Studies in Higher Education Volume 28, No. 4, October 2003
Norwegian Students Abroad: experiences of students from a linguistically and geographically peripheral European country JANNECKE WIERS-JENSSEN Norwegian Institute for Studies in Research and Higher Education (NIFU), Oslo, Norway
This article presents results from an exploratory survey into the experiences and viewpoints of Norwegian students abroad. The students seem highly capable in adapting to new situations, and the vast majority are very satisfied with their sojourn. They find studying abroad academically advantageous, and they put much emphasis on the social, personal, linguistic and cultural rewards they acquire in addition to professional skills. Compared to students in Norway, those studying abroad are more satisfied with their educational institution, and they put more effort into their studies. The high level of satisfaction can be interpreted as a consequence of ‘pull’ motives for studying abroad, combined with relatively low economic, academic, social, cultural and linguistic barriers.
ABSTRACT
Introduction Student exchange and student flows across borders are an important part of internationalisation. Worldwide, more than 1.5 million people study outside their country of origin (UNESCO, 1997). There is a substantial student exchange between Western countries, through for example, European Union (EU) programmes like SOCRATES, but the largest flow of students runs from countries that are peripheral (geographically, linguistically, politically or economically) to countries that are more central. The USA hosts more than one-third of this student population, and the UK, France and Germany together receive another third (Cummings, 1991; UNESCO, 1995). Economically successful countries in East Asia and the Middle East are the biggest net exporters of students today. But there are also some Western countries that have a high proportion of their student population abroad, and Norway is an example of this. Among Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, only Luxembourg, Iceland, Greece and Ireland have a higher ratio of their total student population studying abroad than Norway (OECD, 2000). Research on study abroad, seen from a student perspective, has mostly been done in the fields of psychology and educational studies (Altbach, 1991). The focus has often been on mental health problems (Furnham & Trezise, 1983), maladjustment (Furukawa & Shibayama, 1993), and topics such as racial discrimination and culture shock (Tajfel & Dawson, 1965; Furnham, 1986; Volet & Renshaw, 1995). Some studies draw a somewhat gloomy picture of being a student abroad. Increased prevalence of loneliness, depression and ISSN 0307-5079 print; ISSN 1470-174X online/03/040391-21 2003 Society for Research into Higher Education DOI: 10.1080/0307507032000122251
392
J. Wiers-Jenssen
other mental health problems (Sam & Eide, 1991, Ward & Searle, 1991, Ying & Liese, 1991) and slower academic progress than host nationals (Jochems et al., 1996) are among the negative effects revealed. Sam (2001) points out that studies focusing on factors that make the foreign sojourn satisfying are hard to come by. An exception is a survey on international graduate students in the USA (Perrucci & Hu, 1995). This study shows that academic satisfaction is most strongly related to contact with American students, language skills and perceived discrimination. Research on student mobility between Western countries has concentrated on assessments of organised exchange programmes like the EU programme ERASMUS (Opper et al., 1990; Teichler, 1996; European Commission, 1999). Opper et al. focus on the positive outcomes of study abroad, finding that students value improving language skills and becoming acquainted with host nationals particularly highly. A majority of students report their academic performance to be better during their sojourn abroad than they would have expected it to be at home, which is remarkable considering language barriers, different methods of learning and changed living conditions. Students from a Western culture sphere, who as free movers spend several years studying in a foreign country, face other challenges and may have different experiences from students from developing countries and exchange students. Hence, it is important to pay attention to the perspectives of this category of ‘spontaneous’ mobile students. Also, individual decisions made prior to studying abroad ought to be focused, and variations between students in different subject fields ought to be investigated. As Norwegian students abroad have rarely been objects of research, a broad perspective is taken in this exploratory study. The following main questions are examined: • • • • • • • •
Why do Norwegians go abroad to study? Which factors influence choice of host country and educational institution? How long does it take to adapt to language, culture etc.? Do Norwegians easily form social networks with students of different nationalities? How do they cope with academic demands? Are they satisfied with the quality of their educational institution? How do they judge non-academic aspects of study abroad? Do they want to return to Norway after graduation, or are they planning an international career? • Which factors influence overall satisfaction with study abroad? The Context: student flow from Norway Norway has a long tradition of ‘sending’ students abroad. Before the University of Oslo was established in 1811, leaving Norway was a prerequisite for obtaining higher education. (Norway was in a union with Denmark from 1397 to 1814, and the University of Copenhagen served as university for the whole union.) The student flow continued after the establishment of a Norwegian university. After the Second World War, in particular, there was a significant increase in the numbers of students abroad. By that time, the reasons for the student flow had shifted from insufficient diversity of study programmes towards a question of lack of capacity. In some subject fields like medicine and civil engineering, up to half of the students graduated abroad (Brandt, 1986). From 1970 to the end of the 1990s, the ratio of students abroad has been quite stable, at approximately 6% of the total Norwegian student population (Berg & Stensaker, 1997). The ratio exceeded 7% in 2000, and is still increasing.
