2. 240 Journal of Research in International Education 12(3)
study abroad (Andrade, 2010). In this study, international students are those at university level who
do not hold citizenship or a permanent residence visa in a country where they apply to study. They
are required to have a student visa. International students are full-fee paying, partial-fee paying or
under full scholarship. Unlike immigrants who arrive for employment or social compulsion rea-
sons, international students come for a set time period with a primary reason being an academic
engagement and qualification gain (Ramachandran, 2011).
According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2012), in
2010 approximately 4.1 million international students were enrolled in higher education pro-
grammes outside their home countries, up from 3.0 million in 2005 and 2.1 million in 2000. Forest
and Altbach (2006) project that the international student numbers will reach 8 million by the year
2020. Nations such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada have sought
to increase international enrolment numbers at university as a national priority (see Andrade, 2006,
2010). In Australia, despite the recent global economic crisis, the number of international students
remains steadily high (see Australian Education International [AEI], 2013). There were 462,411
full-fee-paying international students in Australia in August 2013. The two largest international
education markets were China (29%) and India (9%) (AEI, 2013).
Once the domain of scholarship recipients and the educated elite, study abroad is now enjoyed
by a more general student population, an increasing proportion of whom are full-fee paying. This
reflects the economic value of international students as a source of external revenue. Yet this
economic rationalization of cross-border education overshadows the social dimension of inter-
national education, as a means to evolve an international approach to knowledge and learning,
increase international understanding and intercultural appreciation and strengthen relations
between countries (see James, 2005). The focus on international education as a source of reve-
nue also takes attention away from the need for tertiary providers to ensure that international
students adjust well into a new academic and cultural setting, benefit educationally and socially
from the process and are seen as valued members of the student community (see Ramachandran,
2011). The economic arguments for increasing international enrolments also divert attention
away from the impact that an international student body has on teaching and assessment prac-
tice, classroom relationships between teachers and students, and expectations in learning (see
Tange and Jensen, 2012).
According to Arambewela and Hall (2009), a key objective of universities is to ensure that
international students’ needs and expectations are met. Success of international education rests on
a comprehensive understanding of how international students can improve their English language
and academic preparedness and of the personal factors influencing international students’ aca-
demic success (e.g. Andrade, 2010; Sawir et al., 2012; Trent, 2012). Educational research has long
examined socio-cognitive student characteristics that can influence the extent to which students
invest in their learning and academic development. However, little research has examined and
documented this in relation to international students.
In the Australian context, much research has looked at the predictive validity of International
English Language Testing System (IELTS) or English language proficiency, academic and social
difficulties, psychological well-being and adjustment of international students (e.g. Phakiti and Li,
2011; Tananuraksakul and Hall, 2011). Wright and Schartner (2013) and Ramachandran (2011)
discuss these issues in the UK context. Several studies have indicated that English language profi-
ciency is not the only personal factor affecting academic achievement (e.g. Cotton and Conrow,
1998; Hill et al., 1999; Kerstjens and Nery, 2000; Storch and Hill, 2008). It is hence important to
examine other personal factors such as motivation and self-regulation together with English lan-
guage proficiency in order to comprehensively understand the process of academic learning. Such
an understanding will allow a host university to provide targeted support for international
at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on March 13, 2015jri.sagepub.comDownloaded from
3. Phakiti et al. 241
students (Arambewela and Hall, 2009). No known published studies to date have empirically
looked at such learner factors in the context of Foundation Studies programmes.
Pathways into university for international students
Admission decisions for ESL international students (hereafter international students) in Australian
universities are made on the basis of their academic performance (the most important criterion) and
English language proficiency (the second most important criterion). While many international
undergraduate students satisfy the English language admission requirements through acceptable
scores in the IELTS or the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), Australian universities
are now increasingly providing non-proficiency-test entry pathways (e.g. Foundation Studies and
English Language Intensive Courses for Overseas Students [ELICOS] programmes) into higher
education programmes. Such pathway options allow international students to improve their English
language and/or academic preparedness in order to meet the admission requirements without the
need to undertake a further IELTS or TOEFL test.
However, a number of media commentators and researchers in recent years have questioned
whether international students following these pathways have adequately demonstrated sufficient
levels of English language for successful academic performance (Barthel, 2007; Birrell, 2006;
Lane, 2009). There remains a strong need for more research addressing the important question of
how to understand the different academic and language pathways taken by international students
when determining their language readiness for study because language readiness is indicated dif-
ferently across the different pathways. Given the multitude of pathways into university and the lack
of studies in this area, a comprehensive, contextualized examination of how international students’
English language proficiency impacts their academic performance is warranted.
This study focuses on a direct entry pathway option through a Foundation Studies programme
which prepares international students both academically and linguistically for admission to under-
graduate study. Little is publicly understood about what is involved within this academic pathway
option. It has been marketed that the standard English language entry requirement of Foundation
Studies programmes should be equivalent to 6.5 IELTS prior to university entry (i.e. Grade C or
above from their Foundation Studies; discussed further in the ‘Method’ section).
English language proficiency among international students
In English-medium universities, English language ability is one of the most critical aspects for both
native English and ESL international students’ academic success. Nevertheless, quantifying the
effect of language ability on subsequent academic performance is critical for many stakeholders
because this is related to educational standards and success. IELTS is widely used by receiving
institutions in Australia to assess international students’ English language readiness for future aca-
demic study. Since it is a test of generic academic language ability, IELTS scores can be potentially
generalizable to any type of academic language use (Davies, 2008). Australian universities adopt-
ing low English language thresholds for entry may be admitting international students who require
significant levels of English language support and may need to consider use of diagnostic assess-
ment instruments (e.g. CAEL at Carleton University, Ottawa; DELA at the University of Melbourne;
DELNA at the University of Auckland; MASUS at the University of Sydney) around the time of
admission to identify students at risk and direct them to appropriate forms of discipline-specific
language and/or academic support (Hirsh, 2007, 2009; Read, 2008; Read and Hirsh, 2005).
Previous studies have focused on the predictive validity of IELTS test scores on subsequent
academic performance (Cotton and Conrow, 1998; Hill et al., 1999; Kerstjens and Nery, 2000;
at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on March 13, 2015jri.sagepub.comDownloaded from
4. 242 Journal of Research in International Education 12(3)
Phakiti, 2008; Woodrow, 2006a). Although some studies found no correlation (Kerstjens and Nery,
2000), others report correlations ranging from 0.3 to 0.5. This research suggests that English lan-
guage proficiency as measured by IELTS is not a strong predictor of international student subse-
quent academic performance but is an important variable as one cannot learn without the language.
Other previous research has advocated the need for targeted academic and language support for
post-admission (e.g. Jacob and Greggo, 2001; Ramburuth, 2001; Trice, 2003). These studies found
that English language proficiency has remained one of the most problematic aspects for interna-
tional students mainly because their English can be inadequate to cope with the English language
demands of their studies (see also Sawir et al., 2012). Specifically, these studies report student
difficulty with lectures (e.g. vocabulary and delivery speed of lectures, note-taking skills), writing
academic essays or assignments, reading comprehension and oral communication. It can be argued
that this in turn will affect the benefits of an international education to these students.
