‘Part of the Community?’ First Year International Students and Their Engineering Teams

Abstract

The number of (non-European Union) international students in engineering has increased substantially over the past 10 years. In the School of Mechanical and Systems Engineering at Newcastle University first year students are organised into ‘Engineering Teams’ for two modules, in one of which they design and manufacture two small-scale wind turbines. Previous evaluation of the Engineering Team system showed a high level of appreciation although international students were more likely to experience it as challenging. To explore this in greater depth a mixed-method research design was used to obtain feedback from the entire first year international student group (N = 22) during 2012/2013. The study found that although many international students experienced no difficulties in working with team mates, where this did occur a pattern was recognisable. Some international students found it difficult to understand their peers' accented speech or dialect expressions, found it hard to integrate into their team, to be part of team conversations or in some cases perceived themselves as actively excluded from taking part in project activities. A smaller number of students experienced a loss of academic and social confidence and a subset withdrew to the periphery of their teams. A model of early international student adjustment is proposed together with three early interventions: (1) international students have another international team member; (2) all students have an opportunity to meet socially in an environment that promotes intercultural interaction; (3) all students are made aware of the potential for communication and other team difficulties to occur initially with a strong reminder that international communication is the responsibility of all students.

Keywords:

• International students
• team-working
• involuntary ‘free-riding’
• language difficulties

Introduction

In the School of Mechanical and Systems Engineering at Newcastle University first year students work together in ‘Engineering Teams’ to which they are allocated prior to their arrival. Allocation ensures that each team is ‘balanced’ in terms of academic ability; international, non-UK European Union (EU) and ex-foundation year students are distributed throughout the teams and all women have a female team mate.

Students are required to work together in these teams in two modules worth a total of 45 credits (of 120 for the whole of Stage 1). In one module, ‘Design and Manufacturing’, pairs of teams work collaboratively on the design and manufacture of two small-scale wind turbines. These groups (of two teams) are expected to research and plan their project autonomously and to take responsibility for managing their group roles and processes.

Since Engineering Teams were introduced in 2009/2010 their effect has been closely evaluated. Engineering Teams are appreciated by students as a way of getting to know each other quickly, providing a generative learning environment where they teach and learn from each other, support each other and come to understand the positives and negatives of team working (Joyce & Hopkins 2011).

The introduction of Engineering Teams was successful in achieving a considerable improvement in the progression rate between first and second year. In the three years prior to its introduction the rate of progression ranged between 80 and 83% whilst in the three years since its introduction the rate of progression has ranged between 90 and 93%.

Over three years of detailed evaluation it has been possible to highlight those student groups who might find the Engineering Team system challenging. International students (defined as those coming from outside the EU) were one group whose experience was revealed as differing in some ways from that of their UK and non-UK EU peers. This study is a detailed investigation into the experience of international students working in Engineering Teams throughout their entire first year (2012/2013). Owing to time and funding constraints it was not possible to formally include the full perspective of non-international students in this research.

The expansion of international student recruitment

Non-EU international student recruitment to UK higher education expanded rapidly between 1999 and 2011 largely as a result of two successful Prime Minister's Initiatives. This national expansion in international student numbers occurred at a time when improving global communication systems and trade networks emphasised the need for the ‘internationalisation’ of higher education (Knight 2004). Galloway (2008) argues that engineering education in the twenty-first century should include ‘the subjects of globalization, diversity, world cultures and languages, communication, leadership and ethics’ (87). Downey et al. (2006: 107) advocate that engineering education must play a major role in ensuring that students become ‘globally competent engineers’. By 2010/2011 international students represented 12.1% of the total UK student population (Higher Education Statistics Agency no date).

In the 10 years between 2001/2002 and 2010/2011 the number of non-EU students accepted nationally to study mechanical engineering rose by 64.5% (Engineering UK 2013: 125). In 2010/2011 the wider subject grouping of ‘Engineering and Technology’ attracted the second largest number of undergraduate and postgraduate international students at 32% of the total student group (UK Council for International Student Affairs (UKCISA) no date). In the School of Mechanical and Systems Engineering at Newcastle University the number of non-EU new entrants has risen from 11.8% in 2008/2009 to 23.7% in 2012/2013.