Norwegian Students Abroad 393 There are several reasons for this substantial student flow from Norway, and both ‘push’ and ‘pull’ forces contribute. A framework of explanations for the student flow can be summarised as follows. • Numerus clausus. There is a significant shortage of supply in certain fields of study, particularly in medicine, nursing and other health professions. • Absence of equivalent domestic opportunities. Some subject fields are not offered in Norway at all, e.g. chiropractic and certain arts disciplines. • Government support. The State Education Loan Fund (La˚nekassen) is the most important source of finance for Norwegian students, domestically and abroad. This subsidised financing system provides economic opportunity for studying, independent of support from parents or other private sources. Students abroad are entitled to the same basic support to cover living expenses as domestic students, on condition that the education abroad is found eligible for support (there are restrictions concerning level and field of study, curriculum etc.) In addition, they are eligible for tuition grants covering annual tuition fees up to approximately NOK 52,000 (€6,300) plus travel grants. For master’s programmes in certain universities and subject fields, supplementary grants are available. • Positive experiences through study abroad, mediated through former students, generate interest for studying abroad in new generations. • International orientation and cultural effects of globalisation. Small countries are generally more inclined to have a more international orientation than larger countries, economically and culturally. Norwegians have a good proficiency in English, they travel widely, and they are constantly exposed to other cultures through the media. • Globalisation of educational markets has exerted considerable influence on the Norwegian student flow in the 1990s. In some countries, higher education institutions are allowed to charge much higher tuition fees for foreign students than for domestic students or students included in international exchange agreements. This works as an incentive to search for foreign customers. British and Australian universities are among the most active in promoting themselves to Norwegian students. Between 1996 and 2001 the number of Norwegians studying in the UK increased from 2853 to 3928 ( ⫹ 38%), and the number in Australia increased from 72 to 3062 ( ⫹ 4552%). Universities in Eastern Europe have established study programmes in English and German to attract foreign students, and as a consequence, the number of Norwegians studying in Eastern Europe has risen from virtually nothing at the beginning of the 1990s, to almost 1200 in 2001 (State Educational Loan Fund, 1994, http://www.lanekassen.no). To summarise, the student flow is partly a result of government policy, but also due to a general demand for certain skills. Norway is linguistically and geographically peripheral, situated towards the northern boundary of Europe, and the need for citizens with professional qualifications, international experience, language proficiency and cross-cultural understanding is acknowledged by authorities and employers as well as by students. As the population of Norway is only 4.5 million, it is neither profitable nor desirable for the government to provide all possible education courses domestically. In addition, foreign universities’ marketing campaigns targetting Norwegian students have been successful, and have contributed to make both information and study abroad more accessible. In contrast to many developing countries, the student flow from Norway is neither a consequence of a poor economy nor an underdeveloped educational system. On the contrary, the student flow can be interpreted as a consequence of national wealth. The subsidised financing system that allows many students to go abroad constitutes a substantial expense for the state. On the other hand, it can be argued that the government may, in fact, save money
394
J. Wiers-Jenssen
by sending students abroad, considering the high level of costs of education in Norway. Nine out of ten domestic students are enrolled in state universities and colleges with no tuition fees. Consequently, government expenditure on higher education is very high. Providing grants for studying abroad will often be less expensive than providing similar domestic options, particularly in disciplines like medicine. The majority of Norwegians studying abroad are undergraduate students and free movers, obtaining their entire degree abroad. In most Western countries it is more common to take just a part of the education abroad and to participate in exchange programmes, such as the EU programme ERASMUS. The countries which receive the largest number of Norwegian students are the UK, Australia, USA, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands and Hungary. Less than 2% study outside the Western cultural sphere. The student export is much larger than the import (OECD, 2000; Stortingsmelding nr. 27 2001). Data This article presents the experiences and viewpoints of Norwegian students who have spent one year or more abroad at the point of data collection. One-third of all Norwegian students studying abroad (registered by the State Education Loan Fund as studying abroad), and with at least one year of study experience abroad, were asked to participate in a postal survey in 1998/99. The extensive questionnaire (16 pages) included a wide range of questions on the reasons for, and satisfaction with, studying abroad. Some 1159 students completed the questionnaire, which gives a response rate of 53% (55% for women, 50% for men). Forty-six in-depth interviews were also conducted, of which 41 were carried out prior to the survey. The qualitative data are presented in a separate research report (Stensaker & Wiers-Jenssen 1998), and this article will mainly be used as a tool for interpretation of quantitative data. Basic Characteristics of the Students in the Survey The average age of students in this survey was 25 years. Females constituted 57% of the respondents. Half of the students were enrolled in higher education in Norway prior to studying abroad. The students’ average grades from upper secondary school were generally good, but in many cases not sufficiently high to get admission to study programmes with low capacity in Norway. The majority are undergraduate students; 58% are studying for bachelors degrees (or their equivalent), 16% for master’s, 3% for PhD, and 23% for professional degrees (medicine etc.) The vast majority (88%) are free movers, which means that they are not part of any organised exchange programme. A broad range of subjects is studied. These are categorised into six subject fields, indicated in Table I. The respondents are located in 34 different countries, which have been categorised into eight groups in Table II. (the table is not an accurate reflection of the distribution of Norwegian students abroad today, because the number of Norwegian students in Australia and New Zealand has increased significantly since the survey was conducted.) Social Origins and Family Traditions Some 71% of the students have one or both parents with higher education. This is far higher than the average for students enrolled in higher education in Norway, which is 48% (Statistics Norway, 1998). However, a true comparison with parents’ level of education necessitates taking subject field, type of educational institution, and level and duration of study programme into account. Norwegians studying abroad are often enrolled in prestigious
Norwegian Students Abroad 395 TABLE I. Students’ distribution by subject fields, and proportion of women in each subject field (%). N ⫽ 1138 Subject field
%
% women
Medical sciences Other health studies Technology/natural sciences Business and hotel studies Social and humanistic sciences Arts
20 14 15 17 19 15
57 76 32 49 64 68
100
57
Total
TABLE II. Students’ distribution by country of study (%) Country of study
%
N
Nordic countries UK Western Europe (remaining parts) Eastern Europe North America Oceania Other Not indicated
22 30 21 7 13 3 2 3
258 348 240 78 151 34 21 29
100
1159
Total
study programmes such as medicine and civil engineering, which in Norway also recruit there with a high social class background (Hansen, 1999). However, students abroad tend to have higher social class backgrounds than their counterparts in Norway in most of the subject fields where we have comparable data (Wiers-Jenssen, 1999). This is in accordance with trends in other European countries (Opper et al., 1990; CSN, 1995). Another trend that has been documented in European studies is that a relatively high proportion of the students have parents who also studied abroad (Opper et al., 1990). A survey of European exchange students (ERASMUS students) showed that the highest ratio of students with family members who have studied abroad is found among Swedish and Norwegian students (European Commission, 2000). A high proportion of students with parents with international experience is also found in our study: 35% of the students have one or both parents who at some point have lived abroad for three months or more. As just 13% have parents of foreign origin, most of the parents’ sojourns have probably been related to studies or work. Half of the students have themselves had a prior sojourn abroad lasting three months or more. In other words, a significant proportion has been exposed to international experience before higher education. Students’ Reasons for Going Abroad For the individual, going abroad to study implies several decisions. In addition to deciding that they want to study abroad, they also have to make decisions on country of study and educational institution. Table III illustrates that the ‘push’ factors play a dominant role in students’ reasons for studying abroad. ‘Interesting to study in a foreign environment’ and ‘Love of adventure’ are
N
Interesting to study in a foreign environment Love of adventure Strong desire to enter a certain profession Desire to experience a different culture Desire to learn a language/improve language skills Improve prospects for an international career Desire to get a break from usual surroundings Higher quality on this study abroad Wanted to get a different perspective on Norway Recommended by others Not admitted at the preferred study in Norway Coincidences Interest in a particular country The study programme does not exist in Norway Sceptical about higher education in Norway Boy-/girlfriend studying abroad Family origin from abroad Shorter time of study abroad Admission process arranged by higher education institution in Norway 20. Wanted to study in my country of origin
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.