While English language proficiency is critical to international students’ academic performance,
it is not a sole factor to determine their academic performance. Other personal factors (e.g. prior
learning experiences, subject background knowledge, self-regulation, motivation, cultural and per-
sonal values and levels of study engagement) play a contributing role in their academic success
(e.g. Cotton and Conrow, 1998; Hill et al., 1999; Kerstjens and Nery, 2000; Ramachandran, 2011;
Storch and Hill, 2008). These researchers have called for a study that investigates the role of per-
sonal factors in the success of international students. Such a study would reflect the broad aca-
demic and social dimensions of international education, in terms of enhancing international
approaches to knowledge and learning, and increasing intercultural appreciation (see James, 2005).
To date, there is little quantitative research that examines their inter-relationships.
Research on personal factors
Taking a socio-cognitive approach, this article will examine the extent to which personal variables
(i.e. self-efficacy, personal values, perceived academic difficulty, motivation and self-regulation)
contribute to the academic learning of international students.
Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy is defined as an individual’s beliefs about their capacity to accomplish a given aca-
demic activity or task (Bandura, 1986, 1997). Students who have a stronger level of self-efficacy
are likely to be willing to undertake academic tasks and put greater effort into completing the tasks
than those with a weaker level (Mills et al., 2007). Thus, self-efficacy could influence students’
pursued courses of actions and have a powerful effect on students’ effort to learn successfully
(Zajacova et al., 2005). Research in education and academic achievement has repeatedly found that
self-efficacy is positively predictive of academic achievement (e.g. Lee and Lee, 2001; Pajares,
2003) and is related to adaptive learning practices such as motivational goals and self-regulation
(Bandura, 1997; Pajares, 2002; Pajares and Schunk, 2001; Woodrow, 2006b).
Personal values
The term ‘personal values’ refers to an individual’s self-perception of the importance, interest and
enjoyment involved in academic learning.Although research into students’motivation, self-efficacy
and self-regulation is significant to understanding students’commitment to learn, much research has
not included consideration of students’ personal values. A greater understanding of personal values
should yield valuable avenues for support when assistance is needed by international students.
at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on March 13, 2015jri.sagepub.comDownloaded from
5. Phakiti et al. 243
Miller and Brickman (2004) propose a socio-cognitive model that hypothesizes how students’ per-
sonal values impact on students’ self-regulation processes. Research suggested that personal values
were related to students’ academic performance (e.g. Pajares, 2001; Pajares and Valiante, 2002).
Bandura (1986) pointed out that as self-efficacy is associated with an individual’s value of learning
activities, values are a contributing predictive factor of learning. In other words, self-efficacy is
likely to be connected with the degree of value placed on learning task completion. A review of the
literature on international students’ values suggests that very few studies have examined this area
(e.g. O’Donoghue, 1996; Volet and Renshaw, 1995).
Academic difficulty
Many international students in Australia, according to Barthel (2007), encounter difficulty in
grasping the specific purpose and requirements of academic assessment tasks. A large number of
studies have examined this area of international students’ experiences of studying in English-
speaking countries. Study contexts cover the United States (Cheng and Erben, 2012; Lin and Yi,
1997; Xu, 1991), the United Kingdom (Durkin, 2008), New Zealand (Campbell and Li, 2008;
Zhang and Brunton, 2007) and Australia (Phakiti and Li, 2011; Sawir et al., 2012; Wang and Shan,
2007). Areas of this research include examinations of English language proficiency, academic dif-
ficulty such as reading and writing, and academic adjustment. In comparing the academic adjust-
ment of local students and international students to university, Carroll and Ryan (2005) found that
international students experience more stress and greater difficulty in academic adjustment in
terms of managing the demands of study and time, study methods of independent learning, lan-
guage skills and participation in class.
Motivation
Motivation is defined as an individual’s inner power to learn and become successful in what they
do (Dörnyei, 2005). According to Pintrich (2003), motivation is a multifaceted construct as it is
reciprocally related to students’ beliefs, expectations, learning processes and learning success. In
educational research, motivation has been found to be a powerful predictor of academic success
(Schunk et al., 2008). One of the most widely investigated areas is self-determination theory (Deci,
1980; Deci and Ryan, 1985). Within this theoretical framework, motivation is identified as being
intrinsic or extrinsic. Intrinsic motivation is driven by a reason for learning internal to the indi-
vidual, for example, an inherent interest in learning. Extrinsic motivation, on the contrary, is driven
by a reason for learning that is external to the individual, for example, to get a good job. In lan-
guage learning research, there has been some research utilizing self-determination theory which
has found that this conceptualization is relevant to second language learners (Noels et al., 2003).
Self-regulation
Self-regulation is the degree to which students are metacognitively, motivationally and behaviour-
ally active participants in their own learning process (Zimmerman et al., 1992). Bandura (1986) defines
self-regulation as composed of self-observation (i.e. behavioural monitoring), self-evaluation
(i.e. self-judgement) and self-reaction (i.e. self-initiated consequences). Self-regulation includes
monitoring and evaluation of their performance or cognitive action, thereby planning what to do next
to achieve a goal. Much research has found that in regard to the use of self-regulatory strategies,
successful students proactively engage in organizing their study plans, managing their time, setting
goals to achieve, employing learning strategies effectively and requesting assistance from
at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on March 13, 2015jri.sagepub.comDownloaded from
6. 244 Journal of Research in International Education 12(3)
significant others when needed (e.g. Zimmerman and Schunk, 2011). Several studies found that
self-efficacy can predict the success of students’self-regulatory strategies in learning (e.g. Bandura
et al., 2001; Usher and Pajares, 2008). Pajares (2007) and Bandura (1997) also found that students’
self-efficacy is positively associated with motivation and academic achievement. Students who
have lower confidence in their ability to self-regulate are less likely to use adaptive learning strate-
gies or complete tasks than those with higher confidence (Usher and Pajares, 2008).
Relevance to this study
The review of the literature provided a theoretical underpinning upon which to base our investiga-
tion of language and academic learning of international students in the Foundation Studies pro-
gramme. Several empirical studies have suggested that English language proficiency is not a
stand-alone factor determining level of academic success. There is a need to include other signifi-
cant factors (e.g. self-efficacy, personal values, academic difficulty, motivation and self-regulation)
that together contribute to academic success. To date, no known quantitative research has empiri-
cally examined how such factors are interconnected via a robust multivariate analysis such as a
structural equation modelling (SEM) approach with international students choosing a Foundation
Studies programme pathway for an Australian university entry (see data analysis). On the basis of
previous research, it is hypothesized that these factors are related to each other and bear some
direct and indirect relationships to students’ academic performance including English language
proficiency. This article addresses two research questions:
1. What are the inter-relationships between self-efficacy, values, perceived difficulty, motiva-
tion and self-regulation among these international students?
2. How do these factors relate to one another in order to affect students’ English language and
academic content performance?