What is already known about the experience of international students in Anglophone countries?

Language and communication

Many international students arrive to study in the UK having acquired a high level of technical English language skills and are surprised by their inability to understand rapid, colloquial English as spoken by their peers (Senyshyn et al. 2000, Ramachandran 2011). These difficulties may result in them hesitating to answer questions in class or to make a contribution to group discussions (Gu et al. 2010). Robertson et al. (2000) found that when international students were unable to comprehend lecturers’ rapid or idiomatic speech, many interpreted this as their own language inadequacy and thereafter adopted a superficial, rote-learning approach which was then interpreted by their teachers as a culturally comfortable approach revealing an inability to take responsibility for their learning. In a study of a single group of engineering students in the United States, Vickers (2007) found that non-native English speakers were relegated to peripheral positions and those students with the most sophisticated language skills dominated the group. However when the technical engineering competence of one non-native English speaking student was recognised by the team, his language behaviour changed and he became more confident.

Cultural, social and academic adjustment

When international students move to the country where they are to study they may not understand the ‘culture-specific social skills that allow for effective interaction with hosts’ (Chapdelaine & Alexitch 2004: 167). For most, a process of cultural adjustment occurs over time, leading to fewer difficulties by the student’s second year (Andrade 2006). However there is little agreement about the factors most likely to influence this process of adjustment. Various explanations include the personal/psychological characteristic of the student (Gu et al. 2010); that it represents an amalgam of psychological (well-being and sense of satisfaction) and socio-cultural (learning the new skills to ‘fit in’ and interact in the new environment) factors (Ward & Kennedy 1999); or that psychological and socio-cultural adjustment are inter-related domains (Zhang & Goodson 2011). The formation of relationships with host nationals is said to be the factor most likely to mitigate against culture shock in international students (Chapdelaine & Alexitch 2004) and also to lead to a higher level of adjustment (Zhao et al. 2005).

However, multiple barriers to the development of such relationships exist. Those students with less sophisticated language skills may struggle to engage in relationship-enhancing conversations with home peers (Zhao et al. 2005); where there is a disparity between level of formality in the two cultures, international students may find social norms confusing or even insulting (Ramachandran 2011). A lack of understanding on the part of host national students about what constitutes intercultural interaction may also act as a barrier to the formation of relationships. US students in Halualani's (2008) study viewed themselves as interacting interculturally simply by being on a demographically diverse campus. Similarly Yu (2012) found a group of US engineering students to have only a ‘vague and passive’ (194) awareness of what constitutes intercultural interaction, in some cases demonstrating ethnocentric views on language difference and suggesting that intercultural communication difficulties might originate solely in the lack of English language proficiency of international students. Engaging in group work with international students may be seen by home students as challenging if communication is problematic. In De Vita's (2002) study students expressed a concern that such group work might reduce their mark average whereas a synergistic effect occurred and the mark awarded was most likely to reflect the ability of the most able member of the group.

International students may also have to adjust to UK pedagogical approaches when these differ from those used in their home country. Those international students who have been accustomed to a formal/hierarchical educational system may be surprised by the level of informality of UK student/staff relationships (Ramachandran 2011) or may find the change from a lecture based pedagogical system to one that requires them to become active problem-solvers and self-motivated learners challenging (Ladd & Ruby 1999).

Methodology

The question underpinning this research relates to whether the experience of international students working in teams differs in any way from that of their UK and non-UK EU team mates.

The methodology chosen was a sequential mixed method research approach: a mixture of quantitative approaches (surveys) and qualitative approaches (focus groups) with an emphasis on the discursive and generative which were analysed contemporaneously.

This approach was appropriate for four key reasons:

1. It was possible to use each set of emergent data to inform the design of subsequent stages.

2. The use of quantitative (survey) and qualitative (focus group) research offered potential participants the greatest number of opportunities for contribution, singly or repeatedly and either remotely or face-to-face with peers and a researcher.