Reasons
228
11 1
7 3 1120
63 57 87 44 39 23 39 21 40 42 78 42 7 1 6 3 5 4
77 67 62 59 57 54 53 48 41 39 37 35 32 20 14 10 8 7
Total
Medical sciences
151
0 2
64 56 80 43 34 28 55 38 28 43 66 39 27 11 3 10 4 5
Other health studies
168
10 4
80 72 46 63 59 67 53 49 41 36 19 33 31 20 17 8 14 10
Technology and natural sciences
193
10 2
93 79 36 76 82 89 62 65 47 39 9 32 46 21 16 10 6 9
Business and hotel
211
5 6
79 67 47 63 60 54 56 50 42 33 27 28 44 26 17 18 11 10
Social and human sciences
TABLE III. Students’ reasons for studying abroad. Percentage attaching ‘fairly high’ or ‘vital’ importance to different reasons.
169
4 1
86 71 76 68 66 67 54 73 48 41 16 33 41 45 23 9 7 5
Arts
396 J. Wiers-Jenssen
Norwegian Students Abroad 397
FIG. 1. Average score on motivational indexes for students in different subject fields.
the two reasons most strongly identified. It can also be seen that students’ motives for going abroad vary by subject field. In order to simplify the picture of reasons for studying abroad, and the variation by disciplines, index variables were constructed on the basis of an exploratory factor analysis of the variables in Table III. The first index identified was called New Impulses, comprising reasons 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9. These are typical ‘pull’ motives, mostly connected to extra-curricular issues. The second index was called Different Education, and consists of reasons 6, 8, 14 and 15. This is a combination of ‘push’ and ‘pull’ motives, connected to the discipline to be studied. The third index was called Urge (in the sense of urge for a certain education), and consists of reasons 3 and 11. These are typical ‘push’ motives. The index scales were standardised by dividing the sum score by the number of variables included, and range from 0 to 3, with higher scores indicating more importance. The indexes are displayed in Fig. 1, which depicts the trends from Table III. It can be seen that New Impulses is important in all subject groups, although students in medical sciences and other health disciplines are less motivated by this than others. Different Education
398
J. Wiers-Jenssen
is most heavily emphasised by arts and business/hotel students. These groups often seek specific study programmes that are not offered in Norway. Students in medical sciences and other health disciplines again seem less affected by this kind of motivation. The latter groups place strong emphasis on Urge, which is not surprising, considering that they are affected by numerus clausus at home.
Choice of Host Country and Educational Institution Language is a decisive factor in choosing where to study. More than half of the students report that former knowledge of the language had ‘fairly high’ or ‘vital’ importance for their choice of country of study. Norwegians’ knowledge of the English language is reasonably good, as English is currently compulsory in school from the age of six, but they find it advantageous to improve their skills by studying in English-speaking countries. Scandinavian languages are similar to Norwegian; consequently, studying in neighbouring countries is convenient. Scandinavian countries and Germany are also attractive as host countries because tuition fees are rarely charged. Choice of country of study is often a consequence of a desire to study at a particular educational institution, and 46% of the students attached importance to this. Recommendations from family or friends who have formerly studied abroad were of importance for 28% of the students. Some reasons vary considerably between students in different countries of destination. ‘Geographic proximity to Norway’ and ‘cultural proximity to Norway’ were important for 56% and 42% respectively of those studying in Scandinavia, but for few others. ‘Easier to get admission to the study in this country than in other alternatives’ and ‘lower level of costs’ were important to 60% and 42% respectively of those studying in Eastern Europe (mostly medical students being taught in English), while few others emphasised this. Cultural interest seemed generally to have limited influence, with only 19% attaching ‘fairly high’ or ‘vital’ importance to ‘special interest in the culture of a particular country’. As for choice of educational institution, 50% of students stated that the institution’s reputation was of ‘fairly high’ or ‘vital’ importance. ‘Coincidence’ was identified by almost as many (43%). A possible explanation for the latter is that Norwegian students have little tradition of paying attention to quality issues when choosing an educational institution. There are no league tables or official quality rankings of Norwegian higher education institutions. In-depth interviews indicated that, in the minds of the students, institutions qualified for support through the State Education Loan Fund were considered to be of sufficient quality. Recommendations from former students (family or friends) were reported as being important by 23%, while 13% mentioned that the study programme was not offered elsewhere. Students in medical sciences and other health studies reported more frequently than others that they had applied to several institutions, but were admitted at the institution where they were currently studying. Underlying premises for choice of educational institution included the cost of tuition fees, and whether study programmes and institutions were eligible for support through the State Educational Loan Fund. Moreover, in recent years, the marketing strategies of foreign educational institutions have had a significant influence on students’ choice of institution. In consequence, students tend to cluster in certain countries and institutions. This development is an unintended result of a generous support system, and not in accordance with the government’s goals. It is frequently stated as a policy objective that students should spread out in a wide range of countries (Stortingsmelding nr 19, 1996–97).
