friends and interactions with them, and thoughts and attitudes toward international

Table 1. Demographics and Group Membership Information.

n %

Gender Male 102 42.1 Female 140 57.9 Missing 2 Group membership Intervention group 95 39.1 Nonintervention group 148 60.9 Missing 1 Total 244 100



Jon 461

students. Interviews were transcribed in the Korean language and analyzed using the Nvivo 9 program. Following the guidelines from the literature on qualitative analysis, coding was conducted deductively based on interview questions (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Patton, 2002). Codes were then grouped under more general themes with newly created codes as patterns emerged. The findings presented in this article focused on the theme: Korean students’ perceived influence from participating in campus pro-grams with international students.

LimitationsA limitation of this study includes selection bias. Students who joined the intervention programs may have had a higher level of intercultural competence in the beginning, compared to those who did not join the programs. However, the meta-analysis by Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) proved that the studies allowing selection bias to operate still showed a positive contact effect, although studies without the possibility of selec-tion bias had larger effects. Nevertheless, the simultaneous measurement of intercul-tural interaction and intercultural competence in this study warrants that their causal inference needs to be interpreted with caution. In future research, a pretest–posttest control group design is needed for a similar study.

FindingsQuantitative Findings

The initial path model was modified based on multiple fit indices, the significance of path coefficients, and model parsimony (χ2(13) = 16.213, p = .24; RMSEA = .032 (90% CI), SRMR = .043, GFI = .982; Kline, 2005; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The results of the path analysis using the final model are presented in Figure 1 and cor-relations are provided in the Appendix.

Figure 1. Final model with path coefficients using standardized estimates. *p < .05. **p < .01; †An ordered categorical variable.




Relationship between intercultural interaction and intercultural competence. Intercul-tural interaction had positive and direct effects on intercultural competence. The nega-tive path coefficient on Minimization (–0.19) also indicates its positive association because Minimization belongs to the ethnocentric stages of the DMIS, as explained above. Overall, these results showed that Korean students’ frequent and intensive interactions with international students were positively associated with their higher level of intercultural competence.

Effectiveness of institutional intervention for intercultural interaction and intercultural competence. Institutional intervention, or program participation, had a particularly strong positive and direct effect on intercultural interaction (0.65). This indicates that Korean students who participated in campus programs were more likely to interact with international students frequently and develop close relationships with them. This finding is not surprising, insofar as a central purpose of the programs is to support greater interaction between Korean and international students and facilitate more meaningful relationships among them. Institutional intervention also influenced inter-cultural competence positively, but indirectly by influencing intercultural interaction first. Therefore, institutional intervention by means of students’ program participation was effective in promoting their intercultural competence.

Role of previous international experience. Previous international experience was included in the model to control for Korean students’ intercultural experience outside of interactions with international students on campus. Results showed that this vari-able had a positive and direct effect on Acceptance/Adaptation only (0.14). For other intercultural competence components, it had indirect effects. As illustrated in Figure 1, this finding means that those with previous international experience tended to partici-pate in campus programs with international students. In turn, their participation, and subsequently increased intercultural interaction, led them to higher levels of intercul-tural competence. Overall, previous international experience had a positive relation-ship with intercultural competence, whether it had direct or indirect effects.

Qualitative FindingsIn the interviews, Korean students described how they were influenced by participat-ing in the campus programs with international students.

More intercultural. Korean students explained that they overcame their fear or anxi-ety in meeting people from different cultures from their experience with international students. One female student explained:

Initially I felt awkward and didn’t know how to treat international students. It was my first time meeting foreigners as friends, not as travelers. So I felt ner-vous a lot, but also excited. But later my shyness was almost gone . . . Now I feel we all share the same thoughts, love the same things, and that we are such friends.



Jon 463

They also increased their interests in other countries, especially from where their friends came. They wanted to travel to the area and learn its language. One student who was a science major described his overall experience in a buddy program with international students as the following:

I became more interested in other countries. I major in natural science, so I was not interested in such things at all. But I suddenly decided to learn Japanese language . . . I like this kind of aspect [of the buddy program].

One interviewee who had lived in China for 2 years to teach students in rural areas explained that she was still undergoing constant learning by interacting with Chinese students in Korea. They still challenged her to go “outside the box” regarding her defi-nition and understanding of Chinese people.