3. Collecting both quantitative and qualitative data from the same group of respondents/participants allowed each set of data to enrich the other in terms of supporting validity and expanding upon content.

4. Analysing contemporaneously before proceeding to the next stage of the research captured several ‘snapshots in time’ of the participants' changing Engineering Team experience as they progressed through the academic year.

The adoption of a pragmatic data collection stance (Feilzer 2010) also allowed for the inclusion of an additional source of data which had not been included in the original research design. During the Design and Manufacturing module in 2012/2013 all students were required to use the Web-PA system (http://webpa.lboro.ac.uk/) to complete formative self and peer assessment using both numerical and freetext narrative comments. The sequence of data collection methods is set out in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Collection of data.

All 22 international students in Stage 1 were invited to complete 10 additional questions related to their team experience as part of an online survey used annually with all first year students since Engineering Teams were introduced in 2009/2010. This additional section asked for details of their home country and their previous educational experience including whether they had worked in teams. It also questioned them about their attitudes to group working and more generally, their hopes for their studies in the School. Although the survey is completed anonymously, as it asks for information on gender, age and whether the student is a home, EU or international student, it was also possible to make comparisons between the responses of international and non-international (UK/other EU) students.

The analytical methods were tailored to the data at each stage. The numerical data obtained from the survey was analysed statistically and the qualitative, freetext additional comments from the survey were thematically analysed (Boyzatzis 1998, Braun & Clarke 2006). Thematic analysis was also used to analyse the verbatim transcripts of the focus groups paying careful attention to the discursive and relational aspects evident within the data.

Findings

A picture of the participants

All of the students responding to the initial survey were from countries within Asia (Brunei, China and Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Kuwait, Malaysia, Qatar and Singapore) and apart from three had all been educated in their home country (the three exceptions being educated in other Asian countries). Eighty percent of the 20 students who responded to this question said that they had previously spent some time in the UK. Their hopes for their studies revealed a mixture of academic aims, especially the acquisition of practical engineering skills, but equally the hope of forming new social and friendship ties.

Although two students said that their previous educational experience had promoted group work, the majority (67%) of the 15 who gave additional comments said their previous learning environment had been based around individual achievement; two emphasised its competitiveness and two mentioned the memorisation of theory. Six students (40%) said they had expected and received a high level of guidance and support from teaching staff in their home country.

Only 30% of the group had arrived with an expectation of working as part of a team. Despite this, their attitudes were highly positive; 25% had worked in teams previously and were looking forward to doing so again while 65%, with no previous experience, anticipated that team work would offer them a positive learning experience. One student said that he was ‘thrilled by the concept’ of team working, but another was ambivalent ‘[…] I cannot use my first language to communicate so I feel excited and nervous’. Only two students (13%) expressed negative views about team working.

Analysis of the collected data

The collection of data covering sequential episodes in the experience of this group of international students made it possible to note changes over time. These findings are therefore presented as a series of ‘snapshots’ which include an amalgam of the data collected through surveys and focus groups and augmented through analysis of Web-PA self and peer assessment.

Snapshot 1 (November 2012)

In November 2012, although 25% of international students were entirely positive about their Engineering Team experience, the largest proportion of survey respondents (45%) said that although largely positive, they felt the team experience could be improved. A further 30% had encountered difficulties in working with their teams. One entirely positive comment concluded with ‘… each day with my team gives me a new learning experience’ and another described his team mates as ‘[…] very helpful and generous’. However a comparison between the responses of international students and non-international students, both UK and non-UK EU, showed that international students rated their experience less highly (Table 1).

Table 1 Responses of student groups in November 2012.