Norwegian Students Abroad 399 TABLE IV. Duration of adaptation to different aspects of studying abroad (%) n ⫽ 1115 Less than 1 month
1–2 months
3–5 months
6 months or more
42 23 19 37 57 71
18 28 21 22 19 9
15 23 21 16 11 4
25 25 39 25 13 16
100 100 100 100 100 100
Language of host country Study model/the way studies are organised System/bureaucracy of host country Culture of host country Acquiring foreign friends Acquiring Norwegian friends
Linguistic, Cultural and Social Adaptation Studying abroad implies many kinds of challenges and adjustments. As strangers in an unfamiliar environment, students encounter a foreign language, a different culture and an educational model that may deviate significantly from the Norwegian one. The students also have to establish a new social network. Adaptation and attitudes to the host country are likely to go through several stages (Oberg, 1954). Most students will experience fascination as well as frustration. Indepth interviews showed that the process of adjustment for most students stretched over several months (Stensaker & Wiers-Jenssen, 1998). Though adaptation to a foreign environment is a process, and thereby not easily quantified, students were asked to estimate how many months they had spent in adapting to different aspects of the new situation. The results are displayed in Table IV. In countries that are linguistically and culturally close to Norway, the adjustment process is fairly rapid. Most students in Scandinavian countries report that they adapt in a matter of a few weeks. Students in English-speaking countries also seem to become integrated within a short period of time. As shown in Table V, it takes more time to feel at home in continental Europe, Eastern Europe in particular. Even after having spent six months in Eastern Europe, 60% of the students did not feel adjusted to the culture, and 95% did not feel adjusted to the language. In all countries of destination, the greatest challenge seems to be to learn to understand the system and bureaucracy of the host country. Making new friends does not seem to represent an insuperable obstacle, and most students have friends in the host country, including students from other nationalities and other Norwegians. The exception is those studying in Eastern Europe. As shown in Table VI, these students rarely spend their leisure time with host nationals, but stick together with Norwegians and other foreign students. Only 27% have contact with the local students on a weekly basis, and a more detailed analysis shows that half of the students say that they never or almost never spend their leisure time with host nationals. The main reason for this absence of interaction is possibly that Norwegian students are enrolled in study programmes where the teaching language is English, while the local students are taught in their own language. The Norwegians study and live in ‘ghettos’ of students from abroad, which restricts their chances of cross-cultural contact, understanding and integration. In most countries other than those of Eastern Europe, Norwegian students frequently interact with host nationals. The nationality of new friends and acquaintances may influence satisfaction and integration in the country of study (Oberg, 1954). Several studies have documented that interaction with students from the host country has a positive effect on adaptation and satisfaction (Klinenberg & Hull, 1979; Bochner, 1981; Furnham, 1986; Opper et al., 1990). A significant bivariate relation between general satisfaction with the sojourn abroad and
15 17 21 14 13 16 253
Language of host country Study model/the way studies are organised System/bureaucracy of host country Culture of host country Acquiring foreign friends Acquiring Norwegian friends
N
Nordic countries
342
10 20 34 20 7 16
United Kingdom
229
46 35 59 33 16 15
Western Europe
77
95 44 78 60 28 4
Eastern Europe
143
9 19 33 25 15 22
North America
33
12 32 21 24 15 18
Oceania
19
48 48 53 53 14 47
Others
TABLE V. Adaptation to different aspects of studying abroad in different countries. Percentage of students spending six months or more.
400 J. Wiers-Jenssen
Norwegian Students Abroad 401 TABLE VI. Proportion of Norwegian students abroad spending leisure time with students from different countries once a week or more (%)
Country Nordic countries UK Western Europe (except UK) Eastern Europe North America Oceania Other countries
Norway
Host country
Other countries
N
68 67 71 87 50 74 28
87 91 87 27 88 94 81
33 81 57 81 81 74 52
249 345 236 77 150 34 21
frequency of interaction with students of the host country is found in this study as well. Some 70% of students spending their leisure time with local students on a daily basis are very satisfied with their sojourn, while this is true for 48% of those who spend their leisure time with locals twice a month or less. One could hypothesise that contact with students of any nationality would improve overall satisfaction. Bochner et al. (1977) have emphasised that the monocultural network (contact with compatriots) is important, particularly because compatriots may serve as mediators who provide a link to different cultural networks. However, frequent contact with Norwegians or other non-compatriot foreign students did not have any significant effect on the overall level of satisfaction in our study.
Coping with the Academic Level Abroad The students seem to be reasonably well prepared to meet the academic demands of foreign educational institutions. Half estimate that they are among the top 25% of students in their institution. Those studying in North America, and arts students particularly, consider themselves as academically superior to their peers. Medical students are less inclined to think that they are among the best students, despite the fact that this group generally has significantly higher marks from upper secondary school in Norway than any other group. According to the students’ judgements of their own performance, it seems that the Norwegian upper secondary school provides a sufficient basis of knowledge for studying in other countries. But how one copes with the studies is influenced by more factors than previous book learning. Fig. 2 illustrates how Norwegian students view themselves in comparison with students from the host country. Norwegians consider themselves more motivated, mature and independent than students from the host country. One possible explanation is that Norwegian students tend to be older than their peers, as their average age is 25. It also has to be taken into consideration that the psychological threshold for studying abroad is higher than for entering a local college, and that those going abroad are likely to constitute a select group when it comes to motivation. But the differences displayed may also partly be a consequence of the kind of qualities different school systems produce. The Norwegian system may be less focused on factual knowledge and more focused on personal development. Coping well with academic demands may also be a result of hard work. The students report that they spend 42 hours studying in a normal week, and 52 hours in the weeks prior to examinations. This is significantly higher than Norwegian students in Norway, who study an average 30–35 hours per week (Lyngstad & Øyangen, 1999; Jensen & Nyga˚rd, 2000;
402
J. Wiers-Jenssen
FIG. 2. Norwegian students’ views on their own ability compared to students from the host country (%).
