Examining Home and International Students’ Awareness of,Attitudes Towards and Participation in Intercultural Activities on Campus

Abstract

Internationalization in higher education and the promotion of intercultural interaction are becoming increasingly prevalent globally. Conducted in Hong Kong, this mixed-methods study investigated one facet of these initiatives, namely intercultural activities on campus. Both home (n = 305) and international (n = 127) students’ awareness of, attitudes toward, and participation in these activities were examined. The results showed that these three variables were significantly inter-correlated, and awareness and attitude together explained 36% of the variance in participation. While both groups had similar levels of awareness and participation, the international students were slightly more positive toward these activities than the home students were. Lack of time, absence of company, and uninteresting activities were found to be the top three reasons for low/no participation. Follow-up semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 participants, who elaborated on awareness-raising promotion platforms for these activities, motivators, and demotivators for participation, and the general differences between home and international students. The article ends with a discussion on these findings.

Keywords

home and international students intercultural activities participation attitude awareness

Introduction

In a globalized world characterized by increasing intercultural exchange and communication, there is a crucial need to develop students’ intercultural knowledge and competence at all levels of education. This is particularly the case in current higher education institutions, in which the process of internationalization is marked by enhanced cultural diversity and complexities. Universities worldwide are observed to be making great efforts to promote cross-cultural learning as an essential component of students’ academic experiences (Zou & Yu, 2019). However, previous research (e.g. Yuan, Li, & Yu, 2019) has shown that students’ participation in intercultural learning often remains low, both in the classroom and in general campus life. Particularly in mixed cultural settings, there appears to be a strong sense of reluctance and resistance by students to engage in cross-cultural interactions. As described by Arthur (2017), “local students may prefer the ease of interacting with peers who seem most like them, and form cliques,” whereas “international students may gravitate together due to shared understandings about cultural norms and the ease of communication in a similar language” (p. 891). Without students’ active and in-depth participation, the curriculum initiatives and pedagogical resources intended to promote intercultural learning may not generate the desired outcomes in higher education (Tsang, 2020). It is thus important to examine the reasons behind students’ participation or lack thereof in intercultural activities and then to develop appropriate strategies to help them capitalize on multicultural environments that can add value to their academic studies and whole-person development.

To date, despite a large body of research on the design and implementation of intercultural learning activities, relatively limited attention has been paid to students’ participation in these activities and the underlying reasons for their participation or lack of it. In addition, the majority of prior studies have focused on international students’ perceptions and engagement, and have not accounted for local students’ perspectives (Yuan, Li, & Yu, 2019). Given that intercultural learning occurs through a personalized, dynamic and interactive process between students from diverse linguistic and socio-cultural backgrounds (King et al., 2013), it is necessary to explore and understand different stakeholders’ views and probe their similarities and differences in specific higher education contexts. In view of the identified research gaps, the present study investigated how and why international and local students from different disciplinary backgrounds participated (or did not participate) in intercultural activities at two universities in Hong Kong. By analyzing the possible similarities and differences between their perceptions, the study can contribute to the existing knowledge about intercultural learning by shedding light on the critical issue of student participation in relation to various personal and socio-cultural factors. Useful implications can also be generated from the study regarding effective design of higher education curricula and activities with a view to enhancing students’ active participation in cross-cultural exchange and learning.

Conceptual Framework

Defining Intercultural Learning

Intercultural learning generally refers to the process of acquiring the culture-specific and culture-general knowledge, skills, and attitudes for individuals’ professional and personal development (Jackson, 2018; Shadiev & Sintawati, 2020). Through engagement in intercultural learning experiences, students can learn to critically analyze their own beliefs and values, link their own views and local issues to broader global, multicultural contexts, identify options and solutions, and make sense of their own identities as they move within and across different linguistic, social, and cultural communities (Yuan, Li, & Yu, 2019; King et al., 2013).

To date, some researchers (e.g., Bentall et al., 2014; Lee, 2012) have explored different forms of educational practice and conditions that can foster intercultural learning in higher education. For instance, a variety of useful resources and activities, such as problem-based collaborative projects (Busse & Krause, 2015) and role play and simulations (Lee, 2012), have been found useful in promoting cross-cultural interaction and learning. These studies have suggested that educational interventions can play a critical role in helping students to acquire new knowledge of other cultures, develop their cross-cultural sensitivity, and foster their capacities for intercultural communication. This points to the importance of infusing the elements of intercultural learning in higher education through the provision of coursework and extra-curriculum activities (Jackson, 2018).

Despite this evidence of its importance, the promotion of intercultural learning can be a challenge for university teachers and curriculum designers due to a variety of personal and contextual factors (Lomicka & Ducate, 2019). For instance, cultural differences associated with diverse learning styles can cause misunderstandings and impede collaboration between local and international students (Heng, 2018). Moreover, due to limited professional training and support, many university teachers may also lack sufficient pedagogical knowledge to design and implement effective intercultural learning activities (Göbel & Helmke, 2010). As a result, in spite of the potentially rich opportunities for embedding intercultural learning in higher education settings, students from different cultural backgrounds often engage with each other only at superficial levels if they are not given adequate guidance and support (Arthur, 2017).