	International students N = 21	Non-international students (UK and non-UK EU) N = 87
Percentage ‘enjoy very much/enjoy somewhat’ working in an Engineering Team	80.9%	93.0%
Percentage ‘strongly agree/agree’ that Engineering Team had formed a good working relationship	66.7%	90.8%
Percentage agreed that being part of an Engineering Team had helped them to feel that they belonged in the School	66.7%	85.0%

It was possible to discern three common themes arising from analysis of the combined data: communication difficulties, feelings of exclusion, and loss of confidence. Focus group data further highlighted the potential for these difficulties to lead international students to withdraw from team activities. The inter-relationship between these themes is described here.

Communication difficulties

Freetext comments from six (29%) international survey respondents alluded to communication difficulties with other team members both in terms of understanding and in being understood. Focus group participants gave an expanded description of these impediments to communication noting the difficulties encountered in understanding strong accents, dialect words or rapid speech unlike the ‘text book’ English they had learned. One reflected on how this difficulty had impacted upon his ability to express himself ‘I can't listen and speak as fast as they do, you know … and like British students are from different cities and they have different accents … and you have to get used to all of them.’ Although participants were not asked specifically to differentiate between their ability to communicate with UK or non-UK EU students who may also have been speaking accented English, their responses focused upon their communication with UK students who were often referred to as ‘the locals’ despite this group in fact having diverse accents. A further indictor that communication between international students and their non-UK EU team mates – a smaller group originating within different cultures but also having diverse accents – differed in some way was shown by the lack of comment by either international students or UK students within Web-PA feedback.

Peer assessment (Web-PA) received by international students from their non-international peers tended to focus on the issue of poor communication or the related issue of being reluctant to contribute to team discussions. International students also revealed their awareness of communication difficulties as a constraint on team working and mentioned this frequently in their Web-PA self-assessment.

Feelings of exclusion

From survey freetext comments it was apparent that for four (19%) respondents, team working had been an entirely inclusive experience. Team mates were described as taking the trouble to explain ideas and processes and doing their best to understand and cooperate with them. However comments from four (19%) respondents indicated they had not felt accepted by ‘the locals’ who as one respondent put it “did not warm up to us”. A comment from another survey respondent said he was “not ‘brought into” their conversations, be it social or academical (sic)’.

Here too focus group participants provided a fuller picture of what it meant to feel ‘excluded’. Several participants gave an account of their team mates drawing together cohesively in a way that excluded them. As part of a discussion about being a single non-EU student in his team one participant said ‘… the other four they get along pretty well and they are moving at their own pace … yeah … and sometimes I feel like … I feel left behind sometimes and then when they are communicating or conversing it is just hard for me to get into what they are saying’. Feelings of exclusion could also arise when other members of the team appeared to lack interest in getting to know the international student or did not, as this student suggests, ‘take the initiative to actually try to get to know us better’. A further more severe sense of exclusion was identified by two students when their team mates failed to give them an active role in their team or allocate tasks to them. The paradox inherent in the intricate negotiation of a sense of inclusion was revealed in the Web-PA feedback given to seven (32%) international students by their team mates suggesting that they should make a more active contribution in discussions and other team work.

Loss of confidence

International student focus group participants identified multiple occasions when losses of confidence might occur. Being unable to understand and explain led to a loss of linguistic confidence and appeared to be closely linked to feelings of exclusion. A discussion between men in one focus group showed how their perceptions of their team mates as having creative thinking and problem-solving skills which they judged themselves not to have, led them to lose academic confidence especially when expected to research and make design decisions collaboratively without direct lecturer supervision.

When international students lost confidence it influenced the position and roles they adopted within their teams, and for some it signalled a retreat to the team's periphery. International students in one focus group expressed surprise at what they perceived to be the differences between their own and some of their team-mates’ attitudes to academic projects who they described as ‘not serious at all’; ‘happy-go-lucky’ or failing to approach project work systematically. Although international students were willing to take the initiative over small, practical matters, they hesitated to be assertive, or to ‘stress a point’ as one participant put it because of a concern that to do so might be construed by team mates as intrusion or ‘dictation’ (sic) and unacceptable. Another focus group participant summed up this discussion by saying ‘we feel like rushing them but we are not sure whether we should because it is a different country, it is a different mind-set … we don't know how the system works here’. However adopting this stance could lead to the sense of frustration demonstrated by focus group participants about the necessity of adopting a ‘follower’ role, very different from that of their – mostly UK – team mates who were perceived as adopting leadership roles. The discussion culminated in a strongly expressed assertion from one participant that he ‘would not graduate as a follower!’