Method
Settings and participants
This study was conducted in the context of a Foundation Studies programme which provides an
admission pathway for international students with English as a second language (ESL) to under-
graduate courses at an Australian university. The study analysed data from 341 ESL students (males
= 158; females = 179, unknown gender = 4) who completed the Personal Factors Questionnaire and
had final academic scores from this Foundation Studies programme. The majority of the participants
were from mainland China (N = 233), followed by Hong Kong (N = 29), Korea (N = 15), Saudi
Arabia (N = 11), Taiwan (N = 9) and Indonesia (N = 8). Other participants were from Malaysia,
Vietnam, Iran, Cambodia, Myanmar, Japan, Singapore, Mongolia and Thailand (N = 36). Their
mean age was 19 years, with a standard deviation of 1.50. Students’ English language achievement
in the Foundation Studies programme ranged from A (highest) to F (lowest) (see Figure 1).
The English grades comprised class assessment (50%) which typically includes four assign-
ments (subject to academic streams) and a final examination (50%). According to the assessment
and evaluation guide to assessment in this Foundation Studies programme, assessment comprises
(1) coursework assessments, (2) examinations and (3) teacher’s professional observations. Students
must achieve a pass in this programme to the level required by the faculty of the students’ choice.
These levels are band scores ranging from 0 to 10. A grade point average (GPA) is an average of
two semester GPAs. A GPA calculation does not include the results from English. It is the average
at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on March 13, 2015jri.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7. Phakiti et al. 245
of the student’s eight subjects. The English grade is calculated separately. Students, however, must
pass English A (semester 1) to continue with English B (semester 2). Table 1 provides an example
of a GPA of a student that should help to clarify. For English and a number of other subjects (e.g.
mathematics), the students must pass the ‘A’ module (semester 1) in order to proceed to the ‘B’
module (semester 2).
Research instruments and data collection
Personal Factors Questionnaire. A 61-item, self-reported questionnaire was developed by the
researcher team based on the personal factors literature discussed above. The questionnaire was
used to collect information about participants’ self-efficacy, personal values, academic difficulty,
motivation and self-regulation (see Appendix 1). There were six parts to this questionnaire plus a
section asking for their general background, such as age, gender and country of origin. Table 2
Table 1. Calculation of a student’s grade point average (GPA).
Semester 1 Grade Semester 2 Grade
English A C- English B C
Maths A 7.2 Maths B 7.6
Chemistry A 8.1 Chemistry B 7.5
Physics A 6.0 Information technology B 7.2
Biology A 8.3 Biology B 8.9
GPA 7.6
GPA: grade point average.
Figure 1. English language results in this foundation studies programme.
at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on March 13, 2015jri.sagepub.comDownloaded from
8. 246 Journal of Research in International Education 12(3)
presents the questionnaire taxonomy and reliability estimates. The Cronbach’s alpha estimate of
this questionnaire was 0.85. The reliability might have been affected by the different levels of
scales used as well as the length of the questionnaire. Motivation scales tend to have low reliability
estimates. However, the overall reliability was adequate for further statistical analysis as suggested
by Dörnyei (2007).
English and grade point average. In this study, students’ English grade and GPA data were obtained
from the official institution database. Students’ data were matched with the questionnaire data
through their identity numbers. The student data thus were more reliable than self-reported grades
from students.
Data analysis
The IBM Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) program version 21 was used to compute
descriptive statistics and perform reliability analyses. The EQS 6.2 program (Bentler, 1985–2013)
was used for variance–covariance analysis through SEM. SEM is a statistical methodology for
quantitative data using a hypothesis-testing approach to multivariate analysis (see Schumacker and
Lomax, 2010). SEM allowed us to evaluate the strengths of the effects of these factors on academic
performance. The evaluation of the hypothesized SEM model adequacy was based on an inspec-
tion of the values of multivariate kurtosis, standardized residuals, the chi-square statistics, other fit
indices such as comparative fit index (CFI) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA).
As a general rule of thumb, non-normed fit index (NNFI) and CFI values are recommended to be
equal to or greater than 0.95 (which suggests that the hypothesized model would be 95% better
than the independent [null] model), whereas RMSEA and root mean square residual (RMR) values
are recommended to be less than or equal to 0.05. Bentler (2006), however, notes that if these
Table 2. Questionnaire taxonomy and reliability estimates (N = 341).
Part Construct No. of items Items Alpha
B (self-efficacy) Academic achievement 3 5, 6, 7 0.78
Reading and writing 4 8, 9, 10, 11 0.85
Oral discussion 3 12, 13, 14 0.83
C
(personal values)
Friendship 3 15, 16, 17 0.64
Academic comprehension 3 18, 19, 20 0.74
Academic support 2 21, 22 0.58
D
(perceived difficulty)
Making friends 3 23, 24, 25 0.55
Productive communication 3 26, 27, 29 0.81
Receptive communication 2 28, 30 0.75
E (motivation) Intrinsic/task 4 31, 38, 39, 40 0.64
Performance approach 3 32, 33, 37 0.72
Performance avoidance 2 34, 41 0.38
Extrinsic 2 35, 36 0.33
F (self-regulation) Planning 4 42, 43, 44, 45 0.80
Cognitive 3 46, 47, 48 0.61
Monitoring 3 49, 51, 52 0.75
Evaluating 4 50, 53, 54, 55 0.77
Effort 6 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 0.82
Total 57 0.85
at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on March 13, 2015jri.sagepub.comDownloaded from
9. Phakiti et al. 247
values are larger than 0.05, it may be acceptable if they are no larger than 0.10, especially when
other fit indices are good. Several hypothesized models were tested and retested until a decision
was reached to accept the current model (Figures 2 and 3) that best supported the theory and best
fitted the data about personal variables discussed earlier.
Results and discussion
Inter-relationships between self-efficacy, values, perceived difficulty,
motivation and self-regulation
Figure 2 presents the SEM model which best depicts the inter-relationship between these personal
factors as measured by the questionnaire. Prior to an examination of the strengths of the relation-
ships between these key factors, it is useful to discuss the nature of factor loadings of each con-
struct. A factor loading explains how much a latent variable (e.g. self-efficacy, in the oval) explains
Acad-Com
0.80* Self--efficacy*
0.78*
Acad-Ach0.62E10*
0.80*
Read-Write0.60E11*
Oral-Disc0.59E12*
0.76*
Values*
0.57*
Friend0.82E13*
0.75*
Acad-Com0.66E14*
Acad-Sup0.65E15*
0.79*
Difficulty*
0.56*Make-Friends0.83E16*
0.92*
Prod-Com0.39E17*
Recep-Com0.61E18*
0.71*
Motivation*
0.75*
Intrin 0.67 E19*
0.76*
Perf-App 0.64 E20*
0.62*
Perf-Avoid 0.79 E21*
Extrin 0.71 E22*
0.79*
Self-regulation*
0.80*
Plan 0.60 E23*
0.68*
Cog-St 0.74 E24*
0.83* Monitor 0.55 E25*
0.87*
Evaluate 0.49 E26*
Effort 0.62 E27*
0.49*
0.72*
-0.37*
-0.37*
0.45*
-0.55*
0.54*
0.58*
-0.30*
0.54*
0.80*
0.78*
0.62
0.80*
0.60
0.59
0.76*
0.57*
0.82
0.75*
0.66
0.65
0.79*
0.56*
0.83
0.92*
0.39
0.61
0.71*
0.75*
0.67
0.76*
0.64
0.62*
0.79
0.71
0.79*
0.80*
0.60
0.68*
0.74
0.83* 0.55
0.87*
0.49
0.62
0.49*
0.72*
-0.37*
-0.37*
0.45*
-0.55*
0.54*
0.58*
-0.30*
0.54*
Figure 2. A hypothesized model of the inter-relationship between self-efficacy, personal values, academic
difficulty, motivation and self-regulation (Model 1; N = 341; Chi-square (χ2
(120)) = 223.81; p = 0.00; CFI = 0.96;
RMSEA = 0.05; *p < 0.05).