Social Exchange Theory

To overcome the aforementioned challenges, some scholars (e.g., Ippolito, 2007; King et al., 2013) have emphasized the need to deepen students’ participation in intercultural interactions in higher education. It is only through scaffolded participation in different forms of cross-cultural activities within and outside university classrooms that students can learn gradually to appreciate the benefits of intercultural experiences, foster their cultural knowledge and competence, and promote their confidence and agency for continued learning (Zou & Yu, 2019). This view is supported by social exchange theory (Cropanzano et al., 2017; Kelley & Thibaut, 1978), which stipulates that individuals create and develop social relationships on the basis of their expectations that such relationships will be mutually beneficial. To illustrate, in a situation of social exchange, individuals’ cognitive and emotional interactions are based on the principal of reciprocity (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). In other words, they tend to evaluate the rewards they are likely to gain and the costs they may pay. If the calculated rewards are greater than the costs, they are more likely to invest in the relationship. If not, they may cease the existing relationship and seek a new one through continuing social interactions. As explained by previous studies (e.g., Muthusamy & White, 2005), the rewards of social exchanges can be expressed in both materialistic (e.g., money) and symbolic forms (e.g., trust, self-esteem, acceptance, and friendship) associated with positive emotions (e.g., joy and satisfaction). Similarly, the costs may also involve time and money, as well as feelings of frustration and dissatisfaction. Through repeated interactions, social relationships arise, develop, deteriorate, and dissolve as a consequence of an unfolding social exchange and coordination process.

As a general sociological framework concerned with understanding the exchange of resources between individuals and groups in complex interaction situations (Cropanzano et al., 2017), social exchange theory can offer a meaningful perspective toward understanding intercultural interaction and learning in higher education. Specifically, international and local students can decide whether and how they may participate in intercultural activities by calculating the potential rewards (e.g., acquired knowledge and skills) and costs (e.g., time) in line with the principal of reciprocity. Their ongoing evaluation of the experiences permeates the process of their social exchange and learning engagement, which in turn has a considerable influence on their motivation and effort. Furthermore, the process of cultural learning does not merely involve a cost-benefit analysis; more importantly, it entails students’ personal interpretations and negotiation of their own practices and languages, enabling them to identify within and across different cultural groups (Gill, 2007; Pitts & Brooks, 2017). In a collaborative learning study involving international and local students in a Chinese university (Yuan, Li, & Yu, 2019), the local students constructed a complex set of identities such as “dedicated learners” and “independent fighters.” These identities, derived from their participation in different intercultural activities, in turn shaped their social relationships and learning engagement in different linguistic and cultural groups.

Intercultural learning is a dynamic, situated process which can engage students cognitively, behaviorally, and affectively in their sense making and identity (re)construction. While intercultural learning needs to be planned and implemented carefully by curriculum designers and course instructors, first and foremost it requires students’ active, meaningful participation in university settings. As has been explained above, despite the plethora of studies related to intercultural competence and communication, there is a dearth of studies examining a more fundamental aspect of the topic, namely students’ participation in interculturality (Tsang, under review). The present study, drawing on the perspectives of both local and interactional students, thus sought to investigate the extent to which they participate in intercultural learning, how they participate, and the possible influencing factors. The study was conducted in two universities in Hong Kong. The focus was on intercultural activities that are university-wide and open to all students. These types of activities are ubiquitous in tertiary institutions globally and can be considered as an “informal curriculum,” being “extracurricular . . . optional activities that are not part of the formal requirements of the degree or programme of study” (Leask, 2009, p. 207). The study was premised on the hypothesis that the degree of students’ participation is positively correlated with their attitudes toward and level of awareness of such intercultural activities in their situated environment. As predicted by social exchange theory, the reasons for learners’ high and low/no participation were predicted to be the perceived presence and absence of gains (e.g., academic; personal) from the intercultural activities respectively.

The specific research questions are as follows:

What are home and international students’ attitudes toward, level of awareness of and participation in intercultural activities on campus?

What are the relationships between these three variables?

What are the reasons for high or low/no participation?

Methods

This paper reports part of the findings from a larger mixed-methods study on intercultural activity participation. Adhering to the fitness-for-purpose principle, we adopted the mixed-methods approach as it yields a more holistic understanding of the areas under investigation (i.e., the two student groups and the three foci) than single methods approaches (Cohen et al., 2018). The explanatory sequential design was used in which quantitative data were collected first and then supplemented by qualitative data, enabling elaboration and illustration of findings (Cohen et al., 2018).

