Counselor Educators' Perceptions of and Experiences ... - Springer Link

C 2006) International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, Vol. 28, No. 1, March 2006 ( DOI: 10.1007/s10447-005-8492-1

Counselor Educators’ Perceptions of and Experiences with International Students Kok-Mun Ng1,2

Published Online: 1 May 2006 Thirty-six counselor educators’ perceptions and experiences with international student trainees were examined in this online survey research. Findings support the issues identified in the literature as confronting international students and also surface some issues specific to students in counselor training. International counselor education students tend to experience more difficulties in areas related to language, clinical training, adjustment, and cultural differences. Similarities and differences were also found within international student categories involving western and non-western countries and between international and domestic students. Counselor educators in general reported favorably on working with international students. Findings support attention being given to further examine the specific training and supervisory needs of international counseling students. KEY WORDS: counselor education; counseling trainees; cross-cultural; international students.

Inclusion of international counseling student (ICSs) in the multicultural counseling training discussion has been very limited even though multiculturalism has been in the forefront of counselor education for several decades (Pedersen, 1991a; 2000; Sue, 1981). Despite increased attention on the educational and mental health issues of international students in general (Charles & Stewart, 1991; Haigh, 2002; Pedersen, 1991b), little research has examined the needs of ICSs. The present study is the first of a series of investigations designed to fill this gap in knowledge and understanding. The focus of the study is on counselor educators’ perceptions 1 University

of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, North Carolina, U.S.A. should be directed to Kok-Mun Ng, Assistant Professor in the Department of Counseling, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, North Carolina, U.S.A. Portions of this article were presented at the 2003 Southern Association of Counselor Education and Supervision Conference, Chattanooga, U.S.A. and at the 2004 American Counseling Association Convention, Kansas City, Missouri, U.S.A.; e-mail: [email protected].

2 Correspondence

1 C 2006 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 0165-0653/06/0300-0001/0

2

Ng

of and experiences with international students in counselor preparation programs that are accredited by the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP) in the U.S. The Directory of Accredited Programs (CACREP, 2003) listed a total of 176 institutions with accredited counseling and related programs as of April 1, 2003. Two of the institutions were Canadian. Of these 174 American institutions, 115 of them listed their faculty in Counselor Preparation (Clawson, Henderson, Schweiger, & Collins, 2004). The number of counselor educators present in these 115 institutions totaled 910. This amounted to about eight faculty members per program and an extrapolated estimated total of 1,392 counselor educators in the total of 174 CACREP-accredited programs. International college students International students totaled 586,323 (4.6%) of the 2002/2003 U.S. college enrollment (Chin, 2003). Their enrollment has been climbing steadily in the last few decades. Consequently, increased attention has been given to the academic issues and mental health needs of these students (Mori, 2000; Pedersen, 1991b). The needs of international students are considerable because of the high levels of adjustment-related stressors they encounter (Chen, 1999). In addition to common developmental problems related to living away from their families for the first time (Pedersen, 1991b), many international students also encounter problems that are unique because of cultural and identity background variables (Poyrazli, Arbona, Bullington, & Pisecco, 2001). Chen (1999) reviewed the literature and listed the following common stressors among international students’ experiences: (a) second language anxiety, (b) educational stressors (i.e., performance expectations, system adjustment, and test-taking anxiety), and (c) social stressors (i.e., culture shock, social isolation and alienation, financial concern, and racial discrimination and prejudice). In addition, these students also have to contend with legal issues; for example, facing possible deportation, if they fail to maintain required numbers of credit hours even if they find their course load too difficult to manage (Collingridge, 1999). Enrollment of international students in other non-American Western tertiary educational institutions is also on the rise (Haigh, 2002). Issues confronting international students in these Western countries are similar to those found in the U.S., including, but not limited to, English language problems, stressors related to adjusting to a new educational system, social isolation, financial worries, expectations to do well, and discrimination (Robertson, Line, Jones, & Thomas, 2000). International Counseling Students The literature began to recognize multiculturalism as the “fourth force” in counseling in the early 1990s (Pedersen, 1991a). In the mid 90s, experts issued

Counselor Educators and International Students

3

a call to enhance the understanding of minority students’ unique training needs and develop appropriate theories and models of training for them (McNeill, Hom, & Perez, 1995). Dinsmore and England (1996) studied the status of multicultural counseling training in CACREP-accredited counselor education programs in the U.S. Their findings showed that these programs were making progress in program development related to multicultural counseling training though there were other areas that still needed improvement; for example, recruitment efforts for African American and Hispanic faculty and students, and support for training in multicultural counseling for senior faculty. Dinsmore and England’s (1996) study did not discuss the needs associated with the training of ICSs; neither did McNeill et al. (1995) include ICSs in their call for attention to the needs of minority students. In a national survey of 484 counselor preparation programs, Clawson et al. (2004) collected a massive amount of data on programs, faculty, and students, including ethnicity of faculty and students. However, no information regarding international students was collected. By ethnic minority, the literature (e.g., Atkinson, 1983; Ponterotto & Alexander, 1995) refers only to major ethnic minority groups in the U.S. Studies that reflected interests in international students in the helping field were few and limited to applied psychology (Giorgis & Helms, 1978; Nilsson & Anderson, 2004) and marriage and family therapy (Killian, 2001). Nilsson and Anderson found that international students in professional psychology programs accredited by the American Psychological Association who reported being less acculturated also reported less counseling self-efficacy, weaker supervisory working alliance, more role difficulties in supervision, and more discussion of cultural issues in supervision. Killian examined qualitatively how differences in culture of origin influenced supervisory relationship in a family therapy training program. Among other things, Killian found that there were specific challenges associated with cross-cultural supervision. Discussions and research on multiculturalism in counselor preparation have been primarily concerned with American majority and minority students (e.g., Constantine, 2002; Gutierrez, 1982). Consequently, generalizability of these findings and discussions to ICSs is limited because, though a minority, these students’ experiences and identities are different from those of American ethnic minorities due to differences in sociopolitical backgrounds. Furthermore, great heterogeneity exists among international students (Yoon & Portman, 2004). Despite the advances in the development of multicultural counseling training models and their implementation in counselor education programs, the need to examine counselor preparation among ICSs remains unaddressed. There is a dearth of research on the needs and challenges specific to ICSs, a subpopulation of international students, whose training uniquely requires crosscultural counseling competence and a high degree of verbal English proficiency in clinical courses compared to most other fields of study. The purpose of this study

4

Ng

was to explore issues and concerns related to training ICSs from the perspective of counselor educators who had recent training contact with these students.