Loss of confidence could also be discerned in the unwillingness of some international students to give themselves a positive Web-PA assessment. Eight (36%) were self-critical but for five of these, peer assessment was either mainly or entirely positive. During a focus group one participant commented on his hesitation about writing anything positive about himself ‘I wanted to mark myself down because I feel that if my team mates are doing it … doing the survey that I am doing … I have a feeling they will give me like low marks’. Loss of confidence might also lead to a form of dependency demonstrated by one student's freetext comment ‘I will ask them exactly what shall I do, how do I do it, what do you expect and then maybe just like get them to write down what they expect me to do’.

International women were more likely to view themselves as excluded from their teams. One female focus group participant reflected on the dilemma she faced of ‘not being taken seriously by the guys’ who failed to allocate any tasks to her. Similar issues, and how they were dealt with, have been reported by other female mechanical engineering students (Joyce & Hopkins 2012).

Retreating to the periphery of the team

Self-marginalisation by international students was indicated most clearly in focus group discussions where some talked about their hesitation in asking their peers to repeat themselves or to explain something that the student had not understood. One said that his team mates would try to explain things to him but that ‘if I still don't understand then I will give up’. Lack of linguistic confidence also led to some international students being hesitant about taking part in team discussions or putting forward their ideas. When students felt excluded or uncertain about their right to ‘stress a point’, this appeared to make it difficult for them to be assertive with other team members or to take on a leadership role.

Snapshot 2 (March 2013)

Eleven international students, who represented 50% of 22 potential respondents, completed the second online survey formulated in response to all previously collated data. This international student-specific survey re-presented three of the key questions relating to their Engineering Team experience and also asked respondents to rate the extent to which problems (from a list of the most commonly identified) had lessened or increased.

The three re-presented statements each revealed a proportionally improving trend (Table 2). However it is important to acknowledge that those students who were more satisfied with their Engineering Team experience may also have been more likely to complete the second survey. In support of a generally increased sense of appreciation and confidence, when asked if they felt more comfortable as part of their team than they had been in November 2012, nine (82% of 11 respondents) said that this was the case and two (18%) said that their level of comfort remained unchanged. Tables 3– 5 show the responses to the second survey in terms of communication (Table 3); inclusion (Table 4) and learning and skills acquisition (Table 5).

Table 2 Responses to questions in November 2012 and March 2013.

Re-presented questions	Responses in November 2012 N = 21 (95%)	Responses in March 2013 N = 11 (50%)
Percentage ‘enjoy very much/enjoy somewhat’ working in an Engineering Team	80.9%	100%
Percentage ‘strongly agree/agree’ that Engineering Team had formed a good working relationship	66.7%	72.7%
Percentage who agreed that being part of an Engineering Team had helped them to feel that they belonged in the School	66.7%	81.8%

Table 3 Responses to questions related to communication.

Communication	N = 11 (50% of group)
During the year experienced communication difficulties with team mates	7 (64%)
Hesitated to ask team mates to repeat themselves or to give explanations when they did not understand	6 (55%)
Lost confidence in ability to communicate leading to reservations about taking part in team discussions/activities	5 (45%)
Did not hesitate to put forward views and ideas to team. These were always listened to respectfully	6 (55%)
I felt able to argue for my ideas even if they were different from those of the other members of the team	4 (36%)

Table 4 Responses to questions on inclusion.

Inclusion	N = 11 (50% of group)
Fully included in the social/working relationships of the Engineering Team during the year	7 (64%)
Made good working relationships with the other members of my Engineering Team	6 (55%)
Made good social relationships with the other members of my Engineering Team	2 (18%)

Table 5 Responses to questions on learning and skills acquisition.

