Analysis of the educational needs of foreign students in the context of educational design

Kukuev Evgenii Anatol'evich ORCID: 0000-0002-2226-8679 PhD in Psychology Head of the Department of Monitoring of the Resource and Training Center, Associate Professor of the Chair of Child Psychology and Pedagogy, University of Tyumen 625003, Russia, Tyumen region, Tyumen, Motorostroiteley str., 1, sq. 117 kea.psy@gmail.com Other publications by this author     Dzida Natal'ya Nikolaevna PhD in Philology Associate Professor, Preparatory Department, Tyumen State University 625031, Russia, Tyumen region, Tyumen, ul. 9 May, 5 n.n.dzida@utmn.ru Buzolina Anastasiya Nikolaevna Assistant, Department of Psychology and Pedagogy of Childhood, Tyumen State University 625031, Russia, Tyumen region, Tyumen, ul. 9 May, 5 a.n.buzolina@utmn.ru

Volosnikova Lyudmila Mikhailovna ORCID: 0000-0002-4774-3720 PhD in History Associate Professor, Department of General and Social Pedagogy, Tyumen State University 625031, Russia, Tyumen region, Tyumen, ul. 9 May, 5 l.m.volosnikova@utmn.ru

Inclusive education, in a broad context, considers the inclusion of students with different educational needs in the educational process. The heterogeneity of the educational environment indicates the degree of its openness, and therefore the level of universality of educational design.

International students are a community that actively influences the heterogeneity of a modern university. More than 350 thousand foreign students study at Russian universities today, which is about 8%. In general, the policy of higher education today is focused on actively attracting students from all over the world. Of course, this openness has many goals: These are financial, political, and socio-cultural. It is possible to single out a purely pedagogical goal: foreign students change/adjust the educational process, both in organizational and didactic terms. Indeed, the appearance of a foreign student with a certain mentality, a certain degree of proficiency in the Russian language, a certain level of educational training, including in a certain educational system, cannot but change the education system of a Russian university. In organizational terms, there is a system of adaptation and support, with certain structural formations and legal regulation. In didactic, it is a teaching methodology taking into account special educational needs / opportunities, on the basis of which an individual educational trajectory is built.

The history of teaching foreign students in Russia is comparable to the history of higher education in our country as a whole. This work was carried out purposefully during the Soviet period. So, if in 1950-1960 about 6,000 foreign students studied in Soviet universities, by 1990 there were already more than 126 thousand (Anokhina T.Ya., Panin E.V., 2014). This aspect has always been the basis for both theoretical and empirical research.

Fan Yang (2023) demonstrates the results of a study of sociocultural adaptation by metaphorically designating a "home away from home". Yihan LIU summarizes the experience of working with foreign applicants and methods of their intellectual support. Khalid Al-Horr (2023), based on an analysis of international education and its management in the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council, emphasizes the importance of specialized assistance systems and strategies for international students, the growth of teaching staff and increased interaction with others to facilitate their successful adaptation and retention. In their study, Laping Sheng, Junxia Dai, Jinhuo Lei (2022) note that intercultural adaptation and friendships established in the host country are the most important aspects of the experience of international students.

Scientific interest in this topic in most studies concerns the topic of adaptation (Beloglazov A. A., Beloglazova L. B., Antonova N. A., Isaeva M. D., 2023; Avakova O.V., 2021; Joep Hofhuis, Marieke Christina Van Egmond, Franziska E. Lutz, 2023; Laping Sheng, Junxia Dai, Jinhuo Lei, 2022). At the same time, as Drozhzhina D.S. notes, "three types of problems that arise during the research of foreign students are identified: theoretical and methodological; operational; procedural" (Drozhzhina D.S., 2013). For example, based on the analysis of approaches to the components of adaptation, Drozhzhina D.S. summarizes: "the authors talk about the same factors of adaptation, using different terminology and grounds for combining factors into larger groups." Within the framework of this study, the approach of T.R. Rakhimov was chosen, which identifies the following factors: traditional (features of the host community); climatic; personal psychological; educational and pedagogical (features of the organization of the learning system); social and household; communicative; cultural (life in an international society, tolerance, etc.) (Rakhimov, 2011). At the same time, we note that all factors are what ensures the achievement of the goal - meeting educational needs. Because education is the main goal of a foreign student.

The leading methodology in this direction is the universal design of education (O. Y.Shimanskaya, 2022; A.Meyer, 2014; L. M.Solange, 2012). The ideology of plurality in the organization of the educational process ensures the universality of consideration of conditions and satisfaction of special educational needs (cast.org ). But, it is the understanding and consideration of individual needs that ensures the objective building of an individual educational trajectory (L. M. Volosnikova, E. A. Kukuev, O. V. Ogorodnova, 2021).

Methods and techniques.

In the empirical part of the study, a survey in the form of a questionnaire was used. The questions were formulated in accordance with the chosen theoretical model of adaptation. In order to increase the objectivity of the results obtained, the question of nationality was removed from the questions about personal data. The questionnaire was written in Russian and English. The results were processed using the statistical software package SPSS-23.0.

The results of the study.