METHOD Survey research methods (cf., Fink & Kosecoff, 1998) were used to gather information regarding perceptions, attitudes, opinions, beliefs, and efforts of the participants in training ICSs. The final version of the online self-administered questionnaire was a result of consultation with a researcher familiar with survey research method and feedback from two pilot tests. The rapid expansion of Internet use provides a “powerful tool in survey research” (Sills & Song, 2002, p. 22) and served the needs of this study very well. Participants and Procedures Participants were volunteers recruited via e-mails. No electronic tracking information of the data source was recorded. Invitations were sent to all faculty members whose e-mail addresses were listed on respective department or program websites of the 174 CACREP-accredited programs. Program directors were asked to pass the request to their faculty members in cases where addresses were not listed on the websites. The e-invite was also posted on CESNET-L (an un-moderated listserv concerning counselor education and supervision) and the International Counselor Network listserv multiple times. The e-invite included the hyperlink to the study by which interested individuals could access and participate. Counselor educators who had first-hand experience in teaching and training ICSs from 2000 to 2003 were invited to participate in the survey. Follow-up e-mails were sent a month later. No incentives were given for participation. Participants with recent experience with ICSs were recruited because of the exploratory nature of the study as well as the intent to examine a more chronologically homogeneous group of participants. Thirty-seven responses were received: 24 (64.9%) females and 13 (35.1%) males. The average age of the respondents was 48.17 (SD = 9.63). All but one reported having had contact with ICSs. This participant was eliminated from subsequent analyses. Twenty-seven (75%) of the participants were Whites, nonHispanic; four (11%) were African Americans; three (8%) were Asians; one was Native American; one was Latino; and one individual reported being multiracial. The participants’ years of teaching ranged from one to 33 with a mean of 16 (SD = 1.54). Among the participants were 12 (33%) assistant professors, 11 (31%) associate professors, 10 (28%) full professors, two (6%) professors emeritus, one (3%) clinical assistant professor, and one (3%) lecturer. According to the regionalization of the U.S. by the Association of Counselor Education and Supervision (ACES, n.d.), 19 (53%) responses came from the Southern region, 10 (28%)


5

from North Central, three (8%) from North Atlantic, four (11%) from Western, and one (3%) from Rocky Mountain. Participants from the Southern region were overrepresented by almost 20% while participants from Rocky Mountain were underrepresented by about 7%. In terms of types of contact with international students, all 36 participants had taught, 28 (78%) had advised, and 28 (78%) had both taught and advised these students. Sixteen (44%) had served as thesis/dissertation chairs for ICSs. Participants had students from Asia/Pacific Islands, Africa, Australia, Canada, and Central and South America. Instrumentation Participants were invited to access the survey introductory webpage (Ng, 2003a) wherein the purpose of the survey, eligibility for participation, and informed consent were found. Interested individuals were invited to follow the hyperlink to the online survey instrument (Ng, 2003b). Participants were asked to complete three sections of the survey: (a) Section 1: Participant’s Demographic Information, (b) Section 2: Personal Experience and Perceptions of International Counseling Students Questionnaire, and (c) Section 3: Challenges and Additional Thoughts. In Section 2, participants were to indicate: (a) the types of contacts they had with ICSs, (b) the number of ICSs they had taught/advised/supervised/served on their project committees, (c) the geographic regions from which their ICSs originated, and (d) the number of ICSs they had dismissed from their program. Based on their experience with students who had the most success in their studies, participants were then asked to compare and contrast the three student groups (a) Non-Western International Counseling Students (NWICSs – nationals from Asia, Africa, Mexico, Central and South America, and the Middle East, where English was not their first language); (b) Western International Counseling Students (WICSs – nationals from Australia, New Zealand, Canada, European countries, and countries with primarily Western cultures); and (c) American Counseling Students (ACSs – American citizens) on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = never, 2 = seldom, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often , and 5 = frequently) on 10 items of identified concerns. These concerns were (a) academic problems, (b) English proficiency problems, (c) mental/emotional distress, (d) cultural adjustment problems, (e) social/relational problems with peers, (f) difficulties in clinical courses, (g) problems fitting into clinical placement, (h) difficulties communicating with clients during sessions due to language problems, (i) conflicts with Western understanding of and approaches to treating mental health, and (j) mentoring by faculty members. Participants were asked to repeat the above on their experience with student groups with the least success in their studies. Participants could indicate “N/A” on items that were not applicable. Participants were also asked to rate the extent of their agreement (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) with a series of statements