In addition, Korean students demonstrated intercultural learning, for example, that people from different cultures may have different thoughts, but people from the same culture may also have individual differences.

I thought I can learn about countries they came from by meeting international friends. Now I feel that I do less of generalizing individuals [to countries they came from]. For example, when I met a German friend, his/her behavior ini-tially made me think it is how all Germans do. But now I acknowledge that the friend has this kind of personality. Not just because s/he is a foreigner, but because s/he has lived like that. Frankly speaking, when I met German or Japanese friends, or those from other countries, some were more like Koreans, but I also met many who were closer to the Western style. Now I do not gener-alize it as the characteristics of one country, but understand it as one’s charac-teristics. I have become to understand cultures, but I became to understand people even more like this.

Korean students also valued the novelty of experience when they became friends with international students. One student described her intercultural friendship as follows:

I don’t feel them so much different from us any longer . . . I tend to be passive in meeting people but I learned that I cannot meet people like that . . . I’ve never thought that I can become a friend with foreigners. That we became friends with each other has been an amazing experience.

Personal growth. Korean students felt more responsible and tolerant of people from different cultures and with different thoughts. Interviewees contributed such changes to their experiences of supporting international students and taking a leadership role in the buddy program. International students’ active engagement in experiencing dif-ferent cultures in Korea inspired Korean students to be open-minded, curious, and adventurous in experiencing different cultures. They also explained that international




students helped broaden their perspectives and gain confidence. As one Korean stu-dent explains:

I feel my perspectives became broader? By meeting with students [from differ-ent countries and cultures], including those who do not go along well with me, although my English ability is not that good. I mean, I became more tolerant about others, and more responsible that I am taking care of someone else. I would say I became nicer and more adventurous? I became more curious that I want to do different things. International students I met tried to do something new and challenging with curiosity. Personality may matter here, but I did not have enough self-confidence. But they were so open-minded about experienc-ing Korean culture, like French students hoping to try Korean food that is rejected in their culture. It made me think if I could do like them as an exchange student in another country. I see international students who are very active and enjoy their lives in Korea and those who are not. I believe now that it depends on what I do wherever I go. If I just stay in a dormitory, studying and listening to music, even when I am abroad studying in a university I wanted, it is no bet-ter than staying in Korea.

Different future plans. In addition, Korean students said that their participation in programs with international students impacted their thoughts about an international dimension of their own studies, careers, and future plans. For example, some inter-viewees were planning to study abroad. One of them changed her study abroad desti-nation from an English-speaking country to Germany because she learned from her German and Austrian friends that Korea is not well known in Europe and has the image of being a country with its doors closed.

Another student said that he changed his career plan to do something related to other countries:

I originally wanted to work for curriculum and instruction, as you can tell from my major. However, after my experience with international students, I want to do something related to other countries. I have changed my mind on what I want to do in the future.

Similarly, Korean students were inspired by international students who had exten-sively traveled internationally, studied abroad, or worked abroad for internships. One example was an interviewee who had lived in the United States during his childhood and had hoped not to leave Korea. He explained that life in the immigrant community was not what he wanted, being at the periphery of American mainstream society. However, he started to consider working abroad in the future beyond his safety net, influenced by international students.

Language. Lastly, many Korean students mentioned that their foreign language abil-ity improved in English or other foreign languages. Particularly with English ability,



Jon 465

they emphasized that their communicative skills were enhanced in carrying on conver-sations with international students. They were confident that they would not feel embarrassed when approached by a random international student on campus, but could willingly help them.

Discussion and ImplicationsIn the quantitative phase of this study, results showed that Korean students’ participation and interaction with international students in the intervention programs increased and intensified their interaction with international students. In turn, their intercultural inter-action contributed to Korean students’ increased intercultural competence. Similarly, the qualitative follow-up findings revealed that Korean students from the intervention group perceived the impact of their program participation to have promoted their inter-cultural learning and development. They felt more interested, capable, and confident in interacting with and understanding those from different cultures, and they wanted to live a more internationally oriented life. These results echo previous findings about Korean students from an international short-term program with international students and fac-ulty in Korea (Jon, 2009). Taken together, both quantitative and qualitative findings showed that Korean students’ program participation and interaction with international students influenced Korean students’ intercultural competence positively. The quantita-tive results also indicated that program participation was instrumental in promoting Korean students’ intercultural interaction with international students, and subsequently in increasing their intercultural competence. This finding is important, particularly given domestic students’ reluctance to interact with international students.