CFI: comparative fit index; RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation; Acad-Ach: Academic Achievement; Read-
Write: Reading and Writing; Oral-Diss: Oral Discussion; Friend: Friendship; Acad-Com: Academic Comprehension;
Acad-Sup: Academic Support; Make-Friends: Making Friends; Prod-Com: Productive Communication; Recep-Com: Re-
ceptive Communication; Intrin: Intrinsic; Perf-App: Performance Approach; Perf-Avoid: Performance Avoidance; Extrin:
Extrinsic; Plan: Planning; Cog-St: Cognitive Strategies; Monitor: Monitoring; Evaluate: Evaluating; Effort: Effort.
at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on March 13, 2015jri.sagepub.comDownloaded from
10. 248 Journal of Research in International Education 12(3)
observed variables (in rectangular boxes). The SEM analysis evaluated the factor loadings by
accounting for non-random error of measurement (denoted as ‘E’ in the model). An inspection of
Figure 2 suggests that the factor loadings were reasonable, ranging from 0.56 (Make-Friends) to
0.92 (Prod-Com). Within each of the observed variables under a latent factor, their correlations can
be estimated. For example, in the self-efficacy factor, the correlation between self-efficacy in aca-
demic achievement and self-efficacy in reading and writing was 0.62 (i.e. 0.78 × 0.80; R2 = 0.38,
large effect size [ES]). The value of R2 can be interpreted as the percentage to which one factor can
explain another factor. The correlations between the observed variables in Figure 2 provided useful
information about the magnitudes of their inter-relationships as discussed in the literature.
Figure 2 shows a network of personal factors associated with issues in academic learning by the
international students studying this Foundation Programme. Table 3 summarizes the correlation
coefficients based on this SEM model.
First, positive correlations were found between self-efficacy, personal values, motivation and
self-regulation (i.e. the correlation coefficients ranged from 0.45 (R2 = 0.20, medium ES) between
self-efficacy and values to 0.72 (R2 = 0.52, large ES) between motivation and self-regulation). A
strong correlation coefficient between motivation and self-regulation suggests that people who
reported a high level of motivation were likely to report a high level of self-regulation during the
learning. Second, perception in difficulty exhibited a negative correlation coefficient to other fac-
tors. The negative correlations ranged from −0.30 (R2 = 0.09) between perceived difficulty and
motivation to −0.55 (R2 = 0.30) between perceived difficulty and self-efficacy. This finding sug-
gests that students who reported a high degree of difficulty in making friends and productive and
receptive production were likely to exhibit a low level of self-efficacy as well as having a low level
of motivation to learn or improve their performance. Overall, the correlation coefficients suggest a
very close inter-relationship between motivation, self-efficacy and self-regulation, reflecting the
findings of previous studies (e.g. Bandura, 1986, 1997; Dörnyei, 2005; Pajares, 2003; Usher and
Pajares, 2008; Zimmerman and Schunk, 2011). However, as might be expected, perceived diffi-
culty had negative correlations with other factors. Extensive issues of perceived difficulty are dis-
cussed in Carroll and Ryan (2005).
Influences of personal factors on students’ English language and academic
performance
Although the personal factors of self-efficacy, personal values, perceived difficulty, motivation and
self-regulation are related to one another as suggested in Figure 2, the literature suggests that some
may have certain direct relations to other factors including learning achievement. Based on several
SEM model tests informed by previous research and associated theories and through several model
re-specifications, Figure 3 (which includes English language proficiency and academic content
achievement) depicts their hierarchical relations. It was found that personal values, motivation and
academic difficulty tended to have a direct link to self-regulation which was in turn related to self-
efficacy. Self-efficacy had a direct connection to the English grade, which then largely predicted
the GPA. Here, personal values had another direct relation to motivation and self-efficacy.
Personal values, motivation and perceived difficulty had a direct relationship to self-regulation.
The regression coefficients were 0.15 (R2 = 0.02), 0.61 (R2 = 0.37) and −0.19 (R2 = 0.04), respec-
tively. For example, in this analysis, motivation could explain about 37% of students’ degree of
self-regulation. These findings suggest that, although perceived difficulty could have a negative
impact on self-regulation, motivation had a stronger positive impact. Coupled with values, this
large parameter estimate (37% shared variance) might help minimize the negative influence of
perceived difficulty on self-regulation. This finding supports the theory of motivation as discussed
by, for example, Pintrich (2003) and Dörnyei (2005).
at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on March 13, 2015jri.sagepub.comDownloaded from
11. Phakiti et al. 249
Figure 3 further suggests that self-regulation and values then had a direct positive influence on
self-efficacy. It was found that the regression coefficient between self-regulation and self-efficacy
was 0.45 (R2 = 0.20). This was the third-largest shared variance after personal values to motivation
(discussed next). Personal values had another direct relation to motivation (0.56; R2 = 0.31) and self-
efficacy (0.19; R2 = 0.04). This study suggested that personal values are significant factors during
language and academic learning. According to Figure 3, the regression coefficient from self-efficacy
to students’ English grades was 0.22 (R2 = 0.05). This suggests that 5% of their level of self-efficacy
could contribute to their English language performance.Although it was not very large, students with
0.79*
Self--efficacy0.79*Acad-Ach0.61E10*
0.79*
Read-Write0.62E11*
Oral-Disc0.61E12*
0.76*
Values*
0.57*
Friend0.82E13*
0.74*
Acad-Com
0.67
E14*
Acad-Sup0.64E15*
0.77*
Difficulty*
0.55*
Recep-Com 0.84 E16*
0.95*
Prod-Com 0.32 E17*
Make-Friends
0.64 E18*
0.71*
Motivation*
0.73*
Intrin0.68E19*
0.77*
Perf-App0.64E20*
0.63*
Perf-Avoid0.78E21*
Extrin0.70E22*
0.78*
Self-regulation*
0.79*
Plan 0.61 E23*
0.67*
Cog-St 0.75 E24*
0.82*
Monitor 0.57 E25*
0.86*
Evaluat 0.51 E26*
Effort 0.63 E27*
0.15*
D5*
0.68
0.61*
-0.19*
0.45*
D1*
0.82
0.19*
0.13*
0.15*
0.56*
D4*
0.83
ENG GRADE E9*0.98
0.22*
GPA
0.63*
E7* 0.78
0.79*
0.79*0.61
0.79*
0.62
0.61
0.76*
0.57*
0.82
0.74*0.67
0.64
0.77*
0.55*
0.84
0.95*
0.32
0.64
0.71*
0.73*
0.68
0.77*
0.64
0.63*
0.78
0.70
0.78*
0.79*
0.61
0.67*
0.75
0.82*
0.57
0.86*
0.51
0.63
0.15*
0.68
0.61*
-0.19*
0.45*
0.82
0.19*
0.13*
0.15*
0.56*
0.83
0.98
0.22*
0.63*
0.78
Figure 3. A hypothesized model of the direct and indirect influences between self-efficacy, values,
perceived difficulty, motivation and self-regulation to academic performance (Model 2; N = 341; Chi-square
(χ2
(124)) = 388.79; p = 0.00; CFI = 0.95; RMSEA = 0.06; *p < 0.05).