6

Ng

about working with ICSs. In a final section of the survey, participants indicated the types of efforts they or their programs had used to help ICSs succeed in their studies. They also could provide written responses reflecting their opinions and thoughts related to the training of ICSs. Participants were not given definitions of “most success” and “least success.” They were simply asked to compare and contrast the student groups based on their experience with students who had the most success (or the least success) in their studies. Not every participant had experience with both international groups of students in terms of success in their studies. Hence, they responded to the survey items based on their experience and omitted items that were not applicable to them. Reliability and validity. Internal consistency estimates of the 10 items of concerns were .83 (n = 31) for responses regarding NWICSs with most success (NWICMSs), .92 (n = 20) for WICS with most success (WICSMSs), .89 (n = 26) for ACS with most success (ACSMSs), .87 (n = 28) for NWICS with least success (NWICSLSs), .88 (n = 14) for WICS with least success (WICSLSs), and .79 (n = 23) for ACS with least success (ACSLSs). Item-to-total correlations for the 10 items were examined for all six groups of ratings in order to assess their content validity. The correlations of Items 1 through 9 ranged from .38 to .78 for NWICSMSs, from .66 to .89 for WICSMSs, from .41 to .88 for ACSMSs, from .47 to .88 for NWICSLSs, from.55 to .82 for WICSLSs, and from .34 to .61 for ACSLSs. Item-to-total correlations for Item 10 ranged from −.13 to −.29 in the six groups of scores. When Item 10 (mentoring by faculty) was deleted, their respective alphas increased to .88, .95, .92, .92, and .84. Item 10 did not share similar validity with the other items. The high alphas indicate acceptable reliability for Items 1 to 9. The moderate to high item-to-total correlations provide circumstantial and preliminary indication of content validity of the item set (cf., Daniel & Siders, 1994). Even though participants were not provided with definitions of “most success” and “least success,” the high alphas indicated that participants seemed consistent in their responses.

RESULTS Respondents were grouped based on their experiences with counseling students. Areas of concern were compared across participants reporting their perceptions of students with high degrees of success in their studies (i.e., NWICSMSs, WICSMSs, and ACSMSs) and students with low degrees of success in their studies (i.e., NWICSLSs, WICSLSs, and ACSLSs).


7

Table I. Counselor Educators’ Ratings for Six Student Groups on 10 Identified Concerns

Concerns

NWICSMS n = 31

WICSMS n = 20

M

M

SD

Academic 2.39 .92 English 3.26 .90 Mental/ 2.45 .89 emotional Adjustment 3.19 .70 Social/ 2.55 .77 relational Clinical 3.06 .89 courses Clinical 2.81 1.08 placement Communication 3.23 .88 with client Conflict with 2.48 .81 Western values Mentoring 3.84 .78

SD

ACSMS n = 26 M

SD

NWICSLS n = 28 M

SD

WICSLS n = 14 M

SD

ACSLS n = 23 M

SD

2.20 2.35 2.70

.89 2.42 .75 1.92 .73 2.69

.70 3.57 1.00 3.64 .69 3.71 .98 3.21 .68 3.04 .79 3.14

.93 3.70 .77 .80 2.48 1.12 .86 3.43 .90

2.95 2.65

.89 2.35 .81 2.58

.80 3.57 .96 .76 3.18 1.06

3.29 3.29

.99 2.70 .99 3.35

1.02 .98

2.65

.88 2.58

.76 3.79 1.07

3.71

.99 3.74

.97

2.60

.94 2.42

.76 3.39 1.07

3.50 1.02 3.70

.93

2.80 1.06 2.27

.83 3.68

.98

3.07 1.27 2.57

1.21

2.30

.92 2.23

.77 2.96

.92

2.79 1.19 2.48

1.04

3.90

.72 4.00

.63 3.46

.84

3.43

.85 3.30

.82

Key: NWICSMS: non-Western international counseling students with most success. WICSMS: Western international counseling students with most success. ACSMS: American counseling students with most success. NWICSLS: non-Western international counseling students with least success. WICSLS: Western international counseling students with least success. ACSLS: American counseling students with least success. Likert-type scale:1 = never, 2 = seldom, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, 5 = frequently).

Experience Relative to Concerns Means and standard deviations reflecting concerns for different groups of respondents are presented in Table I. Based on the overall pattern reflected in Table I, it appears that the least successful student groups have a greater number of concerns with higher ratings compared to the groups with the most success. Both the NWICS student groups have a greater number of concerns with higher ratings compared to other groups within the same category of success. All six groups show comparable levels of experience in terms of mentoring by faculty. Statistical analyses were performed to examine the differences among the groups on each concern. Comparisons among students with most success. Counselor educators’ experience with the three student groups was not significantly different in five areas; namely, academic problem, mental/emotional distress, social/relational problem with peers, problem fitting into clinical placements, and mentoring by faculty members (see Table II). Statistically significant group differences were found in five other areas and post hoc comparisons revealed that: 1. NWICSMSs experienced greater problems than both WICSMSs and ACSMSs while the latter two did not differ significantly in (a) English pro-

8

Ng

Table II. Results of a Pair-wise Comparison for Counselor Educators’ Rating of Three Groups of Students with the Most Success on 10 Items of Identified Concerns Item of concerns

Group

M

Student/s experienced academic problems

NWICSMS WICSMS ACSMS NWICSMS WICSMS ACSMS

2.19 2.19 2.48 3.38 2.33 2.10

Student/s experienced English proficiency problems

SD

F

.93 2.79 .87 .68 .87 22.23∗∗ .73 .63

df

(1.26, 25.14) .12 (2, 40)