As noted above in the study limitation, the intervention programs were selective in terms of which Korean students participated. Entrance into the buddy program was highly competitive, and the number of other available programs on campus was very minimal. Korean students may have maintained relationships with international stu-dents that they met through these programs, but tended not to initiate meeting new international students. Reasons included difficulty in approaching new international students without the impetus of related programs, increased study workloads and job searches before graduation. Many of their international student friends also returned to their home countries after a short stay in Korea. Therefore, it is recommended to create programs that encourage domestic students’ participation with low-threshold barriers at various levels, from academic programs to the entire campus. Furthermore, a develop-mental need exists to build a campus-wide environment that provides Korean students with a safety net and a reduced need for personal initiative to meet new international students outside university programs. Possible examples include expanding programs with student initiatives at the departmental level and in student clubs, and providing various programs in different formats such as study groups (Jon & Jang, 2012).

In addition, findings provide significant theoretical implications for the contact hypothesis used in this study. First, the quantitative and qualitative findings jointly support Allport’s (1954) contact hypothesis by showing that intercultural interaction




is positively related with higher levels of intercultural competence. Second, the effec-tiveness of an intervention program is congruent with the meta-analysis results on the contact hypothesis literature that structured programs and intergroup friendship are important factors for the positive contact effect (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2000, 2005). This confirmation of the effectiveness of institutional intervention also supports findings from previous studies (Geelhoed et al., 2003; Klak & Martin, 2003; Leask, 2009a; Nesdale & Todd, 2000). Third, this study has yielded empirical results demonstrating that the contact hypothesis can be applied to a non-Western context.

Most importantly, this study offers important implications to the field of interna-tional higher education, related to the idea of IaH. While the literature in international higher education tends to emphasize internationally mobile students for research top-ics, IaH focuses on a “beyond mobility” approach that targets the whole student body (Wächter, 2003, p. 6). Traditionally domestic students have been excluded in past research on student mobility, but remain a larger cohort compared to study abroad students and international students. IaH, which involves domestic students, can add the human touch and enables grassroots internationalization amid the dominant neo-liberal understanding of internationalization focusing on its economic return (Grünzweig, 2006; Rizvi, 2006; Teekens, 2006). Combined with results from this study, IaH suggests that domestic students’ international education can be facilitated by promoting their relationships with international students. Thereby, less popular countries as a study abroad destination can also help their domestic students benefit from international education. This benefit does not need to be limited to students in popular destinations such as the U.S., United Kingdom, and Australia.

Moreover, facilitating international education for domestic students raises two important implications for the field of higher education in many countries. First, it is cost-effective compared to study abroad programs. IaH involves a large number of domestic students at home but uses international students as resources, who are already in the country, although this may sound neoliberal to Rizvi’s (2006) standard. Second, it can address the issue of equity for international education. In Korea, while students are actively going abroad for travel, language learning, and academic degrees, many decide to stay home for various reasons, including financial difficulty. In 2010, 251,887 Korean students, or only 7% of the total population at Korean higher educa-tion institutions, went abroad during college (Korean Educational Development Institute, 2009; MEST, 2010). Especially considering the favorable job market for those with English proficiency and education abroad in Korean society, facilitating international education for Korean students at home can be an important step in addressing the inequities of international education.

Finally, it should be noted with internationalization efforts that superficial contact among students risks inducing misunderstandings and negative feelings without proper preparation (Jon, 2012; Harrison & Peacock, 2009, 2010; Lee & Rice, 2007). Such consequences include racial discrimination, anxiety, and unequal power relation-ships. Therefore, institutions need to prepare both domestic and international students through training and orientation programs, in addition to general programs to bring



Jon 467

students together. Thus, not only can students build meaningful relationships with one another, but institutions can also realize meaningful internationalization among students.