CFI: comparative fit index; RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation.
Table 3. SEM correlation coefficients between personal factors (N = 341).
Item Self-efficacy Values Difficulty Motivation
Values 0.45*
Difficulty −0.55* −0.37*
Motivation 0.49* 0.58* −0.30*
Self-regulation 0.54* 0.54* −0.37* 0.72*
SEM: structural equation modelling.
*p < 0.05.
at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on March 13, 2015jri.sagepub.comDownloaded from
12. 250 Journal of Research in International Education 12(3)
a higher level of self-efficacy would have up to an extra 5% resource to help them learn English than
those with little or no self-efficacy (see Yang et al., 2006). Most importantly, as self-efficacy operated
simultaneously with other learner factors, it could be seen as a mediator to other variables.
Another area of interest is the relationship between students’ English grades and their GPA. As
presented in Figure 3, the regression coefficient from the English grade to their GPA was 0.63 (R2
= 0.40). This finding suggests that English performance explains about 40% of their overall GPA
during their foundation study. This was a large proportion of their overall academic success (i.e.
GPA). This finding makes sense because all their academic activities involved English language
use and learning. At this school, English language instruction was highly emphasized, and this
might help explain why up to 40% of English language proficiency could explain students’ final
GPA. Previous studies on the prediction of English language proficiency on subsequent academic
performance in tertiary education reported correlations ranging from 0.3 to 0.5 (see discussion of
the literature above). The present finding indicates that international students require a certain
academic English language threshold in order to excel in their academic performance (Davies,
2008). The SEM model (Figure 3) confirms that English language proficiency is necessary for
academic content success of international students, but it is not a sole determiner.
Conclusion
International education in Australia is a major national source of income and has become an inte-
gral part of Australian university-level education. The foci of this current research project reflect
an issue of current debate and controversy not only in Australian international education, but glob-
ally, for which more solid data and evidence are still needed. The issue of the multiple entry path-
wayscurrentlyusedbyinternationalstudentsastheymoveintotheirundergraduateandpostgraduate
studies, and how each of these impacts on transition and academic progress, remains one particu-
larly in need of investigation.
A number of media commentators and researchers in recent years have questioned whether ESL
international students following different academic pathways (discussed earlier) have adequately
demonstrated sufficient levels of English language for successful academic performance (Barthel,
2007; Birrell, 2006; Coley, 1999; Lane, 2009). The multitude of admission pathways used by inter-
national students has led to a critical need for receiving institutions to determine the readiness of
international students for the language demands of their selected areas of study and to determine
which pathways are ‘best’ from an English language perspective.
This study has examined such learner factors as personal values, perceived difficulty, motiva-
tion, self-regulation and self-efficacy between the student group while attending the final semester
of the Foundation Studies programme. The two SEM models suggest a network of personal factors
that play an integral part in international students’ English language development and aca-
demic learning. The relationships between these factors are highly complex and motivation,
self-regulation, self-efficacy and English language proficiency are key factors explaining indi-
vidual differences between the international students and their academic performance. This study
supports, for example, Sawir et al.’s (2012) and Yang et al.’s (2006) proposition that English lan-
guage proficiency is a necessary but not sufficient condition for success of international students.
Limitations
Some limitations of this study should be noted. First, as the questionnaire was administered early in
students’final semester and as their English grade and GPAwere gathered at the end of the semester,
the relationships between personal factors and academic achievement might not be as strong because
at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on March 13, 2015jri.sagepub.comDownloaded from
13. Phakiti et al. 251
their learning would have changed according to the natural language exposure and formal instruc-
tion. Had another questionnaire been used towards the end of the semester, the predictions might
have been more meaningful than those found here. Second, this study relies on a SEM approach,
which is not necessarily the only window to students’ minds. Our interview data in this first phase
and 1.5-year longitudinal quantitative and qualitative data suggest several specific instances where
any of these personal factors play more or less salient roles between different students in different
academic circumstances. Such patterns have not been considered in this article due to limitations of
space. Qualitative analysis and longitudinal modelling will be reported in subsequent publications.
Implications for international education
According to Marginson (2011), the status of international students needs to be well understood because
it involves multiple layers of political, economic, cultural, social and personal complexities. In regard to
personal complexities, the outcomes of this study have immediate implications for a host university
seeking to provide academic programmes designed to assist international students to prepare for and
succeed in their academic studies and to benefit from an international education. These students should
be informed about the important roles of self-regulation, self-efficacy, motivation, academic difficulty
and personal values which influence their English language proficiency and academic achievement.
Although English language proficiency remains an important factor in academic achievement, there are
other significant personal factors centrally involved. Motivated and self-regulated students are more
likely to be successful academically and socially during their academic study because these factors
facilitate not only their language development but also their academic development.
Thus, a host university or college should consider ways to explicitly model self-regulatory and
motivational strategy use appropriate to academic learning. In addition, while perceived difficulty
alone may negatively affect students’ learning performance, this study found that it does not have
a direct and large impact on students’ performance when other personal factors are considered
simultaneously. It is therefore important for both educators and students to appreciate the power of
motivation, self-regulation and self-efficacy to overcome personally perceived difficulty. If teach-
ers and professors integrate the roles of socio-cognitive factors on learning as part of the content
teaching, it could maximize students’ capability to use time and resources effectively and sustain-
ably once they commence their tertiary-level studies.
Further research
The present SEM models should be replicated and further examined with other ESL students in
various entry pathways. This research programme will allow cross-cultural and geographical com-
parisons which can enrich the current understanding. The qualitative findings based on individual
interviews as well as the longitudinal quantitative analysis across the three phases (1.5 years) will
be reported in subsequent publications. More research is needed to situate Australian research at
the forefront of the international literature on learning achievement and experiences for interna-
tional students. The research focuses on National Research Priority 4: Safeguarding Australia in
addressing the associated Priority Goal of Understanding Our Region and the World, by enhancing
Australia’s capacity to engage with its regional and global environment through a greater under-
standing of the role of language knowledge in trans-national tertiary education.