Post hoc comparison: NWICSMS > WICSMS = ACSMS Student/s experienced NWICSMS 2.62 .87 1.00 (2, 40) mental/emotional distress WICSMS 2.62 .81 ACSMS 2.71 .72 Student/s experienced NWICSMS 3.27 .83 12.78∗∗ (1.48, 31.17) adjustment problems WICSMS 3.00 .87 ACSMS 2.41 .85 Post hoc comparison: NWICSMS > WICSMS > ACSMS Student/s experienced social/ NWICSMS 2.59 .85 .32 (1.49, 31.25) relational problems with peers WICSMS 2.59 .85 ACSMS 2.64 .79 Student/s experienced NWICSMS 3.10 .94 6.34∗ (1.25, 24.91) difficulties in clinical courses NWICSMS 2.67 .86 ACSMS 2.62 .81 Post hoc comparison: NWICSMS > WICSMS = ACSMS Student/s experienced problems NWICSMS 2.86 1.24 3.80 (1.24, 24.70) fitting into clinical placements WICSMS 2.52 .98 ACSMS 2.48 .81 Student/s experienced NWICSMS 3.30 .80 19.00∗∗ (2, 38) difficulties communicating WICSMS 2.80 1.06 with clients during sessions ACSMS 2.30 .92 due to language barrier Post hoc comparison: NWICMS > WICSMS > ACSMS Student/s experienced conflicts with Western understanding of and approaches to treating mental health

NWICSMS WICSMS ACSMS

2.59 2.23 2.14

.85 7.17∗∗ .92 .83

Partial h2

.66

.11 .38

.02 .24

.16 .64

(2, 42)

.33

Post hoc comparison: NWICSMS > WICSMS = ACSMS Student/s experienced mentoring NWICSMS 4.00 .69 .23 (2, 42) by faculty members WICSMS 3.95 .72 ACSMS 4.00 .76

.02

Note: ∗ p < .05, ∗∗ p < .01. Adjustments were made to the ANOVA results using the GeisserGreenhouse epsilon when Mauchly’s sphericity assumptions were violated.

ficiency problems, (b) difficulty in clinical courses, and (c) conflict with Western understanding of and approaches to treating mental health. 2. All three groups were considered different in (a) adjustment problems and (b) difficulties communicating with clients due to language barriers. NWICSMSs experienced more difficulties than did WICSMSs, and the latter more than ACSMSs.


9

Table III. Results of a Pair-wise Comparison for Counselor Educators’ Rating of Three Groups of Students with the Least Success on 10 Items of Identified Concerns Item of concerns

Group

M

SD

Student/s experienced academic problems

NWICSLS WICSLS ACSLS NWICSLS WICSLS ACSLS

3.53 3.41 3.53 3.61 3.17 2.67

.94 1.00 .87 .70 .79 1.09

Student/s experienced English proficiency problems

df

Partial h2

1.40

(1.34, 21.38)

.03

9.79∗∗

(1.34, 23.03)

.37

F

Post hoc comparison: NWICSLS > WICSLS > ACSLS Student/s experienced NWICSLS 3.11 .99 .31 (2, 36) mental/emotional WICSLS 3.05 1.03 distress ACSLS 3.11 .94 Student/s experienced NWICSLS 3.61 .85 10.65∗∗ (1.48, 25.18) adjustment problems WICSLS 3.33 1.03 ACSLS 2.72 1.18 Post hoc comparison: NWICSLS = WICSLS > ACSLS Student/s experienced social/ NWICSLS 3.16 1.12 .32 (1.49, 26.75) relational problems with peers WICSLS 3.16 1.12 ACSLS 3.21 1.03 Student/s experienced NWICSLS 3.82 1.02 2.89 (1.16, 18.56) difficulties in clinical courses NWICSLS 3.76 .97 ACSLS 3.59 1.06 Student/s experienced problems NWICSLS 3.53 1.07 .32 (1, 16) fitting into clinical placements WICSLS 3.53 1.07 ACSLS 3.47 1.07 Student/s experienced NWICSLS 3.56 .92 5.97∗∗ (2, 34) difficulties communicating WICSLS 3.11 1.23 with clients during sessions ACSLS 2.67 1.28 due to language barrier Post hoc comparison: NWICLS > WICSLS > ACSLS Student/s experienced conflicts NWICSLS 3.16 1.12 6.27∗ (1.26, 22.76) with Western understanding WICSLS 2.84 1.26 of and approaches to treating ACSLS 2.53 1.26 mental health Post hoc comparison: NWICSLS > WICSLS = ACSLS Student/s experienced mentoring by faculty members

NWICSLS WICSLS ACSLS

3.33 3.44 3.50

1.14 1.04 .99

1.83

(1.11, 18.94)

.04 .39

.02 .15 .02 .43

.26

.10

Note: ∗ p < .05, ∗∗ p < .01. Adjustments were made to the ANOVA results using the Geisser-Greenhouse epsilon when Mauchly’s sphericity assumptions were violated.

Comparisons among students with least success. There was no significant difference in the perception of counselor educators on the three student groups with the least success in their studies in six areas: (a) academic problems, (b) mental/emotional distress, (c) social/relational problems with peers, (d) difficulty in clinical courses, (e) problems fitting into clinical placement, and (f) mentoring by faculty member (see Table III). However, statistically significant group differences were reported in four other areas and post hoc comparisons revealed that:

10

Ng

1. NWICSLSs experienced English proficiency problems and difficulty communicating with clients due to language barriers more frequently than WICSLSs, and the latter more than ACSLSs. 2. NWICSLSs and WICSLSs experienced similar levels of adjustment problems and both more than ACSLSs. 3. NWICSLSs experienced more often conflict with Western understanding of and approaches to treating mental health than WICSLSs and ACSLSs. The latter two groups did not differ significantly.