Appendix

Correlations Between Variables in the Path Model

1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Previous international experience — — — — — —2. Program participation 0.256** — — — — —3. Intercultural interaction 0.229** 0.664** — — — —4. Minimization (IDI) −0.062 −0.122 −0.191** — — —5. Acceptance/adaptation (IDI) 0.220** 0.198** 0.391** −0.162* — —6. Intercultural behavior 1 0.176* 0.264** 0.317** 0.036 0.173** 7. Intercultural behavior 2 0.110 0.134* 0.214** 0.002 0.145* 0.110

n = 243; Spearman’s correlation coefficients for intercultural behaviors 1 and 2.*p < .05. **p < .01.

Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

FundingThe author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Barger, S. S. (2004). The impact of international students on domestic students in U.S. insti-

tutions of higher education (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Davis, T. D. (2003). Atlas of student mobility. New York, NY: Institute of International Education.

Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10, 241-266.

Dunne, C. (2009). Host students’ perspectives of intercultural contact in an Irish university. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13, 222-239.

Eisenchlas, S., & Trevaskes, S. (2007). Developing intercultural communication skills through intergroup interaction. Intercultural Education, 18, 413-425.

Engberg, M. E. (2004). Improving intergroup relations in higher education: A critical exami-nation of the influence of educational interventions on racial bias. Review of Educational Research, 74, 473-524.




Geelhoed, R. J., Abe, J., & Talbot, D. M. (2003). A qualitative investigation of U.S. students’ experiences in an international peer program. Journal of College Student Development, 44(1), 5-17.

Gordon, M. E., & Newburry, W. E. (2007). Students as a resource for introducing intercultural education in business schools. Intercultural Education, 18, 243-257.

Grünzweig, W. (2006). My home is my classroom: A critical approach to Internationalization at Home. In H. Teekens (Ed.), Internationalization at Home: A global perspective (pp. 49-59). The Hague, The Netherlands: Nuffic.

Harrison, N., & Peacock, N. (2009). Interactions in the international classroom: The UK perspective. In E. Jones (Ed.), Internationalisation and the student voice (pp. 125-142). New York, NY: Routledge.

Harrison, N., & Peacock, N. (2010). Cultural distance, mindfulness and passive xenophobia: Using Integrated Threat Theory to explore home higher education students’ perspectives on ‘internationlisation at home.’ British Educational Research Journal, 36, 877-902.

Herfst, S. L., Van Oudenhoven, J. P., & Timmerman, M. E. (2008). Intercultural effectiveness training in three Western immigrant countries: A cross-cultural evaluation of critical inci-dents. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32, 67-80.

Jon, J.-E. (2009). ‘Interculturality’ in higher education as student intercultural learning and development: A case study in South Korea. Intercultural Education, 20, 439-449.

Jon, J.-E. (2012). Power dynamics with international students: From the perspective of domestic students in Korean higher education. Higher Education, 64, 441-454.

Jon, J.-E., & Jang, N. (2012). Nihao? Chinese students’ relationships with Korean students: From Chinese students’ experience and perspectives. The Korea Educational Review, 18, 303-326 [in Korean].

Kashima, E. S., & Loh, E. (2006). International students’ acculturation: Effects of international, conational, and local ties and need for closure. International Journal of Intercultural Rela-tions, 30, 471-485.

Kimmel, K., & Volet, S. (2012). University students’ perceptions of and attitudes towards cul-turally diverse group work: Does context matter? Journal of Studies in International Educa-tion,16, 157-181.

Klak, T., & Martin, P. (2003). Do university-sponsored international cultural events help students to appreciate “difference”? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 445-465.

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Korean Educational Development Institute. (2009). 2009 Statistical yearbook of education. Seoul, Korea: Ministry of Education, Science and Technology.

Leask, B. (2006). Campus diversity, student participation and internationalization—A case study from Australia. In H. Teekens (Ed.), Internationalization at Home: A global perspec-tive (pp. 119-130). The Hague, The Netherlands: Nuffic.

Leask, B. (2007). Diversity on campus—an institutional approach: A case study from Australia. In H. Teekens (Ed.), Internationalisation at home: Ideas and ideals (Vol. 20, pp. 33-39). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: European Association for International Education.

Leask, B. (2009a). Using formal and informal curricula to improve interaction between home and international students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13, 205-221.



Jon 469

Leask, B. (2019b). ‘Beside me is an empty chair’: The student experience of internationalisa-tion. In E. Jones (Ed.), Internationalisation and the student voice (pp. 3-17). New York, NY: Routledge.

Lee, J. J., & Rice, C. (2007). Welcome to America? International student perceptions of dis-crimination. Higher Education, 53, 381-409.