Through multidimensional, longitudinal analysis of triangulated data, further research can pro-
duce a body of evidence-based knowledge concerning the effect of English language relative to
other pertinent individual, social and educational factors on the academic performance of interna-
tional students. This research will have major implications for Australian and international research
at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on March 13, 2015jri.sagepub.comDownloaded from
14. 252 Journal of Research in International Education 12(3)
on the provision of international education. The long-term effect of such research includes enhanc-
ing the reputation of study in Australia for future international students. Clearly, the potential for
national benefit lies in the rewards of making Australia a more attractive and successful provider of
tertiary education. There is a prospect of helping ensure that international students have the best
English language and academic content preparation possible for successful university study.
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge the support of David Burns, Rosie Giddings, Paula Gothelf and John Hughes.
Thanks also goes to the Editors and anonymous reviewers for their support and critical and useful feedback/
comments on our earlier drafts.
Funding
Funding for this project was provided by the Study Group Australia.
References
Andrade MS (2006) International students in English-speaking universities. Journal of Research in
International Education 5(2): 131–154.
Andrade MS (2010) Increasing accountability: faculty perspectives on the English language competence of
non-native English speakers. Journal of Studies in International Education 14(3): 221–239.
Arambewela R and Hall J (2009) An empirical model of international student satisfaction. Asia Pacific
Journal of Marketing and Logistics 21(4): 555–569.
Australian Education International (AEI) (2013) Monthly summary of international student enrolment data.
Available at: http://www.aei.gov.au/research/International-Student-Data/Pages/default.aspx (accessed
30 October 2013).
Bandura A (1986) Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura A (1997) Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Bandura A, Barbaranelli C, Gerbino M, et al. (2001) Self-efficacy beliefs as shapers of children’s aspirations
and career trajectories. Child Development 72(1): 187–206.
Barthel A (2007) Lost for words among the tight fists. The Australian, 10 October. Available at: http://
www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/appointments/lost-for-words-amont-the-tight-fists/story-
e6frgckf-1111114605963 (accessed 11 November 2013).
Bentler PM (1985–2013) EQS Version 6 for Windows (Computer software). Encino, CA: Multivariate
Software.
Bentler PM (2006) EQS Structural Equation Program Manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.
Birrell B (2006) Implications of low English standards among overseas students in Australian universities.
People and Place 14(4): 53–65.
Campbell J and Li M (2008) Asian students’ voices: an empirical study of Asian students’ learning experi-
ences at a New Zealand university. Journal of Studies in International Education 12(4): 375–396.
Carroll J and Ryan J (eds) (2005) Teaching International Students: Improving Learning for All. London:
Routledge.
Cheng R and Erben A (2012) Language anxiety: experiences of Chinese graduate students at U.S. higher
institutions. Journal of Studies in International Education 16(5): 477–497.
Coley M (1999) The English language entry requirements of Australian universities for students of non-
English speaking background. Higher Education Research and Development 18(1): 7–17.
Cotton F and Conrow F (1998) An investigation of the predictive validity of IELTS amongst a group of inter-
national students studying at the University of Tasmania. IELTS Research Reports 1: 72–115.
Davies A (2008) Assessing Academic English. Studies in Language Testing, vol. 23. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Deci EL (1980) The Psychology of Self-Determination. Lexington, KY: D. C. Heath and Company.
at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on March 13, 2015jri.sagepub.comDownloaded from
15. Phakiti et al. 253
Deci EL and Ryan RM (1985) Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. New York:
Plenum Publishing.
Dörnyei Z (2005) The Psychology of the Language Learner. New York: Routledge.
Dörnyei Z (2007) Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Durkin K (2008) The adaptation of East Asian masters students to western norms of critical thinking and
argumentation in the UK. Intercultural Education 19(1): 15–27.
Forest J and Altbach PG (eds) (2006) International Handbook of Higher Education, vol. 1. Dordrecht:
Springer.
Hill K, Storch N and Lynch B (1999) A comparison of IELTS and TOEFL as predictors of academic success.
IELTS Research Reports 2: 53–63.
Hirsh D (2007) English language, academic support and academic outcomes: a discussion paper. University
of Sydney Papers in TESOL 2(2): 193–211.
Hirsh D (2009) Tracking academic performance: a qualitative approach. In: Anderson F, Ma Y and Tarling
N (eds) The English Language and the Asian Student. Jinan, China: Shandong University Press, pp.
278–300.
Jacob EJ and Greggo JW (2001) Using counselor training and collaborative programming strategies in work-
ing with international students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development 29(1): 73–88.
James K (2005) International education: the concept, and its relationship to intercultural education. Journal
of Research in International Education 4(3): 313–332.
Kerstjens M and Nery C (2000) Predictive validity in the IELTS test: A study of the relationship between
IELTS scores and students’ subsequent academic performance. IELTS Research Reports 3: 85–108.
LaneB(2009)Calltomonitorstudents’Englishcompetence.TheAustralian,14January.Availableat:http://www.
theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/call-to-monitor-students-english/story-e6frgcjx-11111185545562
(accessed 11 November 2013).
Lee J-H and Lee S (2001) The relationship of goal orientation, self-efficacy and attribution theories for an
understanding of undergraduates’ motivation in a foreign language course. Journal of Educational
Psychology 15(3): 217–234.
Lin J-CG and Yi JK (1997) Asian international students’ adjustment: Issues and program suggestions. College
Student Journal 31(4): 473–479.
Marginson S (2011) Global context of education and the role of international education in Australia. Paper
prepared for AEI-supported International Education Research-Policy Symposium, Melbourne, VIC,
Australia, 7 April
Miller RB and Brickman SJ (2004) A model of future-oriented motivation and self-regulation. Educational
Psychology Review 16(1): 9–33.
Mills N, Pajares F and Herron C (2007) Self-efficacy of college intermediate French students: relation to
achievement and motivation. Language Learning 57(3): 417–442.
Noels KA, Pelletier LC and Vallerand RJ (2003) Why are you learning a second language? Motivational
orientations and self-determination theory. Language Learning 53(1): 33–63.
O’Donoghue T (1996) Malaysian Chinese students’ perceptions of what is necessary for their academic suc-
cess in Australia: A case study at one university. Journal of Further and Higher Education 20(2): 67–80.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2012) Education at a Glance 2012:
OECD Indicators. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/edu/eag2012.htm (accessed 24 November 2012).
Pajares F (2001) Toward a positive psychology of academic motivation. Journal of Educational Research
95(1): 27–35.
Pajares F (2002) Gender and perceived self-efficacy in self-regulated learning. Theory into Practice 41(2):
116–125.
Pajares F (2003) Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of the literature.
Reading & Writing Quarterly 19(2): 139–158.
Pajares F (2007) Empirical properties of a scale to assess writing self-efficacy in school contexts. Measurement
and Evaluation in Counseling and Development 39(4): 239–249.