Learning and skills acquisition	N = 11 (50% of group)
Gained skills and knowledge through working with the Team	6 (55%)
Team mates gained skills from international student	4 (36%)
Skills most likely to have been acquired as a result of working in an Engineering Team	Communication – 6 (55%)
	Discussion skills – 3 (27%)
	Critical thinking – 3 (27%)

Five respondents identified that communication had been difficult throughout the year: four saying that the intensity of the problem had lessened whereas for one the problem was unchanged. In tandem with this general improvement, concern about asking others to repeat themselves or explain things, identified by four students, diminished for three and remained unchanged for one. Paradoxically, the loss of confidence in ability to converse with team mates identified by four students was reduced for only one of them; remaining static for two and worsening for another. An example of this sense of continued disconnection is summed up in a freetext comment on the second survey ‘There is a gap in the relationship between local and international student which make international student hard to speak up as they will disagree all the reasonable points that we suggest.’

Discussion

Our findings suggest that a large proportion of this group of 22 students found considerable benefit from working as part of their Engineering Team (81% of 21 in November 2012, rising to 100% of 11 in March 2013). However, for a proportion (19% of 22), a transitional process took place involving loss in language and academic confidence which impeded their experience of team working: for most this improved gradually over the course of the year. For a very small number – in this study only three of 11 (27%) who responded to the second survey – these difficulties became entrenched and led to poor quality team relationships. However, it is important to contextualise these difficulties within previous research into group working in higher education which shows that difficult dynamics are common (Houldsworth & Matthews 2000, Lizzio & Wilson 2005) and have been noted previously in Engineering Teams (Joyce & Hopkins 2011).

The issue of international students finding rapid speech, accented English or use of dialect words hard to understand when they first encounter them has also been widely identified (Holmes 2004, Andrade 2006, Ramachandran 2011). The findings of this study concur with those of Ramachandran (2011) who points out that even when students possess subject-specific skills they may become confused by encountering variations in the body language, gesture, expressions and nuances of a different language or culture and that being required to work with peers on presentations and projects requires language-specific competencies which the international student may take time to acquire. The attitude and behaviour of all team members is of great importance in developing a team climate in which intercultural communication and understanding is fostered.

For the international students in this study, communication difficulties were often closely associated with feelings of exclusion. Since making relationships and forming friendship ties with host nationals is a vital part of international students' cultural adaptation (Chapdelaine & Alexitch 2004, Zhao et al. 2005) this perception of exclusion may have important consequences for both integration and successful learning. The perception of some international students that their team mates banded together to exclude them, failed to show any interest in them or did not take the initiative to get to know them seems at odds with the Web-PA feedback from their team mates, expressing a wish for them to adopt a more active role in discussions and team work. It is however possible that both perceptions are based on unexamined cultural assumptions, are influenced by previous educational experiences and mediated through a series of intricately linked educational and maturational transitions for all students (Gu et al. 2010).

Although clearly not a homogenous group, the majority of international students in this study identified their previous educational experience as having been based on independent rather than team working and many also said that additional teacher support was readily available. As a group these students faced not only a cultural transition but also the necessity of adapting swiftly to a system of teaching and learning that highly values critical-thinking and the ability to problem-solve without teacher support whilst working collaboratively with others. In her study of students educated in China attending New Zealand universities, Holmes (2004) found that critical thinking posed the greatest academic challenge both culturally and conceptually.

UK students entering higher education to study mechanical engineering predominantly do so as they complete secondary education at 18. Clearly, their move to university may be the first time they have lived away from family and friends and may represent a significant developmental transition. International students will be facing the same developmental transitions and in addition the challenge of adapting to a change of culture and language (Gu et al. 2010). Several studies have identified that non-international students both in the UK and the United States, who have not been specifically encouraged to think about the meaning of intercultural interaction may construct their international peers' linguistic and academic difference as deficit (De Vita 2002, Yu 2012), a viewpoint which could hinder the formation of healthy and productive team relationships.