Participants

A total of 518 tertiary-level participants (M_age = 21.17, SD = 2.48; Females = 276, 53.28%; Males = 228, 44.02%; 14 did not state) from two large universities in Hong Kong were recruited via convenience (e.g., distributing questionnaires in canteens) and snowball sampling (e.g., participants assisting in recruiting other qualified participants in their dormitories). The majority were undergraduates (n = 451, 87.07%), 57 (11.00%) were postgraduates and 10 did not state their level of study. They were primarily from five faculties: Science (n = 125, 24.13%), Arts (n = 90, 17.37%), Business (n = 84, 16.22%), Social Sciences (n = 82, 15.83%), and Education (n = 67, 12.93%). Seven (1.35%) were from the Law faculty and the rest (n = 63) did not indicate their discipline areas. The home participants were born and raised in Hong Kong, speaking Cantonese as their mother tongue (n = 305, 58.89%). The international students (n = 127, 24.52%) were from outside Hong Kong and were studying in the two universities when the data were collected. Their nationalities were not identified. Eighty-six did not state whether they were home or international students. Eighteen participants were invited to attend the post-questionnaire interviews (see below).

Measures

As there is no widely employed, validated scale measuring learners’ attitudes toward any of the three constructs of interest in this study, three scales were constructed based on social exchange theory, relevant literature (e.g., studies of extra-curricular activities such as Hendrickson (2018)) and our knowledge of these activities (e.g., their nature). These instruments were developed for the wider study, of which this was a part. The drafted items were shown to colleagues experienced in organizing these activities for comments. The revised version was then piloted with two home and two international students. Upon further revision, based on the four participants’ comments, the final version was produced.

Three sections of the final version of the questionnaire were relevant here: (a) Socio-biographical information; (b) attitudes, awareness, and participation; and (c) reasons for no/low participation in these activities.

In Section 1, there were seven, two, and five items measuring the participants’ attitudes, awareness, and participation, respectively (see Figure 1). Only two items were needed to measure the students’ awareness of the existence of these activities on campus, since this was a straightforward question. The respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a five-point scale (from strongly agree to strongly disagree). All three scales had good reliability. Also, at the beginning of the post-questionnaire interviews (see below), the interviewees were informed of their scores in each area. All the interviewees thought that these scores genuinely reflected them well in these three aspects, lending further support for good reliability and validity. The instructions on the questionnaire stated clearly that all activities/events/schemes (hereinafter referred to just as “activities”) were related to culture and interculturality (e.g., an Indian festival; a seminar on the Japanese tea ceremony; an international buddy scheme).

Figure 1.

The attitude, awareness and participation scales in the study.

In Section 2, there were 11 items suggesting possible reasons why some students do not participate (much) in these activities. The aforementioned colleagues, the pilot participants, and the research team agreed that these items cover most of the genuine reasons (see Figure 2). The participants were asked to indicate the level of importance of each reason for no/low participation on a five-point scale (most important to most unimportant). They were asked to think from a general student’s perspective rather than only from their own experiences.

Figure 2.

The 11 items on reasons for low/no participation.

Interviews

Eighteen participants (males = 9; females = 9; home = 8; international = 10) from different disciplines agreed to attend individual follow-up semi-structured interviews. They were selected to represent a range of levels of participation in the activities, based on their participation scores in the survey. This enabled diverse views to be collected. Their background information is shown in the Appendix. The interview questions were based on the RQs, and the interviewees were encouraged to share their views based on their knowledge, observations, and experiences. The guiding interview questions are shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3.

The guiding interview questions.

The interviews were conducted in either Cantonese or English, depending on which language each participant found most suitable expressing their thoughts. Each interview lasted around 20 to 30 mins.

The audio-recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim. Each transcript was then checked at least twice by the research team. Given the under-researched nature of the inquiry and the absence of a well-established framework for analysis, the data-driven thematic analytic approach (Braun & Clarke, 2006) was adopted. This is a method for “identifying, analyzing and reporting patterns (themes) within data” and it “minimally organizes and describes your data set in (rich) detail” (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 79; brackets by Braun & Clarke). Each transcript was read and the corresponding interview recording listened to multiple times (Immersion). Initial codes were drafted and fine-tuned through the iterative process of questioning and comparing against the entire dataset. The themes that emerged from the codes were then reviewed again.

Results

Quantitative (i.e., Questionnaire) Findings

The questionnaire findings showed that the participants were slightly positive toward interculturality in general and the activities in particular (M = 3.65). The international participants (M = 3.76) were significantly and mildly more positive than the home students (M = 3.60). Both groups indicated that they had similar levels of awareness of these activities (M = 3.46) and participation (M = 2.97). Table 1 shows the results.

Table 1.

Home and International Participants’ Attitudes, Awareness and Participation.