Pajares F and Schunk DH (2001) Self-beliefs and school success: Self-efficacy, self-concept, and school
achievement. In: Riding R and Rayner S (eds) Self-Perception. London: Ablex Publishing, pp. 239–266.
at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on March 13, 2015jri.sagepub.comDownloaded from
16. 254 Journal of Research in International Education 12(3)
Pajares F and Valiante G (2002) Students’ self-efficacy in their self-regulated learning strategies: a develop-
mental perspective. Psychologia 45(4): 211–221.
Phakiti A (2008) Predicting NESB international postgraduate students’ academic achievement: A structural
equation modeling approach. International Journal of Applied Educational Studies 3(1): 18–38.
Phakiti A and Li L (2011) General academic difficulties and reading and writing difficulties among Asian
ESL postgraduate students in TESOL at an Australian university. RELC Journal 42(3): 226–262.
Pintrich PR (2003) A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teach-
ing contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology 95(4): 67–86.
Ramachandran NT (2011) Enhancing international students’ experiences: An imperative agenda for universi-
ties in the UK. Journal of Research in International Education 10(2): 201–220.
Ramburuth P (2001) Language diversity and the first-year experience: Implications for academic achievement
and language skills acquisition. Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition 13(2): 75–93.
Read J (2008) Identifying academic language needs through diagnostic assessment. Journal of English for
Academic Purposes 7(2): 180–190.
Read J and Hirsh D (2005) English Language Levels in Tertiary Institutions. Export Education Levy Project
E4. Wellington, New Zealand: Education New Zealand.
Sawir E, Marginson S, Forbes-Mewett H, et al. (2012) International student security and English language
proficiency. Journal of Studies in International Education 16(5): 434–454.
Schumacker RE and Lomax RG (2010) A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling. Mahwah, NJ:
Taylor & Francis.
Schunk DH, Pintrich P and Meece J (2008) Motivation in Schools: Theory, Research and Applications. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson-Merrill Prentice-Hall.
Storch N and Hill C (2008) What happens to international students’ English after one semester at university?
Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 31(1): 1–17.
Tananuraksakul N and Hall D (2011) International students’ emotional security and dignity in an Australian con-
text: An aspect of psychological well-being. Journal of Research in International Education 10(2): 189–200.
Tange H and Jensen I (2012) Good teachers and deviant learners? The meeting of practices in university level
international education. Journal of Research in International Education 11(2): 181–193.
Trent J (2012) The internationalization of tertiary education in Asia: Language, identity and conflict. Journal
of Research in International Education 11(1): 50–69.
Trice A (2003) Faculty perceptions of graduate international students: The benefits and challenges. Journal
of Studies in International Education 7(4): 379–403.
Usher EL and Pajares F (2008) Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning: A validation study. Educational and
Psychological Measurement 68(3): 443–463.
Volet S and Renshaw PD (1995) Cross-cultural differences in university students’ goals and perceptions of
study settings for achieving their own goals. Higher Education 30(4): 407–433.
Wang T and Shan X (2007) Exploring Chinese postgraduate students’ academic adjustment experiences in
Australia. Paper presented at the Enhancing Higher Education, Theory and Scholarship: 30th HERDSA
Annual Conference, Adelaide, SA, Australia, 8–11 July.
Woodrow L (2006a) Academic success of international postgraduate education students and the role of
English proficiency. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL 1: 51–70.
Woodrow L (2006b) A model of adaptive language learning. Modern Language Journal 90(3): 297–319.
Wright C and Schartner A (2013) ‘I can’t. I won’t?’ International students at the threshold of social interac-
tion. Journal of Research in International Education 12(2): 113–128.
Xu M (1991) The impact of English-language proficiency on international graduate students’ perceived aca-
demic difficulty. Research in Higher Education, 32(5): 557–570.
Yang R, Noels K and Saumure K (2006) Multiple routes to cross-cultural adaptation for international students:
Mapping the paths between self-constructs, English language confidence, and adjustment. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations 30(4): 487–506.
Zajacova A, Lynch SM and Espenshade TJ (2005) Self-efficacy, stress and academic success in college.
Research in Higher Education 46(6): 677–706.
Zhang Z and Brunton M (2007) Differences in living and learning: Chinese international students in New
Zealand. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(2): 124–140.
at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on March 13, 2015jri.sagepub.comDownloaded from
17. Phakiti et al. 255
Zimmerman BJ, Bandura A and Martinez-Pons M (1992) Self-motivation for academic attainment: The role of
self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American Educational Research Journal 29(3): 663–676.
Zimmerman BJ and Schunk DH (eds) (2011) Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance.
New York: Taylor & Francis.
Author biographies
Aek Phakiti is Senior Lecturer in Teaching of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) at The University
of Sydney. His research focuses on language testing and assessment, and second language acquisition. He has
published in Language Learning, Language Testing and Language Assessment Quarterly and is an author of
several books including his forthcoming book on ‘Experimental Research Methods in Language Learning’
(Bloomsbury) (see further at http://sydney.edu.au/education_social_work/about/staff/profiles/aek.phakiti.php).
David Hirsh is Senior Lecturer in TESOL and Associate Dean (Graduate Programs) in the Faculty of Education
and Social Work at The University of Sydney. He has a research interest in the role of vocabulary in language
learning. He is involved in research collaboration aimed at exploring the function of scientific vocabulary in
school texts (see further at http://sydney.edu.au/education_social_work/about/staff/profiles/david.hirsh.php).
Lindy Woodrow is Honorary Senior Lecturer in TESOL at The University of Sydney. She has published
widely about second language motivation and related constructs and in the area of academic writing. Her lat-
est publications include ‘College English writing affect: Self-efficacy and anxiety’ System (2011) and ‘Goal
orientations’ in Mercer, Ryan and Williams (eds) (2012), Psychology for language learning (see further at
http://fdp.edsw.usyd.edu.au/users/Lindy).
Appendix 1
Personal Factors Questionnaire
Student ID: ____________________ Name: _________________________________
Email:_________________________ Nationality:______________________________
Age:___________ Gender: [ ] Male [ ] Female
IELTS: ___________ English Entry Test: ________
Programme: [ ] Standard (33/34 weeks) [ ] Standard (40 weeks) [ ] Extended (59 Weeks)
Stream: [ ] Science/Engineering and IT/Health Science [ ] Economics/Commerce
[ ] Arts/Media [ ] Music [ ] Visual arts and Design
Part A: Motivated selves (Items 1–4)
Directions: Under each of the items, list words that you think best describe the type of person you
are or hope to be.
Example:
•• What type of student are you?: lazy, hardworking, class clown
•• What type of student should you be?: hardworking, clever, the best in class
at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on March 13, 2015jri.sagepub.comDownloaded from
18. 256 Journal of Research in International Education 12(3)
1. The type of student you are: ____________________________________________________
2. The type of student you should be: _______________________________________________
3. The type of student you are afraid of being: ________________________________________
4. The type of graduate you hope to be: _____________________________________________
Part B: Self-efficacy (Items 5-14)
Directions: Indicate (X) the level of confidence that indicates how sure you are that you can do the
study tasks.