Comparisons among the two groups of international counseling students. Additional analysis was performed to compare the differences between NWICSMSs and NWICSLSs, and between WICSMSs and WICSLSs on the 10 concerns in order to further investigate group differences among international students categorized by level of success in their studies. One-way ANOVA results showed that NWICSMSs were rated significantly lower by counselor educators in the first nine areas of concerns and higher in the last area (mentoring by faculty) compared to NWICSLSs (a) academic problems, F(1, 32) = 25.79, p < .001, h2 = .45; (b) English proficiency problems, F(1, 33) = 6.74, p < .05, h2 = .17; (c) mental/emotional distress, F(1, 33) = 16.02, p < .001, h2 = .33; (d) adjustment problems, F(1, 31) = 8.68, p < .01, h2 = .22; (e) social/relational problems, F(1, 33) = 14.79, p < .01, h2 = .22; (f) difficulty in clinical courses, F(1, 30) = 14.25, p < .01, h2 = .32; (g) problem fitting into clinical placement, F(1, 31) = 12.62, p < .01, h2 = .29; (h) difficulty communicating with clients due to language barrier, F(1, 30) = 8.33, p < .01, h2 = .22; (i) conflict with Western understanding of and approaches in treating mental health, F(1, 32) = 16.24, p < .001, h2 = .34; and (j) mentoring by faculty, F(1, 30) = 4.32, p < .05; h2 = .13. NWICSMSs were perceived to have received more mentoring compared to NWICSLSs while the latter experienced more difficulties in other areas. There were statistically significant differences between the means of the ratings on the two groups of WICSs. WICSMSs were rated lower in six areas of concerns and higher in one (again, mentoring by faculty) compared to WICSLSs (a) academic problems, F(1, 16) = 17.19, p < .01, h2 = .52; (b) English proficiency problems, F(1, 17) = 11.73, p < .01, h2 = .41; (c) social/relational problems, F(1, 18) = 5.06, p < .05, h2 = .22; (d) difficulty in clinical courses, F(1, 16) = 11.92, p < .01, h2 = .43; (d) problem fitting into clinical placement, F(1, 16) = 10.56, p < .01, h2 = .40; (e) conflict with Western understanding of and approaches to treating mental health, F(1, 18) = 7.44, p < .05, h2 = .29; and (f) mentoring by faculty, F(1, 18) = 4.59, p < .05, h2 = .20. The three areas of concerns where WICSMSs and WICSLSs did not differ significantly at .05 alpha level were (a) mental/emotional, (b) adjustment problems, and (c) difficulty communicating with client due to language barriers.


11

Impact of and Interaction with International Students Participants were asked to rate the extent of their agreement with 10 statements that evaluated international students’ impact on them and the program as well as their own interaction with these students. With regard to the statement, “working with ICSs had positively impacted me personally and professionally”, 12 participants agreed and 18 strongly agreed, making a total of 83.3% affirmative responses. Three others responded neutrally, one disagreed, and two strongly disagreed. Twenty-three (63.9%) strongly agreed, nine (25.0%) agreed, and two (5.6%) remained neutral toward the statement, “Cross-cultural perspectives of ICSs had positively enriched our program”. There was no disagreement reported, though there was one missing data and one indicated “N/A”. Positive consensus was close to 90%. Regarding the statement, “ICSs were often encouraged to share their cultural perspectives in my classes”, 12 (33.3%) strongly agreed, 17 (47.2%) agreed, one remained neutral, five (13.9%) disagreed, and one (2.8%) strongly disagreed. A large majority (80%) of the participants considered the cultural perspectives of ICSs valuable to the learning of other students. There was very little disagreement with the statement, “As an instructor, I sought to create an inclusive learning experience for ICSs”. When asked to indicate their agreement with the statement, “There’s no need to treat ICSs as a student group different from other counseling students”, nine (25%) strongly disagreed, 20 (55.6%) disagreed, four (11.1%) maintained neutrality, and three (8.3%) agreed. Though there was a very strong indication that ICSs should be treated as a unique student group, close to 20% of participants did not support the notion. Four (11.1%) strongly agreed, 17 (47.2%) agreed, seven (19.4%) remained neutral, five (13.9%) disagreed, and three (8.3%) strongly agreed that “ICSs needed help to find ways to apply what they learned in class to their own cultural contexts”. Though there was about 58% agreement with the statement, there was a sizeable group whose opinions were different. Fifteen (41.7%) agreed and 12 (33.3%) strongly agreed that “Some ICSs tended to need more attention and assistance from faculty than ACSs”. But, one (2.8%) strongly disagreed, seven (19.4%) disagreed, and one remained neutral on this statement. Three quarter of the participants perceived ICSs as needing more attention. One (2.8%) strongly disagreed, 14 (38.9%) disagreed, five (13.9%) remained neutral, 11 (30.6%) agreed, and five (13.9%) strongly agreed that “Some ICSs tended to require more accommodations in order to succeed in their studies than ACSs”. Participants were close to an equal split on this statement. Although three quarter of the participants thought ICSs needed more attention, only 44.5% thought these students needed accommodations to be made for them to succeed. One (2.8%) participant strongly agreed, 14 (38.9%) agreed, three (8.3%) remained neutral, 11 (30.6%) disagreed, and 6 (16.7%) strongly disagreed that it was “harder and more challenging to work with ICSs than with ACSs”. This represents an