	Total (n = 506)	Home (n = 297)	International (n = 126)	t	df	p	d
	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	t	df	p	d
Attitude	3.65 (0.55)	3.60 (0.56)	3.76 (0.52)	2.78	421	.006	0.30
Awareness	3.46 (0.82)	3.42 (0.84)	3.58 (0.86)	1.83	421	.068
Participation	2.97 (0.77)	2.94 (0.83)	3.03 (0.66)	1.14	292.69	.254

Note. 1(low/negative) to 5 (high/positive).

The three variables were significantly inter-correlated with medium to strong effect sizes. The participants’ levels of participation could also be predicted by their attitudes and awareness, which accounted for 25% and 23%, respectively, of the variance (in participation). Both factors together contributed to 36% of the variance in participation. These results are shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

Zero-Order Correlations and Regression Analysis of Participants’ Attitudes, Awareness and Participation (n = 506).

	Awareness	Participation	F(df₁, df₂)	p	B (SE)	β	R ²
Attitude	.34***	.51***	163.65 (1, 480)	<.001	0.69 (0.05)	.50	.25
Awareness		.48***	139.76 (1, 480)	<.001	0.44 (0.04)	.48	.23
Attitude + Awareness			137.06 (2, 479)	<.001			.36

Note. df₁ = regression; df₂ = residual.

***p < .001.

The mean ratings for the possible reasons for students’ low/no participation are shown in Table 3. Overall, the major reasons identified were lack of time (M = 4.11), no company (M = 3.72), uninteresting activities (M = 3.58), and too much commitment (M = 3.50).

Table 3.

Reasons for Low/No Participation (From Most to Least Important).

	Total (n = 493–500)
	M (SD)
Lack of time	4.11 (0.79)
No company	3.72 (0.92)
Uninteresting activities/workshops	3.58 (0.89)
Too much commitment needed	3.50 (1.03)
Its non-compulsory nature	3.47 (0.98)
Not feeling interested	3.44 (1.08)
Lack of awareness	3.42 (0.97)
Not important	3.31 (1.04)
No recognition	3.07 (1.05)
Already familiar with the topics	2.90 (1.00)
Little value of intercultural understanding/competence	2.79 (1.04)

Note. 1(low/negative) to 5 (high/positive).

Qualitative (i.e., Interview) Findings

For conciseness, only a maximum of two interviewees are quoted in each bracket as examples.

Awareness: Promotion platforms for activities

All 18 interviewees had learnt of intercultural activities via university-wide emails (i.e., mass emails containing multiple announcements from different bodies) and specific emails sent by activity organizers. Six interviewees commented that attractiveness and clarity of titles encouraged them to read on, hence becoming aware of the activities. This was also why specific rather than university-wide emails were deemed to be more effective given the more prominent subject lines (#2, #14). Despite emails having been rated as the most popular promotion platforms, half of the interviewees stated that their peers did not have the habit of checking emails regularly. The next most effective platform was posters/notice boards (e.g., inside/outside lifts), as mentioned by 11 interviewees. Six interviewees also recalled that they were made aware of activities through social networking platforms such as Instagram and Facebook.

Three particularly effective promotion methods were highlighted in these interviews: Live promotions through, for example, visiting classes during break time (#3); promotion materials placed on canteen tables because “the more they appear . . . the more they are stuck in [one’s] brain even if [one is] not interested” (#5); and word-of-mouth promotion from friends especially because one already knew their friends well (#11) and they were involved in organizing these activities (#18). Only four interviewees said they would sometimes search proactively for these activities, for instance, on organizers’ websites. The majority said they only noticed the promotions if they came to them via platforms such as those mentioned above.

Relationship between awareness and participation

Not surprisingly, the interviewees agreed unanimously that greater awareness would lead to somewhat higher participation rates. They thought that there would be no participation when one was not aware of these activities. Many, however, elaborated that awareness did not guarantee participation as some students were not interested anyhow. Both home and international interviewees pointed out that many home students were unaware of these activities and very few would participate. Some interviewees (#14, #18) also observed that the few home participants tended to be the same groups of students in activity after activity.

Motivators and demotivators for participation

Five motivators, six demotivators, and four factors acting as either motivators or demotivators, depending on the context, emerged from the interview data. These are presented in Figure 4. Note that the interviewees were asked to comment on these motivators and demotivators as they might apply to their peers in general, not necessarily to themselves.

Figure 4.

Motivators and demotivators for participation in intercultural activities.