Wiers-Jenssen & Aamodt, 2002). Students in medical sciences study particularly hard, on average 51 hours in a normal week and 67 in the weeks prior to examinations. Perspectives on Educational Institution and Quality How do the students evaluate their educational institution overall? The majority are very positive: 53% of the students report themselves ‘very satisfied’ and 30% are ‘fairly satisfied’. Students in North America are the most content group, while those studying in continental Europe are somewhat less positive in their judgements. Analyses of more detailed questions on satisfaction show that satisfaction with academic quality is generally high, and that judgement of the social environment is also relatively similar in the different countries (see Table VII). But these analyses also disclose that students in continental Europe are less content with the pedagogic quality, the amount of supervision and feedback from the academic staff, the balance between lectures and self-initiated studying and the level of service from the administrative staff. These factors can be interpreted as related to the study structure or educational regimes in these countries. Humboldtian traditions are well preserved, and we find a sink or swim mentality in Central European universities. Limited feedback is provided, and strong motivation and independence are required to succeed. Though the Norwegian higher education system has much in common with the Central European model, the latter is characterised as ‘old fashioned’ and ‘authoritarian’ by Norwegian students in interviews. In a survey conducted among first year students in Norwegian universities and colleges, 27% reported themselves as ‘very satisfied’ with their educational institution (Wiers-Jenssen & Aamodt, 2002). Even if these data are not entirely comparable with the survey on students abroad, they indicate that Norwegians abroad are more content with their educational institution than the average student in Norway. As for professional and academic outcomes, 87% of students abroad consider it to be an advantage to study abroad compared to studying in Norway. Only 2% consider it a disadvantage. Some 75% of the students also think that future employers will consider it an advantage that they have studied abroad. The ratio varies by subject field: business and hotel
73 58 53 79 79 65
70 56 65 74 80 72 258
N
347
84 62 78 73
80 62 74 74
UK
The academic/professional quality of lectures The pedagogic quality of lectures Composition of curriculum The balance between lectures, group work and other organised academic activities The balance between lectures and self-initiated studying Amount of feedback from the academic staff Amount of space per person in space in class rooms/auditoriums The social environment The academic/professional environment Level of service from the administrative staff
Nordic countries
239
73 77 49
34 50
53
86 44 78 54
Western Europe
78
77 86 47
35 46
36
81 24 69 44
Eastern Europe
151
74 84 76
80 74
86
93 77 83 80
North America
33
79 77 59
60 72
79
67 70 80 85
Oceania
TABLE VII. Satisfaction with different aspects of the educational institution (percentage content students)
20
76 57 38
33 43
48
60 45 48 43
Others
1125
76 79 62
53 58
67
84 58 77 68
Total
Norwegian Students Abroad 403
404
J. Wiers-Jenssen
FIG. 3. Advantages with studying abroad. Percentage by rating. N ⫽ 1148–1153.
students are the most optimistic group, while medical students are less optimistic concerning their future employers’ preferences. These variations possibly reflect not only the content of the course, but also the degree to which extra-curricular skills such as language proficiency can be used in the working situation. The students’ perspectives on the professional advantages of studying abroad may seem unrealistically positive, and may partly be interpreted as justifications of their own educational choice. Whether it is always favourable to be trained abroad can be questioned. A Swedish study investigating employers’ preferences indicated that employers prefer to hire people who are partly trained abroad, rather than those who have had their entire education abroad, or those who are entirely trained domestically (Zadeh, 1999). The employers interviewed tended to put more emphasis on the effects of studying abroad, such as language skills and cultural competence, rather than the educational course per se. Non-academic Aspects of Study Abroad We have seen that the vast majority of students are satisfied with the professional and academic outcomes of studying abroad. Through the qualitative interviews conducted prior to the survey, we discovered that the students seemed to put even more emphasis on the positive aspects of extra-curricular skills they developed by studying abroad. Appreciation of non-academic aspects is evident also in the survey. Fig. 3 displays how much emphasis students put on different potentially positive aspects of studying abroad. ‘Personality growth’ and ‘new perspectives on Norway’ are accorded high importance independently of host country and discipline, while the emphasis on aspects like linguistic and cultural skills is more varied. For example, those studying in Nordic countries and in Eastern Europe put less emphasis on linguistic and cultural outcomes than others. Students were also asked to indicate potential disadvantages related to studying abroad. Few aspects were regarded as a serious disadvantage except that of less contact with friends and family, mentioned by 19 and
Norwegian Students Abroad 405 15% respectively. These results indicate that homesickness and loneliness is not widespread among Norwegian students abroad, though we have not measured potential mental health disturbances directly. Financial Sources As described in the introduction, the State Educational Loan Fund plays a fundamental role for students abroad. The relative importance of this subsidised government support is shown in Table VIII. Overall, almost three-quarters of the students’ total expenses are financed through this fund. More detailed analyses show that those who pay high tuition fees (More than NOK 100 000 or c. €12,000) are more dependent upon other additional financial sources, such as support from family and grants from other sources. Plans for Where to Work The high level of satisfaction with the sojourn abroad, combined with the fact that ‘improved prospects for an international career’ was indicated as an important motivational factor for studying abroad by many students, makes it interesting to investigate where students intend to live and work in the future. Students were asked where they thought they would be working immediately after graduation, five years after and ten years after. The results are given in Table IX. It can be seen that approximately half of the students think they will work abroad during the years immediately following graduation. The highest ratio of students who TABLE VIII. Financing subsistence and tuition fees. Total financing by financial source and percentage of students who report receiving support from different sources
Financial source
Relative importance of financial sources (%)
Percentage of students receiving support from different sources
73
95
1 2 1 10 8 95*
4 9 8 61 51
Grant and loan from the State Educational Loan Fund Grant sole contribution from the State Educational Loan Fund Grant from other source (e.g. employer) Private loan Income from employment Financial support from family Total
*The total is not 100%, due to the fact that students’ calculations do not always add up to 100. TABLE IX. Plans for where to work in the future (%) Number of years after graduation Working country
0 years
5 years
10 years
Norway Country of study Other countries Total
49 38 13 100
55 15 30 100
74 7 19 100
1130
1119
1104
N
406
J. Wiers-Jenssen
would like to work abroad is found among arts students and business/hotel students. Five years after graduation, 30% of all students consider they will work somewhere other than in Norway or the host country, which suggests that a considerable proportion of students are planning an international career. However, most students plan to return to Norway at some point. Three out of four students think they will work in Norway ten years after graduation. In interviews, several students expressed that they regarded working abroad as a temporary phase before settling in Norway. If the students stick to their preferences, the risk of a brain drain is definitely present. But there are reasons to believe that many students will change their minds. The unemployment rate in Norway is low, and the labour market opportunities favourable compared to many other countries. In-depth interviews revealed that some students are aware that high unemployment rates and insufficient language proficiency may be obstacles to employment abroad. Hitherto, Norway has not experienced any substantial brain drain. Among Norwegians who graduated abroad during 1986–96, 84% were resident in Norway in 1996 (Stortingsmelding nr 19, 1996–97; State Educational Loan Fund, personal communication). TABLE X. Overall satisfaction with studying abroad (binary logistic regression. n ⫽ 1053) B
S.E.