12

Ng

almost equal split here as well. Five (13.9%) strongly disagreed, 15 (41.7%) disagreed, 10 (27.8%) remained neutral, five (13.9%) agreed, and one (2.8%) strongly agreed with the statement, “The students’ lack of understanding in the cultural and lifestyle diversity in America hindered the training of many ICSs”. More than 50% of the participants did not agree with this statement. Also, this statement received the most neutral responses. Assistance Provided to International Students Participants reported the following efforts they and their programs had used to assist ICSs succeed in their studies. All 36 reported allowing resubmission of written assignments. Thirty-three (91.7%) reported (a) providing more time to complete assignments, (b) sending students to the university’s writing laboratory, and (c) requiring additional reading and writing classes. Twenty-nine (80.6%) provided one-on-one mentoring to deal with academic concerns, while 21 (58.3%) provided mentoring to deal with clinical concerns. Twelve (33.3%) recommended students to consider utilizing counseling services. Only eight (22.2%) organized support groups for the students and four (11.1%) encouraged students to choose class assignments or projects relevant to their cultures. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS From the perspective of counselor educators, international students from non-Western countries seem to experience many of the identified concerns more frequently than do domestic students and international students from Western countries. This is particularly true of NWICSLSs who were perceived to experience all nine of the identified concerns more frequently, though their experience of mentoring by faculty was no different compared to other less successful student groups. The overall picture supports existing literature, which claims that international students experience a higher level of stress compared to domestic students (Bradley, 2000; Chen, 1999). Results of this study show that when ICSs were grouped according to level of training success and broad category of origin (viz., Western and non-Western), significantly different experiences were identified when compared to domestic students in the 10 areas of identified concern. Successful students in all groups seldom experienced problems in academics, mental/emotional distress, and clinical placement, and all of them were more often mentored by their professors. This indicates that more successful students, regardless of nationality, seem able to handle these challenges and their professors often play a supportive role in their training. However, even among the more successful students, those from nonWestern countries still appear to experience more frequently English proficiency problems, adjustment problems, difficulties in clinical courses, communication


13

barriers with clients, and conflicts with Western understanding of and approaches to treating mental health. Many of the challenges NWICSs seem to encounter appear to be related to language proficiency and cultural difference. This concurs with existing literature that indicates that English proficiency facilitates better adaptation to new learning and social environments among international students, particularly those from non-Western countries (Abel, 2002; Yeh & Inose, 2003). It further indicates that counselor preparation involving cross-cultural issues should be addressed in counseling training (Daniels, D’Andrea, & Kim, 1999). In addition, even though WICSMSs in most areas did not differ from ACSMSs, they still experienced more difficulties than the latter in adjustment problems and communication with clients. This indicates that despite some cultural similarities, international students from Western countries may still experience challenges related to relocating and adjusting to an unfamiliar environment. These students’ difficulties in communicating with clients may result from cultural differences in word usage, accent, and colloquialisms, even though English may be their first language. Counselor educators and supervisors need to pay attention to the specific needs of international students, regardless of their national origin. With regard to student groups experiencing least success, this study shows that, regardless of nationality, they experience more frequently problems in the 10 areas of identified concern compared to those in the most success categories. With several concerns, all student groups having the least success experienced similar levels of difficulty. This calls for attention to be given to students who are weak academically, regardless of nationality, because they tend to experience a high level of difficulty related to their training and social and emotional well-being. However, in comparison to WICSLSs and ACSLSs, NWICSLSs were found to experience more difficulties in English proficiency, adjustment problems, communication with clients, and conflict with Western conceptualization and treatment of mental health. NWICSs with the most success seem to experience these same difficulties more frequently than do domestic students with the most success. Findings in this study add to existing literature by surfacing some of the challenges specific to counseling students; namely, clinical and cultural concerns and challenges. Counselor preparation needs to give attention to assist international students gain cross-cultural competence in order to function competently as counselors in the host culture (Nilsson & Anderson, 2004). As part of their training, international students need to learn how to accommodate what they learn, which is mainly Western concepts and practice, and (b) apply what they learn in culturally sensitive ways when they return to their home countries. Both on-campus and on-site clinical supervisors need to provide assistance to international students who experience difficulties related to their clinical experience. According to counselor educators who participated in this study, there was no difference in the experience of mentoring by faculty members among student groups with the most success; they were often mentored. There was also no difference among the student groups with the least success in this area though they

14

Ng

received less mentoring from their professors compared to the more successful students. This is important for counselor educators to note because international students will potentially turn to them for support before they see a counselor (Bradley, Parr, Lan, Bingi, & Gould, 1995). The mentoring relationship counselor educators provide their students should create an environment for support when concerns arise. This echoes the literature on the value of mentoring for international students (Bradley, 2000). Further investigation is needed to clarify why more successful students seem to receive or seek out more mentoring compared to the less successful ones. Findings regarding counselor educators’ perception of the impact of ICSs and their interaction with these students reveal that a vast majority of counselor educators perceived positively the impact ICSs have on them and their programs. This finding concurs with the assertion in the literature on the impact of international students on domestic students and host institutions by contributing to campus diversity which is believed to enhance learning and social development (Peterson, Briggs, Dreasher, Horner, & Nelson, 1999). The overwhelming 92% agreement among participants on their attempt to create an inclusive learning experience for ICSs, even though self-reported, suggests a great level of support and consideration professors extend to these students. Professors, programs, and institutions need to maintain a welcoming attitude toward international students, because these students are assets and have something special to bring to the U.S. (Peterson et al., 1999). In this study, counselor educators indicated a strong level of support to treat ICSs as a unique student group; however, about 20% disagreed with this position. This reflects the attitude of some individuals in academia who do not believe the experiences and stresses of international students are sufficient to make them a unique student population. They seem to not see that domestic students are in familiar territory while many international students are not. Such educators might hold views similar to those found in Robertson et al.’s study (2000) that “[a]ll students have special needs” (p.101). However, findings in this study support strongly differences in experiences between international students in counseling programs and their domestic counterparts; at least as perceived by their professors. As much as there is a need to avoid perceiving the challenges of ICSs from a cultural-deficit model (Ninnes, Aitchison, & Kalos, 1999) and respect the individuality of each student, there is also a need to avoid the pitfall of not recognizing group differences (Sue & Sue, 2003). Finally, this study suggests that counselor educators have routinely employed different strategies to facilitate ICSs’ success. Support for ICSs is further evidenced by the variety of ways counselor educators in this study have employed to help international students succeed. Though more than half the participants agreed that ICSs need help to find ways to apply what they learn in class to their own cultural contexts, a sizable minority either did not think so or were neutral about it. This result may have been influenced by characteristics of the survey item itself, with those who disagreed