Some students were motivated to participate in intercultural activities when they saw a link to their future careers and/or their studies. For instance, #5 did not participate much in these activities (1.5/5 in participation) but he indicated that if they were related to sports education, his major and future career, he would be more interested to join. The interviewees also mentioned motivators which were more instrinsic such as fun, leisure, making friends, genuine interest, curiosity, and life fulfillment. For example, #12 made a remark about curiosity and life fulfillment: “Knowing the practices of people in other cultures . . . gives me a perspective of my own practices . . . ,” thus allowing him to “question [his] own practice . . . [and] way of living.” Some saw these activities as opportunities to strengthen their identities and to promote their own cultures. #2 explained that she enjoyed being an ambassador more than a participant in these activities because she wanted others to learn more about her country (Malaysia) and culture. Last, the students commented that recognition, such as in the form of certificates, credits, and even “sponsorship (e.g., for exchange)” (#8) would be regarded as incentives and “bonuses” (#1, #17). The students who joined these activities for this type of recognition tended to be those who “value their time a lot” (#13), “work very hard to get a good job” (#11), and find the activities relevant to their studies and/or careers (#18). However, according to the interviewees, these external rewards were generally seen differently by home and international students (see below). It is also interesting to note that those who were motivated by more intrinsic factors (i.e., Motivators 2-4 in Figure 4) were usually (far) less concerned about these types of recognition.

Six major demotivators were identified from the interviews. Absence of company and lack of time were the two most highlighted reasons by the interviewees. They suggested that having a companion with whom to join the activities was very important for their peers and for themselves, as attending alone is “awkward” (#9, #17), “boring” (#4, #8), and “uncomfortable” (#4, #9). Attending with peers made the experience more fun even if the activities were boring (#7, #8). Even if students were interested, they would usually not choose to participate unless they could find company (#5, #9). However, the interviewees mentioned that it could be challenging to find companions to attend activities, for example, due to mutual availability and peers’ interests (#3, #17). Lack of free time and time-clashes due to busy schedules (e.g., part-time jobs, studies, and dating) were also mentioned as very common reasons for not attending. This was especially the case for activities which required more time commitments (#7, #12), such as weekly engagement. However, some interviewees somewhat disagreed that “lack of time” was a genuine reason, regarding this as just a priority issue (#6, #12) or “excuse” (#17) as many other engagements (e.g., extra-curricular activities) were equally “optional” (#11). “It is definitely possible to squeeze in time [for these activities] if one wants!” (#6). #8 observed in her dormitory that “actually, many students are very laid-back. They spend time lazing around . . . so I do not think they really lack time. It is mostly laziness.” Further reasons for no/low participation in intercultural activities included lack of confidence, lack of energy and insufficient variation in activities. The issue of lack of confidence was related to the perceived need for company (mentioned previously), since some did not have confidence to attend these activities alone. Exhaustion as a result of studies could also discourage some students from participating, even if they were genuinely interested (#6, #13). Last, some interviewees commented that some activities were repeated yearly, and hence there was low motivation for them to re-join these (#14).

Finally, there were some factors mentioned which were simultaneously motivators to some and demotivators to others. Aspects of activities such as the arrangement and nature of talks, seminars or workshops were seen differently by different students. For example, some described talks and seminars as “boring” (#1), “superficial” (#1), “useless” (#16), and non-interactive (#2, #3), hence not worth attending, while others saw them as “one-off,” “easy to commit to” (#4), or interesting (#15, #18). Similarly, students might be encouraged or discouraged by the topics and themes of the activities. For example, some said they liked sessions on food and drinks (#14), but others did not (e.g., #9 commented on the lack of interest in a mocktail session unless one was going to be “a bartender”). Another group of factors that could either motivate or demotivate students’ participation were related to their philosophies and their perceptions of what was to be gained or lost through joining activities. For example, some students said they would be motivated by benefits such as satisfaction with life, satisfaction of curiosity, personal growth (e.g., #18 mentioned becoming more accepting and culturally-aware), and epiphanies (e.g., #10’s removal of stereotype toward people of certain ethnicities after interacting with them; #11’s realization that no culture is superior). With more perceived gains, they became more committed to engaging in these activities (#1). However, others did not see these outcomes as benefits, but rather perceived these activities to be time-wasting if they did not, for example, affect their grade point averages (GPAs) (#1), contribute to their résumés (#14), help them obtain job interviews as GPA or résumés do (#2), assist them in their future careers (#14, #15), make them “see the fun side” (#4), or see the necessity to engage in intercultural communication (#15, #18). The interviewees also commented that their attendance could be influenced by their perceptions of student-led or staff-led activities. They established clearly that they perceived student-led activities to be more light-hearted and to have looser themes, whereas staff-led ones tended to be more structured and formal. While some considered staff-led activities to have cumbersome registration and were sometimes demanding (#12, #17), others found them to be more fruitful and well-organized than student-led ones (#11, #18).

Home and international students: Where the differences lie

Despite the many differences (e.g., their majors, activities in which they engaged, social circles), all 18 interviewees, irrespective of whether they were home or international students, were aware that the home students generally participated less than international students in intercultural activities. The reasons for this difference are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4.

Reasons for Home and International Students’ Low and High Participation in Intercultural Activities Respectively.