Subject field Medical Sciences Other health studies Business/hotel Technology/natural sciences Arts
⫺ 0.21 ⫺ 0.62* ⫺ 0.25 0.09 ⫺ 0.36
0.30 0.29 0.28 0.28 0.28
Country Nordic countries Western Europe (except UK) Eastern Europe North America Oceania
⫺ 0.04 ⫺ 0.37 0.22 ⫺ 0.14 1.32*
0.26 0.24 0.21 0.94 0.55
Motives for studying abroad New impulses Different education Urge
0.25* 0.14 ⫺ 0.01
0.12 0.14 0.13
Social network Norwegians Host nationals Student from other countries
0.01 0.28*** ⫺ 0.08
0.07 0.09 0.07
Satisfaction with educational institution Gender (male) Study experience (no. of years) Perceived self-efficacy (top 25%) Constant1
1.21*** ⫺ 0.20 0.10 0.10 ⫺ 5.40**
0.10 0.16 0.07 0.16 0.65
Cox & Snell R square
0.26
*** ⫽ p ⬍ 0.001, ** ⫽ p ⬍ 0.01, * ⫽ p ⬍ 0.05. 1Constant ⫽ studying social or humanistic sciences in UK, low score on motivation indexes, scarce contact with other students, very dissatisfied with the educational institution, female, 1 year of experience abroad, perceived self-efficacy not among the 25% top students.
Norwegian Students Abroad 407 Overall Satisfaction Asked to indicate overall satisfaction with studying abroad, 64% of the students reported themselves as ‘very satisfied’. Another 24% were ‘somewhat satisfied’. Overall satisfaction with sojourn abroad is highly correlated with overall satisfaction with educational institution (r ⫽ 0.49). Logistic regression analyses were conducted to find out how satisfaction with institution, subject field, country, motivation and social network influence overall satisfaction with sojourn abroad. The results are displayed in Table X. In this model we see that subject field and country of destination hardly have significant effects when controlled for variables like satisfaction with the institution and motives for going abroad. Being motivated by being exposed to ‘new impulses’ has a positive effect. Frequent contact with host nationals has a significant positive effect, while contact with Norwegians and other non-compatriots seems less important. Overall satisfaction with sojourn abroad is likely to be influenced by far more aspects than those included in this model, such as language proficiency, economy and satisfaction with the institution, (Wiers-Jenssen et al., 2002). Furthermore, student satisfaction may also be influenced by involvement (Tinto, 1986; Pike, 1991), or by psychological factors like well-being or happiness. Nevertheless, our regression model is enlightening in that it points out that social network and motivation for going abroad exert significant influence on overall satisfaction, independent of country of destination and subject field.
Discussion Most Norwegian students have very positive views on their sojourn abroad. They face many challenges, but the majority seem highly capable of coping with the academic level and establishing a new social network. They are generally satisfied with the academic and professional quality of their educational institution. The extra-curricular skills they acquire as part of the package of studying abroad, such as personal development and linguistic and cultural competence, are highly appreciated. Why are they so satisfied with their sojourn abroad? One explanation is to be found in their initial reasons for studying abroad. When the decision to study abroad was made, ‘pull’ factors were much stronger than ‘push’ factors in most students’ minds. The multivariate analysis supports this hypothesis; being motivated by ‘pull’ factors increases overall satisfaction. The majority of students have good educational options in Norway, and even those facing numerus clausus domestically had other options: they could improve their grades from upper secondary school in order to get accepted on a course of their preferred discipline, or they could choose a different subject field. This suggests that those willing to go abroad are highly motivated and prepared for challenges, and that they may have personality profiles diverging from domestic students. A comparison of Norwegian medical students in Norway and abroad indicates that the personality profiles of students abroad are more robust (Aasland & Wiers-Jenssen, 2001). Another indication that students abroad are a select group concerning motivation is that the threshold for studying abroad is generally higher than for entering domestic education. Information is less accessible, and application processes are often more complex. Less determined students may not bother to go through this. It also has to be taken into account that students included in the survey have at least one year of study experience abroad, and that they have overcome most problems related to adjustment. Adaptation and attitudes to study and living abroad have been described with reference to a U-curve hypothesis Lysgaard, 1955; Sewell and Davidsen, 1961; Torbio¨rn, 1982). According to this hypothesis, adaptation goes through three stages. The first stage is
408
J. Wiers-Jenssen
a period of observation, where positive attitudes are dominant. In the second stage, students are more concerned about social, economic and educational problems, and they reject certain aspects of the culture of the host country. In the third stage, the students are capable of coping positively with the unfamiliar environment. The majority of students in our survey have probably reached this third stage. Though the U-curve hypothesis and its shape have been debated (Klinenberg & Hull, 1979; Church, 1982; Bochner & Furnham, 1986), it is beyond doubt that many practical problems decline over the course of time. In our qualitative interviews, students frequently mentioned that they had faced multiple problems in the first months after arriving in the country of study. Retrospectively, they seemed to interpret these problems positively, as challenges from which they had gained personality development. A third explanation for the high level of satisfaction may be found in the fact that the majority of Norwegians abroad choose to study in countries that are relatively similar to Norway both linguistically and culturally. They are not likely to face discrimination, and in most countries being a Norwegian is politically uncontroversial and not a cause of resentment. Babiker et al. (1980) and Furnham and Bochner (1982) have shown that the degree of difficulties experienced is related to the cultural distance between the student’s culture and the host society. A recent study of foreign students in Norway shows a parallel tendency: life satisfaction among students of European and North American origin is higher than among Asians and Africans (Sam, 