0% sure I
can do
25% sure I
can do
50% sure I
can do
75% sure I
can do
90% sure I
can do
100% sure I
can do
No Your confidence 0% 25% 50% 75% 90% 100%
5. Pass this programme
6. Get a high grade for English
7. Get a high grade for my subjects
8. Read and understand academic material, such as
text books and articles in English
9. Write a data commentary academic essay
10. Write an argument essay
11. Write a long essay
12. Present a group project
13. Take part in class discussion
14. Understand class discussion
Part C: Personal values (Items 15–22)
Directions: Indicate (X) how much importance each of these has for you in your current
programme of study using the following scale.
No Important issues 1 2 3 4 5
15. Making friends with local (Australian) students
16. Making friends with students from your country
17. Making friends with other international students
18. Being able to understand what you read
19. Participating in class discussions
20. Understanding what is required of you in assignments
21. Being able to contact other students for support
22. Contacting teachers when course content is unclear
No
importance
Slight
importance
Moderate
importance
Great
importance
Extreme
importance
1 2 3 4 5
at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on March 13, 2015jri.sagepub.comDownloaded from
19. Phakiti et al. 257
Part D: Perceived difficulty (Items 23–30)
Directions: Indicate (X) how much difficulty you have with each of these in your current
programme of study using the following 1 to 5 scale.
No Your motivation 1 2 3 4 5
31. I want to learn new things.
32. I want my parents to be proud of me.
33. I want my teacher to think I am successful.
34. I want to avoid failing.
35. I want to contribute to my country’s development.
36. I want to get a good job.
37. I want to be the best student in the class.
38. I feel good when I am using English.
39. I feel good when I do very well in my studies.
40. I feel good when I master something very difficult.
41. I feel guilty if I do not do well.
No Difficulty 1 2 3 4 5
23. Making friends with local (Australian) students
24. Making friends with students from other countries
25. Making friends with students from your country
26. Making yourself understood when speaking English
27. Making yourself understood when writing English
28. Understanding what you read in texts
29. Participating in class discussions
30. Understanding what is required of you in assignments
Part E: Motivation (Items 31–41)
Directions: Indicate (X) your motivation to study your course using the following 1 to 5 scale.
No
difficulty
Slight
difficulty
Moderate
difficulty
Great difficulty Extreme
difficulty
1 2 3 4 5
Not at all
true of me
Slightly true
of me
True of me Very true of
me
Totally true
of me
1 1 3 4 5
at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on March 13, 2015jri.sagepub.comDownloaded from
20. 258 Journal of Research in International Education 12(3)
No Your thinking 1 2 3 4 5
42. I determine how to solve a problem before I begin.
43. I plan my course of action after assessing a problem.
44. I think about the time and resources for the task completion.
45. I break up problems or tasks into smaller parts.
46. I use my prior knowledge/experience to complete a task.
47. I search for information or resources to complete the task.
48. I take notes to help me memorize information.
49. I check my performance while I am doing it.
50. I evaluate the effectiveness of my plans.
51. I know how much of a task I have left to complete.
52. I allow myself time to check my performance.
53. I correct my mistakes immediately when I find them.
54. I ask myself whether I am reaching my performance goal.
55. I double check my performance at the end.
56. I work as hard as possible on all tasks.
57. I concentrate fully when completing a task.
58. I work hard to perform well even if I don’t like a task.
59. My hard work can compensate for a lack of ability for the task.
60. If I try hard enough, I always manage to solve difficult problems.
61. I know how to handle unforeseen situations.
Part F: Self-regulation (Items 42–61)
Directions: Indicate (X) how you normally think when you study using the following 1 to 5 scale.
Not at all
true of me
Slightly true of
me
True of me Very true of me Totally true of me
1 1 3 4 5
at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on March 13, 2015jri.sagepub.comDownloaded from
![240 Journal of Research in International Education 12(3)
study abroad (Andrade, 2010). In this study, international students are those at university level who
do not hold citizenship or a permanent residence visa in a country where they apply to study. They
are required to have a student visa. International students are full-fee paying, partial-fee paying or
under full scholarship. Unlike immigrants who arrive for employment or social compulsion rea-
sons, international students come for a set time period with a primary reason being an academic
engagement and qualification gain (Ramachandran, 2011).
According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2012), in
2010 approximately 4.1 million international students were enrolled in higher education pro-
grammes outside their home countries, up from 3.0 million in 2005 and 2.1 million in 2000. Forest
and Altbach (2006) project that the international student numbers will reach 8 million by the year
2020. Nations such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada have sought
to increase international enrolment numbers at university as a national priority (see Andrade, 2006,
2010). In Australia, despite the recent global economic crisis, the number of international students
remains steadily high (see Australian Education International [AEI], 2013). There were 462,411
full-fee-paying international students in Australia in August 2013. The two largest international
education markets were China (29%) and India (9%) (AEI, 2013).
Once the domain of scholarship recipients and the educated elite, study abroad is now enjoyed
by a more general student population, an increasing proportion of whom are full-fee paying. This
reflects the economic value of international students as a source of external revenue. Yet this
economic rationalization of cross-border education overshadows the social dimension of inter-
national education, as a means to evolve an international approach to knowledge and learning,
increase international understanding and intercultural appreciation and strengthen relations
between countries (see James, 2005). The focus on international education as a source of reve-
nue also takes attention away from the need for tertiary providers to ensure that international
students adjust well into a new academic and cultural setting, benefit educationally and socially
from the process and are seen as valued members of the student community (see Ramachandran,
2011). The economic arguments for increasing international enrolments also divert attention
away from the impact that an international student body has on teaching and assessment prac-
tice, classroom relationships between teachers and students, and expectations in learning (see
Tange and Jensen, 2012).
According to Arambewela and Hall (2009), a key objective of universities is to ensure that
international students’ needs and expectations are met. Success of international education rests on
a comprehensive understanding of how international students can improve their English language
and academic preparedness and of the personal factors influencing international students’ aca-
demic success (e.g. Andrade, 2010; Sawir et al., 2012; Trent, 2012). Educational research has long
examined socio-cognitive student characteristics that can influence the extent to which students
invest in their learning and academic development. However, little research has examined and
documented this in relation to international students.
In the Australian context, much research has looked at the predictive validity of International
English Language Testing System (IELTS) or English language proficiency, academic and social
difficulties, psychological well-being and adjustment of international students (e.g. Phakiti and Li,
2011; Tananuraksakul and Hall, 2011). Wright and Schartner (2013) and Ramachandran (2011)
discuss these issues in the UK context. Several studies have indicated that English language profi-
ciency is not the only personal factor affecting academic achievement (e.g. Cotton and Conrow,
1998; Hill et al., 1999; Kerstjens and Nery, 2000; Storch and Hill, 2008). It is hence important to
examine other personal factors such as motivation and self-regulation together with English lan-
guage proficiency in order to comprehensively understand the process of academic learning. Such
an understanding will allow a host university to provide targeted support for international
at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on March 13, 2015jri.sagepub.comDownloaded from]()