Home students: Reasons for lower participation	International students: Reasons for higher participation
Less motivated	More motivated
Sticking with home students; company for participation	Willing to meet other international students; company not necessary for participation
Not used to intercultural interaction	More used to intercultural interaction
Shy, less confident and comfortable in intercultural interaction	Less shy, more comfortable and confident in intercultural interaction
Not seeing a lot of gains in personal satisfaction and growth	Seeing a lot of gains in personal satisfaction and growth
More career-, studies-, and résumé -oriented	Less career-, studies-, and résumé -oriented
Distinguishing between activities for home and international students
Overall cultural differences

Unlike international students, home students were generally unmotivated to engage in these activities (#1, #6). The international students are motivated both by need (e.g., #18 reported a Thai friend who said, “I can’t just play with my four Thai friends for four years!”) and by want (e.g., one reason why the international students came to Hong Kong was to learn more about other cultures, #12). The home students liked to be in their own groups and did not want to join these activities individually, but this was not a concern for many international students (#13, #17). Even though some home students were interested, they would not join if their peers were less keen to go with them (#6, #13). Home students were also described as more shy, less confident, less comfortable, and not accustomed to intercultural interactions compared with international students (#7, #15). In addition, the interviewees reported that home students tended to be more career-, studies-, and résumé-oriented, so they did not want to participate in activities that would not be related to these areas; in contrast, the international students cared less about these aspects and focused more on personal satisfaction and growth (#6, #18). Both groups of students informally categorized all activities into two groups: local and intercultural. The home students joined local activities in which they spoke Cantonese; this made it difficult for international students to participate (#10). The interviewees also mentioned that home students seemed to have “a consensus” that they should not join intercultural activities, which they regarded as being reserved for international students only (#13). Interestingly, some interviewees attributed the distinction between home and international students to cultural differences. They observed that Asian students (#2, #17), or more specifically Chinese and Taiwanese students (#2, #18), tended not to participate in these activities and they often only interacted among themselves.

Discussion

This mixed-methods study investigated home and international students’ awareness of, attitudes toward, and participation in intercultural activities on campus. The three RQs are answered and discussed succinctly below, followed by brief highlights of the theoretical and practical contributions of the study.

Home and International Students’ Attitudes, Awareness and Participation [RQ1]

Both groups of students demonstrated somewhat positive attitudes toward intercultural activities, but the international participants were significantly more positive than the home students. According to the interviewees (see Table 4), some possible reasons for the differences could be that international students tend to be more willing to meet other international students and more disposed to join activities alone rather than with companions, and they see more gains overall from these activities. The findings here are in line, to some extent, with the plethora of studies investigating intercultural interaction. For instance, in Dunne’s (2009) study, the home students in Ireland felt it was “more demanding and less rewarding” to communicate cross-culturally than with their in-group peers. On the other hand, there is evidence of international students being interested in intercultural communication, including with home students (Ward et al., 2001).

Despite the differences in their attitudes, the home and international students’ levels of awareness and participation were similar. Both groups indicated they were somewhat aware of these activities. The interviewees mentioned a number of platforms from which they learnt of these activities, such as emails, social networking platforms and posters. Live promotions, promotions through friends, and exposure (e.g., to promotional materials placed in conspicuous places) seemed to be effective awareness-raising strategies, and specific, attractive and clear titles in these promotional materials were more likely to attract their attention. Participation was also similar for the two groups (see RQ3 below for reasons).

The Relationships Between Attitudes, Awareness, and Participation [RQ2]

Attitude, awareness and participation were found to be significantly and moderately to strongly correlated with each other. It is noteworthy that attitude and awareness accounted respectively for 25% and 23% of the variance in participation, and both together accounted for 36%. The findings here support that attitude is one of the factors important for successful intercultural engagement. Students’ attitudes described in this study reflected their interest, curiosity, and willingness to learn more and to make friends (see Figure 1). These were described as motivators for participating in intercultural activities. Although enhanced awareness was not found to guarantee participation, the interviewees aptly commented that there would be no participation unless one is first aware of the existence of these activities.

Reasons for High/Low/No Participation [RQ3]

Apart from attitude and awareness mentioned above, the other motivators found were (a) relevance to career/studies, (b) solid recognition, and (c) promotion of students’ own cultures and strengthening of their identities. While 1 and 2 are axiomatic, it is interesting to note that some students construct their identity as “ambassadors for their culture” through these activities in addition to general collaborative learning as reported in Yuan, Li, & Yu (2019). Nine of the 11 possible reasons for low/no participation in the questionnaire were rated as somewhat important considerations. Lack of time and absence of company stood out as the most important reasons, which were echoed in the interviews. Aside from lack of time, company, and awareness, the participants’ lack of confidence and energy, and a lack of variation in the activities were also possible demotivators.