Mestenhauser, J. A. (2003). Building bridges. International Educator, 12, 6-11.Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook

(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Ministry of Education and Human Resource Development, Korea (MOE&HRD). (2003). 2003

Statistics on international students in Korea and Korean students abroad. Unpublished government document [in Korean].

Ministry of Education and Human Resource Development, Korea (MOE&HRD). (2004). The Study Korea Project. Unpublished government document [in Korean].

Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, Korea (MEST). (2010). 2010 Statistics on Korean students abroad. Unpublished government document [in Korean].

Montgomery, C. (2009). A decade of internationalization: Has it influenced students’ views of cross-cultural group work at university? Journal of Studies in International Education, 13, 256-270.

Nesdale, D., & Todd, P. (2000). Effect of contact on intercultural acceptance: a field study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24, 341-360.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2010). Education at a glance 2010: OECD indicators. Paris, France: OECD.

Otten, M. (2003). Intercultural learning and diversity in higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7, 12-26.

Paige, R. M. (1983). Cultures in contact: On intercultural relations among American and foreign students in the United States university context. In D. Landis, & R. W. Brislin (Eds.), Hand-book of intercultural training (Vol. 3, pp. 102-129). New York, NY: Pergamon.

Parsons, R. L. (2010). The effects of an internationalized university experience on domestic students in the United States and Australia. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14, 313-334.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Peacock, N., & Harrison, N. (2009). “It’s so much easier to go with what’s easy”: “Mindful-ness” and the discourse between home and international students in the United Kingdom. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13, 487-508.

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2000). Does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Recent meta-analytic findings. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 93-114). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2005). Allport’s intergroup contact hypothesis: Its history and influence. In P. G. John, F. Dovidio & Laurie A. Rudman (Ed.), On the nature of prejudice: fifty years after Allport (pp. 262-277). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751-783.

Pritchard, R. M. O., & Skinner, B. (2002). Cross-cultural partnerships between home and inter-national students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 6, 323-353.




Rizvi, F. (2006). Home and abroad: Rethinking internationalization of higher education. In H. Teekens (Ed.), Internationalization at Home: A global perspective (pp. 19-31). The Hague, The Netherlands: Nuffic.

Stier, J. (2003). Internationalisation, ethnic diversity and the acquisition of intercultural compe-tencies. Intercultural Education, 14(1), 78-91.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Teekens, H. (2006). Internationalization at Home: A background paper. In H. Teekens (Ed.), Internationalization at Home: A global perspective (pp. 7-18). The Hague, The Netherlands: Nuffic.

Teekens, H. (2007). Internationalisation at home: An introduction. In H. Teekens (Ed.), Inter-nationalisation at home: Ideas and ideals (Vol. 20, pp. 3-11). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: European Association for International Education.

Trice, A. G. (2004). Mixing it up: International graduate students’ social interactions with American students. Journal of College Student Development, 45, 671-681.

Volet, S. E., & Ang, G. (1998). Culturally mixed groups on international campuses: An oppor-tunity for inter-cultural learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 17(1), 5-23.

Ward, C. (2001). The impact of international students on domestic students and host institu-tions: A literature review. Prepared for the New Zealand Ministry of Education. Victoria University of Wellington.

Wächter, B. (2003). An introduction: Internationalisation at Home in Context. Journal of Stud-ies in International Education, 7(1), 5-11.

Wight, A. R. (1995). A critical incident as a training tool. In S. M. Fowler & M. G. Mumford (Eds.), Intercultural sourcebook: Cross-cultural training methods (Vol. 1, pp. 127-140). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Williams, C. T., & Johnson, L. R. (2011). Why can’t we be friends?: Multicultural attitudes and friendships with international students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 41-48.

Zhang, J., & Goodson, P. (2011). Predictors of international students’ psychosocial adjustment to life in the United States: A systematic review. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 139-162.

Author Biography

Jae-Eun Jon is a research professor at the Higher Education Policy Research Institute at Korea University in Seoul, Republic of Korea. She received her PhD from the University of Minnesota, USA, and was a postdoctoral associate for the Study Abroad for Global Engagement project. Her research interests include comparative education and the internationalization of higher education focusing on its impact on students.

internationalization at home in korean higher education

Documents