2001). When the adjustment process runs quite smoothly, it is probably easier to appreciate both academic and non-academic aspects of study abroad. Though cultural differences may be difficult to handle, few Norwegian students are exposed to a severe culture shock. Exceptions are to be found among those studying in continental Europe (Eastern Europe in particular) and the handful of Norwegians studying in developing countries. They encounter more cultural challenges than other students do, and, as we have seen, they are also less satisfied than Norwegian students in other countries. But the relative discontent of students in Eastern Europe may be interpreted in the light of factors other than culture shock. There are many medical students in this group, and ‘push’ factors are fundamental in these students’ motivation for going abroad. They leave Norway because they were unable to enter a domestic medical school, and not because they initially have any particular interest in internationalisation or foreign cultures. This may affect their interest in, and ability to adapt to, an unfamiliar environment, and the fact that they are enrolled in study programmes separate from host nationals works against cross-cultural understanding and integration. We have also noticed some discontent with study structure and educational regimes in continental Europe. Additional explanations for student satisfaction may be related to the students’ independent economic situation and their age. The loans and grants from the State Educational Loan Fund are relatively generous, and few students face serious financial concerns. Exceptions do exist where, for example, some students are affected by currency fluctuations or high tuition fees. A survey among students participating in the European ERASMUS student exchange programme showed that Norwegian students encounter fewer financial difficulties during their sojourn abroad than students from most other European countries (European Commission, 2000). Due to financing through the State Educational Loan Fund, few students are economically dependent on parents, and their educational choices may be less influenced by parents’ preferences. In interviews, students suggested that Norwegians were highly motivated because they had made the decision to study abroad themselves, and because they pay for the studies themselves through loans. It was claimed that students from certain other countries were ‘sent’ abroad by wealthy parents, and were consequentially less motivated for their studies. These observations may not represent a general pattern, but the fact that the
Norwegian Students Abroad 409 students commenced their education sojourn at an average age of 22.5 years may indicate that the decision was made on an independent basis. To sum up, high motivation, combined with relatively low economic, academic, social, cultural and linguistic barriers, contribute to a high level of satisfaction among the majority of Norwegian students abroad. The level of satisfaction varies by host country and subject field, which again is related to factors like different motives for studying abroad and social networks. From the students’ point of view, studying abroad seems like a good investment, academically and personally. But whether studying abroad is an academically and economically beneficial investment, compared to studying in Norway, cannot be answered by our data. Neither have other studies documented the proceeds of study abroad for Norwegian students. Despite the fact that Norway has a long tradition of sending students abroad, and that substantial amounts of money are spent in supporting these students, returns from studies abroad have so far not been scrutinised, either from an individual or a national perspective. Norwegian employers’ attitudes towards applicants with diplomas from abroad have not been systematically investigated, and there is hardly any documentation on labour market returns for this group, or on the extent to which students who have studied abroad are able to make use of their formal and extra-curricular skills in their work. At the national level, there has been a lack of concern as to whether studies abroad eventually pay off economically, academically, culturally or politically. These topics require further research. Correspondence: Jannecke Wiers-Jenssen, Norwegian Institute for Studies in Research and Higher Education (NIFU), Hegdehagusveien 31, N-0352 Oslo, Norway; e-mail:
[email protected] REFERENCES AASLAND, O. & WIERS-JENSSEN, J. (2001) Norwegian medical students abroad—career plans, personality, smoking and alcohol use, Tiddskr Nor Lægeforen, 14, pp. 1677–1682. ALTBACH, P.G. (1991) Impact and adjustment: foreign students in a comparative perspective, Higher Education, 21, pp. 305–323. BABIKER, I., COX, E. J.L. & MILLER, P.M.C. (1980) The measurement of culture distance and its relationship to medical consultation, sympthomatology and examination performance of overseas students at Edinburgh University, Social Psychiatry, 15, pp. 109–116. BERG, L. & STENSAKER, B. (1997) Studenter i utlandet. Innblikk i eksisterende teori og empiri (Oslo, NIFU. Skriftserie nr. 20/97). BOCHNER, S. (Ed.) (1981) The Mediating Person: bridges between cultures (Cambridge, MA, Schenkman). BOCHNER, S., MCLEOD, B. & LIN, A. (1977) Friendship patterns of overseas students: a functional model, International Journal of Psychology, 12, pp. 277–294. BRANDT, E. (1986) Minervas sønner og døtre; Kandidater fra universiteter og høgskoler 1890–1979 (Oslo, NAVFs utredningsinstitutt. Notat 5/86). CHURCH, A.T. (1982) Sojourner adjustment, Psychological Bulletin, 91, pp. 540–572. CSN [Centrala studiestønadsnemden] (1995) At studera utomlands med studiemedel. En undersøkning om hur utlandsstuderande upplever sina studier och vad som hender eftera˚t (Sundsvall, CSN-rapport nr. 1 1995). CUMMINGS, W.K. (1991): Foreign students, in: P.G. ALTBACH (Ed.) International Higher Education: an encyclopedia, pp. 107–125 (New York, Garland). FURNHAM, A. (1986) The experience of being an overseas student, in: A. FURNHAM & S. BOCHNER Culture Shock (London, Methuen). FURNHAM, A. & BOCHNER, S. (1982) Social difficulty in a foreign culture: an empirical analysis of culture shock, in: S. BOCHNER (Ed.) Cultures in Contact: studies in cross-cultural interaction (Oxford, Pergamon). FURNHAM, A. & TREZISE, L. (1983) The mental health of foreign students, Social Sciences and Medicine, 17, pp. 365–370. FURUKAWA, T. & SHIBAYAMA, T. (1993) Predicting maladjustment of exchange students in different cultures: a prospective study, Soc Psychiatr Epidemol, 28, pp. 142–146.