Four factors, namely the arrangement and nature of activities, students’ perceptions of potential gains and losses associated with participation, themes and topics of activities, and whether they were student-led or staff-led, were found to be motivators for some students and demotivators for others, depending on their viewpoints. Some general differences were also found between home and international students. For instance, the home students tended to be less motivated, less confident and less comfortable interacting interculturally, and more career/studies-oriented (Yuan, Li, & Yu, 2019). In other words, the home students emerged as being more concerned than the international students with academic studies. This contradicts Dunne’s (2009) finding, that international students were perceived to be more academic-oriented, thus suggesting that culture and contexts need to be taken into account when considering the home/international dichotomy (see below). The home students in this study also tended to stay with their home peers and require company for participation, somewhat corroborating Arthur’s (2017) statement mentioned previously. These findings echo what other researchers have found in relation to intercultural interactions. For instance, home students reported not being prepared to interact with international students at the University of South Australia (Leask, 2009).

Theoretical and Practical Highlights

The correlation between attitude and participation in intercultural activities and the qualitative findings partly lend support to the social exchange theory (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978). For some, especially the international students, their interest and perceived benefits of interacting with out-group peers motivate them to participate in these activities to create new relationships. The general difference between the home and international students can be explained in two ways. One possibility is that international students, as the minority, tend to be willing to engage in more intercultural activities to expand their social circles, to gain support, and to learn about other cultures. The home students, being the majority group, do not have the same needs. However, based on the principle of Homophily—“a contact between similar people occurs at a higher rate than among dissimilar people” (McPherson et al., 2001, p. 416), we speculate that when the home students travel and become international students in a foreign place, they may hold more positive attitudes toward and participate more in intercultural activities. This phenomenon, which we call Inertia at home, has yet to be further studied. Another possibility may be related to the cultural identities of the home students (i.e., Chinese in this case) so that even when they become the minority in a foreign place, their attitudes, participation, and motivations for cross-cultural participation will not change much as they tend to hold to their shared cultural values and beliefs in their home group (Pitts & Brooks, 2017). Further studies are needed before more definitive conclusions can be drawn.

Practically, the study has important implications for promoting intercultural learning in Hong Kong and similar educational contexts. In general, as an essential component of the increasing internationalization of higher education, intercultural learning needs to be planned and implemented carefully at various levels (e.g., university and program), with both material and emotional support provided. First, the findings underline the importance of effective promotion of intercultural activities, since most students do not seek them out. Both awareness and attitude contribute significantly and of a similar magnitude to participation; however, practically, it is much easier and more efficient for universities to first attempt raising students’ awareness of these activities before addressing the issue of developing more positive attitudes in a bid to boost participation. The reasons for low/no participation, the motivators and demotivators they described, and the general differences between home and international students shed light on some factors for educators to take into account when promoting, designing, and implementing intercultural activities. For instance, participation may be increased by the use of strategies such as explaining the purposes and value of these activities to students and rewarding them for their achievements (e.g., additional course credits and certificates of participation). These strategies would be particularly useful to engage home students. Also, curriculum reforms should take into account whether intercultural activities can be implemented on a faculty/major study basis. This would address problems of timetable clashes and make it more feasible for students to take part in groups with their friends, thus addressing the two main reasons for non-participation, lack of time and lack of company. The interviews suggested that international students in Hong Kong tend to be active in learning about different cultures across the globe, but lack exposure to the local Hong Kong culture due to limited interaction with home students. Thus, universities may consider involving local students in promoting their own culture and customs; this may promote their intercultural awareness and engagement while providing more opportunities for international students to explore and understand the local culture.

Conclusion

Using a mixed-methods design, the study shed light on how university students from two Hong Kong universities perceived intercultural learning and why they participated in it. The study revealed differences between international and local students in intercultural learning due to a range of psychological (e.g., personal interest and perceived value) and contextual factors (e.g., time and social support). The limitations of the study merit some attention. For instance, although the sample consisted of home and international students, there was no examination of their cultural backgrounds, which can serve as an important factor influencing their overall attitudes and participation. Also, the data collected from the questionnaires were all self-reported. It would be worthwhile to collaborate with the organizers of activities to collect actual participation data. In addition, there are still some important questions unanswered, for example, which platforms are most/least useful for enhancing learners’ awareness of these activities, the direction of the relationship between awareness and attitude, and the kinds of intercultural activities in which students are most interested and from which they benefit the most.

Footnotes

Appendix

Background of the Eighteen Interviewees.