15

perhaps experiencing students who were able to apply what they learned across cultural contexts without needing assistance. That said, it would seem important for counselor educators and supervisors to consider facilitating ICSs’ effort to make sense of what they have learned within their worldview and be able to apply the knowledge learned when they return home. In order to address cultural issues in counselor training, supervisors need to initiate discussions on these issues with their trainees (Duan & Roehlke, 2001.) This is especially crucial to students who experience conflict with Western conceptualization and approaches to treating mental health. Some limitations need to be noted when interpreting and generalizing the findings of this study. Firstly, despite the fact that all regions in the U.S. were represented in the sample, the response rate was low and procedurally unable to be assessed for potential reliability. The low rate might have been because the survey was conducted during the summer months in the U.S. where many counselor educators might have been unavailable to respond. The small sample size affected some statistical analyses where the cell-sizes went below 20. This was particularly pertinent in regard to some participants not having had training contact with international students from Western countries. And, some participants had only limited experience training international students who were either successful or not successful academically because the number of international students per program is usually small. Secondly, participants were limited to CACREP-accredited programs in the U.S. Generalization of findings to non-CACREP programs in and outside of the U.S. can only be done with caution. Some limitation also arises from the instrumentation used. The survey was developed to address the gap in the literature on international students in counseling programs. Attempts to limit problems related to instrumentation were: (a) writing the items based on existing literature (e.g., Chen, 1999), (b) providing bi-directional response options as well as the “N/A” option, (c) providing opportunities for qualitative feedback, and (d) checking for reliability and validity of the items. As the focus of the study was on the perceptions and experiences of counselor educators, background characteristics of international students, for example, age and acculturation level, were not included. Another limitation in the study was the lack of clear operational description of the categories “most success in their studies” and “least success in their studies.” This might have affected how participants distinguished students in this way and, thereby, influenced group scores.

RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the above findings and implications, the following recommendations are offered. In terms of research, replication studies should be conducted to verify the findings in this exploratory effort. Further work should attempt to

16

Ng

involve a larger and more obviously representative sample of counselor educators, including those from non-CACREP programs. Research should also focus on the experiences of clinical site-supervisors who have experience with supervising ICSs. Perceptions and experiences of counselor educators and supervisors in other countries should also be examined in order to gain a global perspective of the issues and concerns involved in the training of international students in counseling. Qualitative studies on professors’ and supervisors’ perception and experience may provide additional information on the topic. There is also the need to examine counselor educators’ roles and actual behavior and competence in training ICSs. Research accessing ICSs’ own perceptions and experiences is clearly needed. This would allow the voice of the students themselves to be heard. Information on what helps and contributes to their learning and training success would add valuable knowledge to cross-cultural counseling training. Investigation on effective strategies supervisees and supervisors have used to enhance success in clinical training is also needed. Studies on issues related to mentoring among international and domestic counseling students are needed to help understand educator accessibility and availability and the dynamics and effects of mentoring in counselor preparation. There is also the need to understand the knowledge, skills, and values involved in providing quality inclusive education to international students in counseling programs. Work is needed to understand the relationships among the areas of concerns which most represent the challenges ICSs encounter. It might be useful to identify from among these and other concerns significant predictors of success for international students; for example, personality variables and the supervisory working alliance. Research should also examine subgroup characteristics (e.g., country-oforigin, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, acculturation level, marital status, source of financial support, and academic expectation) (Nilsson & Anderson, 2004; Yoon & Portman, 2004). Specific impacts of ICSs on instructors, supervisors, peers, the institution, the community, and their home countries are not known at this time. Knowledge of the impact of ICSs is especially significant in view of the movement toward internationalization of the profession (Leung & Emener, 1999). Discussions and studies are needed to help establish the role of international students in the movement. In terms of teaching and supervision, counselor educators and supervisors would benefit from initiating discussion with their international students in order to gain firsthand knowledge on their needs and challenges with a view to develop appropriate interventions (Nilsson & Anderson, 2004). Particular focus should be directed on clinical courses and site placements and cultural barriers, because low performing ICSs seem to experience more difficulties in these areas. Programs may need to provide training to site-supervisors on how to work effectively with international students. Students and supervisees should work together to develop


17

plans and strategies for creating a mutually satisfying learning environment that facilitates greater student achievement. This is particularly important for students who are struggling with challenges they face. Students who struggle to succeed, regardless of national origin and reasons for their struggles, need support from their professors, programs, and institutions. Counseling programs need to proactively address the English proficiency problems that appear to hamper some international students’ learning. Additional language training may be needed to enhance students’ success. However, caution should be taken to avoid conveying a negative message to the students when such a requirement is put in place. Students need to experience support more than obstacles from programs and institutions.

CONCLUSION The present study represents movement into the training needs and challenges of ICSs from the perspective of counselor educators. Notwithstanding its limitations, this exploratory study has brought forth some information useful for counselor educators and supervisors as they begin to look at international students in their programs as a subpopulation with unique characteristics and needs. Overall, the findings of this study concur with the literature on stressors and challenges international students in general tend to encounter. In addition, the study has uniquely surfaced information on ICSs that was not previously available in the literature. It has highlighted the need to recognize subgroup characteristics among international students as much as those existing among domestic students. At the same time, this study has provided information on counselor educators’ attitudes and beliefs about ICSs and efforts they use in assisting these students to succeed. Findings in this study have further informed and expanded the scope of research and practice of multicultural/cross-cultural counseling training to include international students. Appropriate support from culturally sensitive counselor educators and supervisors can result in ICSs achieving greater success in their training and domestic students benefiting from a truly culturally inclusive learning environment. Better-trained ICSs will have great bearing on the global future of the counseling profession. REFERENCES Abel, C. F. (2002). Academic success and the international student: Research and recommendations. New Directions for Higher Education, 117, 13–20. Association of Counselor Education and Supervision (ACES). (2003). (n.d.) ACES Regional Websites. Retrieved April 1, from http://www.acesonline.net/regions.htm Atkinson, D. R. (1983). Ethnic minority representation in counselor education. Counselor Education and Supervision, 23(1), 7–19.