410
J. Wiers-Jenssen
EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2000) Survey into the Socio-economic Background of ERASMUS Students (Luxembourg; Office for Official Publications of the European Communities). HANSEN, M.N. (1999) Utdanningspolitikk og ulikhet. Rekruttering til høyere utdanning 1985–1998, Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning, nr 2, pp. 173–203. JENSEN, K. & NYGA˚RD, R. (2000) Studentidentitet og samfunnsmoral. Søkelys pa˚ høyeregradsstudenters norm- og verdisettingsmønster (Oslo, Universitetet i Oslo, Innsatsomra˚de etikk, skriftserie nr. 4). JOCHEMS, W., SNIPPE, J., SMID, H.J. & VERWEIJ, A. (1996) The academic progress of foreign students: study achievement and study behaviour, Higher Education 31, pp. 325–340. KLINENBERG, O. & HULL, F. (1979) At a Foreign University. An International Study of Adaptation and Coping (New York, Praeger). LYNGSTAD, J. & ØYANGEN, I. (1999) Sjung om studentens lyckliga dar. Studenters levekar 1998 (OsloKongsvinger, Statistisk Sentralbyra˚, rapport 99/15). LYSGAARD, S. (1955) Adjustment in a foreign society: Norwegian Fullbright visiting the United States, International Social Science Bulletin, 7, pp. 45–51. OBERG, K. (1954) Culture Shock (Indianapolis, IN, Bobbs-Merrill). OPPER, S., TEICHLER, U. & CARLSON, J. (1990) Impacts of Study Abroad Programmes on Students and Graduates (London, Jessica Kingsley). ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC COOPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT (OECD) (2000) Education at a Glance. OECD indicators (Paris, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development). PERRUCI, R. & HU, H. (1995) Satisfaction with social and educational experiences among international graduate students, Research in Higher Education, 36, pp. 491–508. PIKE, G.R. (1991) The effects of background coursework, and involvement on students’ grades and satisfaction, Research in Higher Education, 32, pp. 15–30. SAM, D.L. (2001) Satisfaction with life among international students: an exploratory study, Social Indicators Research, 53, pp. 315–337. SAM, D.L. & EIDE, R. (1991) Survey of mental health of foreign students, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 32, pp. 22–30. SEWELL, W.H. & DAVIDSEN, O.M. (1961) Scandinavian Students on an American Campus (Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press). STATE EDUCATIONAL LOAN FUND (1994) Norske elever og studenter i utlandet 1993–1994. STATISTICS NORWAY (1998) Færre studenter for første gang pa˚ 20 a˚r, Ukens statistikk. STENSAKER, B. & WIERS-JENSSEN, J. (1998) Utvidet utbytte? Norske studenter i Glasgow, Stockholm, Berlin og København (Oslo, NIFU. Rapport 5/98). STORTINGSMELDING NR. 19 (1996–97) Om studier i utlandet (Oslo, Kirke-, utdannings- og forskningsdepartementet). STORTINGSMELDING NR. 27 (2001–01) Gjør din plikt—krev din rett (Oslo; Kirke-, utdannings og forskningsdepartementet). TAJFEL, H. & DAWSON, J. (Eds) (1965) Disappointed Guests: essays by African, Asian, and West Indian students (Oxford, Oxford University Press). TEICHLER, U. (1996) Student mobility in the framework of Erasmus: findings of an evaluation study, European Journal of Education, 31, pp. 153–179. TINTO, V. (1986) Theories of student departure revisited, in: J. SMART (Ed.) Higher Education: handbook of theory and research, vol. II (New York, Agathon Press). TORBIO¨RN, I. (1982) Living Abroad. Personal Adjustment and Personnel Policy in the Overseas Setting (Ann Arbor, MI, John Wiley & Sons). UNESCO (1995) Statistical Yearbook (Paris, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation). UNESCO (1997) Statistical Yearbook (Paris, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation). VOLET, S.E. & RENSHAW, P. (1995) Cross-cultural differences in university students’ goals and perceptions of study settings for achieving their own goals, Higher Education, 30, pp. 407–433. WARD, C. & SEARLE, W. (1991) The impact of value discrepancies and cultural identity on psychological and and sociocultural adjustment of sojourners, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15, pp. 209–225. WIERS-JENSSEN, J., GROGAARD, J.B. & STENSAKER, B. (2002) Student satisfaction—towards an empirical deconstruction of the concept, Quality in Higher Education, 8, pp. 183–195. WIERS-JENSSEN, J. (1999) Utlendighet eller utflukt? Norske studenters vurdering av a˚ studere i utlandet (Oslo, NIFU-rapport 9/1999).
Norwegian Students Abroad 411 WIERS-JENSSEN, J. & AAMODT, P.O. (2002) Trivsel og innsats—Studenters tilfredshet med lærested og tid brukt til studier. Resultater fra ’Stud.mag.’—undersøkelsene (Oslo, NIFU-rapport 1/2002). YING, Y. & LIESE, L. (1991) Emotional well-being of Taiwanese foreign students to the U.S: an examination of pre- to post arrival differential, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15, pp. 345–366. ZADEH, M.S. (1999): Utlandsstudier—til hvilken nytta? En utva¨rdering av effekter av utlandsstudier (Stockholm, Ho¨gskoleverket).