	Origin	Gender	Awareness	Attitude	Participation	Discipline
#1	Hong Kong	Female	4	3.86	3.33	Business
#2	Malaysia	Female	4	4.29	3.33	Social Science
#3	China	Female	2	3.14	2.33	Business
#4	Hong Kong	Male	3.50	4.14	3.83	Social Science
#5	Hong Kong	Male	4	3.14	1.5	Education
#6	China	Male	3	4.86	3.33	Engineering
#7	Hong Kong	Male	4.50	4.14	1.67	Education
#8	Hong Kong	Female	4	3.14	3.67	Medicine
#9	Korea	Male	3	3.57	2.67	Engineering
#10	Hong Kong	Male	3.50	3.71	4.17	Education
#11	Indonesia	Male	4	4.43	3.83	Business
#12	Turkey	Male	3.50	3.71	2.67	Arts
#13	Poland	Female	5	4.86	3.83	Business
#14	Zimbabwe	Female	3	3.29	3.67	Law
#15	Hong Kong	Female	4	4.14	4.17	Arts
#16	Italy	Female	3	4.57	3.5	Arts
#17	Hong Kong	Male	4	3.71	2.67	Arts
#18	Hong Kong	Female	5	4.86	4.17	Social Science

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research study, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Code: 4058064. Name: Direct Grant for Research 2018-19, Education Panel, CUHK

ORCID iD

Art Tsang

Author Biographies

Art Tsang is an assistant professor in the faculty of education at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. His primary research interests are oral communication in education and learner perceptions, experiences, and well-being.

Rui Yuan received his Ph.D. degree in Education from Chinese University of Hong Kong and is currently an associate professor of language education at University of Macau. Dr. Yuan’s research focuses on teacher education and intercultural learning in higher education.

References

Arthur

(2017). Supporting international students through strengthening their social resources. Studies in Higher Education, 42(5), 887–894.

Bentall

Bo urn

McGough

Hodgson

Spours

(2014). global learning for global colleges: Creating opportunities for greater access to international learning for 16-25 year olds. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 38(5), 621–640.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

Busse

Krause

U. M.

(2015). Addressing cultural diversity: Effects of a problem-based intercultural learning unit. Learning Environments Research, 18, 425–452.

Cohen

Manion

Morrison

(2018). Research Methods in Education (8th ed). New York: Routledge.

Cropanzano

Anthony

E. L.

Daniels

S. R.

Hall

A. V.

(2017). Social exchange theory: A critical review with theoretical remedies. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 479–516.

Cropanzano

Mitchell

M. S.

(2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900.

Dunne

(2009). Host students’ perspectives of intercultural contact in an Irish university. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(2), 222–239.

Gill

(2007). Overseas students’ intercultural adaptation as intercultural learning: A transformative framework. Compare, 37(2), 167–118.

10.

Göbel

Helmke

(2010). Intercultural learning in English as foreign language instruction: The importance of teachers’ intercultural experience and the usefulness of precise instructional directives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(8), 1571–1582.

11.

Hendrickson

(2018). Intercultural connectors: Explaining the influence of extra-curricular activities and tutor programs on international student friendship network development. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 63, 1–16.

12.

Heng

T. T.

(2018). Different is not deficient: Contradicting stereotypes of Chinese international students in US higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 43(1), 22–36.

13.

Ippolito

(2007). Promoting intercultural learning in a multicultural university: Ideals and realities. Teaching in Higher Education, 12, 749–763.

14.

Jackson

(2018). Intervening in the intercultural learning of L2 study abroad students: From research to practice. Language Teaching, 51(3), 365–382.

15.

Kelley

H. H.

Thibaut

(1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. John Wiley.

16.

King

P. M.

Perez

R. J.

Shim

(2013). How college students experience intercultural learning: Key features and approaches. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 6(2), 69–83.

17.

Leask

(2009). Using formal and informal curricula to improve interactions between home and international students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(2), 205–221.

18.

Lee

(2012). Engaging Study Abroad Students in Intercultural Learning Through Blogging and Ethnographic Interviews. Foreign Language Annals, 45(1), 7–21.

19.

Lomicka

Ducate

(2019). Using technology, reflection, and noticing to promote intercultural learning during short-term study abroad. Computer Assisted Language Learning. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1640746

20.

McPherson

Smith-Lovin

Cook

J. M.

(2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.

21.

Muthusamy

S. K.

White

M. A.

(2005). Learning and knowledge transfer in strategic alliances: A social exchange view. Organization Studies, 26(3), 415–441.

22.

Pitts

M. J.

Brooks

C. F.

(2017). Critical pedagogy, internationalisation, and a third space: Cultural tensions revealed in students’ discourse. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 38(3), 251–267.

23.

Shadiev

Sintawati

(2020). A review of research on intercultural learning supported by technology. Educational Research Review, 31, 100338.

24.

Tsang

(2020). Examining the relationship between language and cross-cultural encounters: avenues for promoting intercultural interaction. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2020.1725526

25.

Tsang

(under review). Comparing and contrasting intra- and inter-cultural relations and perceptions among mainstream and minority students in multicultural classrooms in higher education.

26.

Ward

Bochner

Furnham

(2001). The psychology of culture shock (2nd ed.). Routledge.

27.

Yuan

(2019). Neither “local” nor “global”: Chinese university students’ identity paradoxes in the internationalization of higher education. Higher Education, 77(6), 963–978.

28.

Zou

T. X. P.

(2019). Intercultural interactions in Chinese classrooms: A multiple-case study. Studies in Higher Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1647415