18

Ng

Bradley, G. (2000). Responding effectively to the mental health needs of international students. Higher Education, 39, 417–433. Bradley, L., Parr, G., Lan, W. Y., Bingi, R., & Gould, L. J. (1995). Counselling expectations of international students. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 18, 21–31. Charles, H., & Stewart, M. A. (1991). Academic advising of international students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling & Development, 19(4), 173–181. Chen, C. P. (1999). Common stressors among international college students: Research and counseling implications. Journal of College Counseling, 2, 49–65. Chin, H. K. K. (Ed.). (2003). Open doors 2003: Report on international educational exchange. New York: Institute of International Education. Clawson, T. W., Henderson, D. A., Schweiger, W. K., & Collins, D. R. (2004). Counselor preparation: Programs, faculty, trends (11th ed.). New York: Brunner-Routledge. Collingridge, D. S. (1999). Suggestions on teaching international students: Advice for psychology instructors. Teaching of Psychology, 26(2), 126–128. Constantine, M. G. (2002). Racism attitudes, White racial identity attitudes, and multicultural counseling competence in school counselor trainees. Counselor Education & Supervision, 41, 162–174. Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP). (2003). Directory of accredited programs. Alexandria, VA: Author. Daniel, L. G., & Siders, J. A. (1994). Validation of teacher assessment instruments: A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Personality Evaluation in Education, 8(1), 29–40. Daniels, J., D’Anrea, M., & Kim S. K. (1999). Assessing the barriers and changes of cross cultural supervision: A case study. Counselor Education and Supervision, 38, 191–204. Dinsmore, J. A., & England, J. T. (1996). A study of multicultural counseling training at CACREPaccredited counselor education programs. Counselor Education & Supervision, 36(1), 58–76. Duan, C., & Roehlke, H. (2001). A descriptive “snapshot” of cross-racial supervision in university counseling center internships [Special issue]. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 29(2), 131–146. Fink, A., & Kosecoff, J. (1998). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Giorgis, T. W., & Helms, J. E. (1978). Training international students from developing nations as psychologists: A challenge for American psychology. American Psychologist, 33(10), 945–951. Gutierrez, F. J. (1982). Working with minority counselor education students. Counselor Education & Supervision, 21(3), 218–226. Haigh, M. J. (2002). Internationalisation of the curriculum: Designing inclusive education for a small world. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 26(1), 49–66. Killian, K. D. (2001). Differences making a difference: Cross-cultural interactions in supervisory relationships. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 12(2–3), 61–103. Leung, P., & Emener, W. G. (1999). International vistas for counseling. In C. G. Dixon & W. G. Emener (Eds.), Professional counseling: Transitioning into the next millennium (pp. 136–153). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas. McNeill, B. W., Hom, K. L., & Perez, J. A. (1995). The training and supervisory needs of racial and ethnic minority students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 23, 246–258. Mori, S. (2000). Addressing the mental health concerns of international students. Journal of Counseling & Development, 78, 137–143. Ng, K. M. (2003a). Counselor Educators Needed! Retrieved July 14, 2004, from http://education... Author.../CESurvey.htm Ng, K. M. (2003b). Online Counselor Educators’ Experience and Perceptions of International Counseling Students Survey. Retrieved July 14, 2004, from http://education...Author.../CE%20Online% 20Survey.htm Nilsson, J. E., & Anderson, M. Z. (2004). Supervising international students: The role of acculturation, role ambiguity, and multicultural discussions. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35(3), 306–312. Ninnes, P., Aitchison, C., & Kalos, S. (1999). Challenges to stereotypes of international students’ prior educational experience: undergraduate education in India. Higher Education Research & Development, 18(3), 323–342. Pedersen, P. (1991a). Multiculturalism as a generic approach to counseling. Journal of Counseling &


19

Development, 70(1), p. 6–12. Pedersen, P. (1991b). Counseling international students. The Counseling Psychologist, 19, 10–58. Pedersen, P. (2000). A handbook for developing multicultural awareness (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association. Peterson, D. M., Briggs, P., Dreasher, L., Horner, D. D., & Nelson, T. (1999). Contributions of international students and programs to campus diversity. New Direction for Student Services, 86, 67–77. Ponterotto, J. G., & Alexander, C. M. (1995). A multicultural competency checklist for counseling training programs. Journal of Multicultural Counseling & Development, 23(1), 11–20. Poyrazli, S., Arbona, C., Bullington, R., Pisecco, S. (2001). Adjustment issues of Turkish college students studying in the United States. College Student Journal, 35(1), 52–62. Robertson, M., Line, R., Jones, S., & Thomas, S. (2000). International students, learning environments and perceptions: A case study using the Delphi technique. Higher Education & Development, 19(1), 89–102. Sills, S. J., & Song, C. (2002). Innovation in survey research: An application of web-based surveys. Social Science Computer Review, 20(1), 22–30. Sue, D. W. (1981). Counseling the culturally different: Theory and practice. New York: Wiley. Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (2003). Counseling the culturally diverse: Theory and practice (4th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Yeh, C. J., & Inose, M. (2003). International students’ reported English fluency, social support satisfaction, and social connectedness as predictors of acculturative stress. Counseling Psychology Quarterly, 16(1), 15–28. Yoon, E., & Portman, T. A. A. (2004). Critical issues of literature on counseling international students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 32(1), 33–44.