The US literature on team working refers to non-participation by team members in group projects as either ‘social loafing’ or ‘free-riding’ (Webb 1995). The reasons team members fail to participate may be complex (Webb 1995, Hall & Buzwell 2013) and include not understanding the group task, embarrassment about requesting explanations, not wanting to hinder the work of the group or simply being content to let others do the work (Webb 1995). International students in this study described losing confidence in their linguistic skills and ability to communicate and in some cases compared their skills unfavourably with those of their peers, leading on occasions to strategic withdrawal from the work of the team. One consequence of making such a withdrawal is also to relinquish any claim to directing the work of the team or adopting a leadership role. Another consequence of a student who adopts this peripheral position or who is excluded by their team on the basis that their poorer linguistic or writing skills could compromise the group product (Dommeyer 2007) may be that they subsequently become perceived by their team mates as ‘free-riders/social-loafers’ when in fact they represent what Vernon (2008) terms ‘involuntary free riders’. Where the withdrawing student is perceived as adopting this position as a matter of choice, other team members may take the view that this will lead to inequitable distribution of workload and also withdraw in order not to be exploited (Dommeyer 2007). A disengaged, mistrustful team relationship may then become established. As Lizzio and Wilson (2005: 375) point out, teams can only function effectively if there is interpersonal trust and acceptance between team members.

A proposed explanatory model of the processes of international students' early adaptation to team working is presented in Figure 2. The model outlines the various points of transition for both international and non-international students and the impact these have upon each other. The context in which this model is situated is one of student transition and maturation within the first year of higher education.

Figure 2 Proposed model of early international student adjustment to team working.

Proposed interventions

Although the number of international students identified in this research as experiencing continuing difficulties over the course of the year was small, many of the same difficulties were present to a lesser extent within the whole group. The proposed interventions are therefore based on the learning from this study to promote equality for all students (Figure 3). Since these findings indicate that international students' first major challenge occurs at the point of their arrival in the UK, all of the recommended interventions occur during the first year induction period.

Figure 3 Proposed model of early international student adjustment with three interventions intended to reduce the possibility of maladaptive coping strategies.

Intervention 1

The allocation of students to Engineering Teams to ensure that all international students have another international team mate even if it is not possible to ensure that they share a common language other than English. This supportive strategy is successfully used with female students (Joyce & Hopkins 2012).

Intervention 2

The introduction of a structured intercultural social event for all students, organised by second year Student Mentors during the induction period to enable students to meet each other socially before starting to work together academically.

Intervention 3

As an augmentation to a first day lecture where all first year students are encouraged to get to know their team mates, a special section will be included alerting students to the possibility that short-term difficulties may occur for all students during the process of learning to communicate and work together. Suggestions for ways to combat these difficulties will be included stressing the benefits to be gained by all students from cross-cultural contact and learning the skills of cross cultural communication. The message that ‘international communication is everyone's responsibility’ will be strongly stressed.

Evaluation of the effect of these proposed interventions will take place throughout 2013/2014. International students will be asked to respond to an additional set of questions on the annual Engineering Team survey (December 2013) and to take part in focus groups in March 2014.

Conclusion

For many of the international participants in this research, being part of an Engineering Team represented a positive and productive experience. For others team working signified a series of challenges to be overcome and for a very few students, the difficulties persisted until the end of the year. The findings from this research provided the basis for a model of the difficulties which international students may encounter as they navigate their experience of working with their Engineering Team in their first year of higher education. Although the research is limited by the inclusion of a single group of students over a short-time frame and being focused solely on the perceptions of international students, it nevertheless provides an insight into how international students experience a requirement to work in formal project teams. Three early interventions are recommended as a means of disrupting the negative impacts of the model and helping all students to start the process of becoming internationally sensitive, globally competent engineers.

Acknowledgements

This study was kindly funded from a Higher Education Academy Teaching Development Grant award (Grant number GENTDG 66). The authors are extremely grateful to the 22 international students who generously contributed to this research.