63 students took part in the survey, of which 39 have just entered the university (61.9%), 24 have been studying for a year (38.1%). Of these, 71.4% are men and 28.6% are girls. Age: under 19 years – 23.8%; from 20 to 23 years – 22.2%; over 23 years – 54%. At the same time, "over 23 years old" are both 1st year students (18 people) and second year students (16 people).

The analysis of the study conditions was evaluated on a 4-point scale (from 1 b – bad to 4 b – very good).

Fig.1. Assessment of study conditions (average score)

An average score of 3.16 (standard deviation 0.86) indicates an average grade of "good". At the same time, we note the absence of significant differences in the estimates of samples with different adaptation periods. And, if the infrastructure is rated the most highly, then tutor support requires a meaningful analysis.

In general, checking the significance of differences in the studied conditions among students with different periods of adaptation showed that out of 45 indicators, only 7 of these differences reached the level of statistical significance (single-factor analysis of variance).

The assessment was made by students on a Likert scale from 0 to 5 points (where 0 is not a problem, 5 is the maximum problem). The data obtained are clearly shown in Fig.2.

Fig.2. Comparison of assessment of educational contexts of students with different periods of study (average score)

The results indicate that during the year of study, students begin to become more aware of the problematic aspects of life and learning. This means that in the second year of study, it is necessary not to reduce, but to activate tutor support. And it is this fact that can cause a low assessment of tutors (Fig.1). At the same time, the positive thing is that among the highlighted problems there are no problems related to the organization of the educational process.

Taking into account the fact that the other indicators of factors do not have statistical differences between the samples (Table 1), next we will demonstrate the results of the survey for the entire sample as a whole (n=63). Consider the results of acquaintance with Russia before arrival (question: Before coming to Russia, did you know about the differences between your country and Russia?, answers from 0 – did not know anything, up to 5 points – familiar enough).

Fig.3. The degree of familiarity with Russia of foreign students (average score)

The results show a lack of prior awareness of the country of study. It is this moment that may be the cause of the "cultural shock". Therefore, it is very important to introduce socio-cultural knowledge into the adaptation program. The low assessment of knowledge about the "Education System" is particularly alarming (average=2.85, standard deviation – 1.65). The difference in teaching methods, methods and forms of presenting results and evaluating them is a significant moment in the success of the educational process. The use of a universal design can offset this problem.

The next block of the question objectified the degree of manifestation of possible problems (0 is not a problem, 5 is the maximum problem).

Fig.4. The degree of manifestation of the problems of foreign students (average score)

The least obvious problems are in the field of relations, both with teachers and other students. The need for closer communication with your family causes big problems. Which also indicates that modern means of communication do not make up for direct communication.

The next block of the question just objectifies the sphere of relations with teachers (1 - very uncomfortable; 5 - very comfortable).

Fig.5. Evaluation of relationships with teachers (average score)

Foreign students appreciate the nature of their relationships with teachers quite highly. This is especially evident in the degree of satisfaction with the relationship with teachers – 4.89 points. Barrier-free business communication provides a favorable basis for the success of the educational process.

Fig.6. Relationships with students (average score)

The assessment between the proposed questions characterizes the difference between need and reality. International students are positive about interaction, but psychologically they do not fully realize it. A possible solution to this could be a mentoring institute in the form of a "student-student". Having a senior student with whom you have contact can significantly reduce anxiety in interacting with other students.

As part of the survey, the number of friends of foreign students was estimated.

Fig.7. The number of friends of foreign students

with different periods of study (%)

The data reflect the real situation when a person comes to another country where there are no familiar people. Thus, the organization of communication, including extracurricular, allows you to satisfy the need for friendly relations.

Of course, one of the most important conditions for the success of education is the degree of proficiency in the Russian language. This question was rated from 0 to 5 points, depending on its level of implementation.

Figure 8. Degree of proficiency in Russian (average score)

Students testify to a sufficient level of language proficiency for the effective implementation of the educational process.

It seemed important to us to analyze the students' self-assessment of their own achievements (from 0 to 5 points).

Fig.9. Degree of satisfaction with the results (average score)

It is possible to positively state a fairly high assessment by students of their educational results. For first-year students, this apparently records the very fact of admission. Second-year students can already assess their educational path more accurately. At the same time, it is important to note that in the second question about confidence in the success of further studies, students give higher grades. This indicates both high expectations and a positive image of the educational future. This creates a favorable psychological basis for learning.

The ratio of expected and actual education was analyzed on the questions "Before coming to Russia, were you aware of the differences between your country and Russia? / The education system" and "Were you ready to study at the university before coming to Russia?".

Fig.10. The correlation of knowledge about the "education system" and "readiness" for it (average score)

The results show that there is a discrepancy in what ideas foreign students have before starting their studies and how this is adjusted during their studies. If "Before coming to Russia" both samples had approximately the same idea about the education system (2.71). The second-year students rate their "readiness to learn" significantly lower than the first year.

The students' answers are further summarized in a factor model by analyzing the hidden relationships between the selected set of variables.

Table 2

Factor model of educational needs

international students with different periods of study

The factor model for first-year students is balanced in terms of content. The explained cumulative variance was 33.778%. While the first factor is 11.737%; the second is 11.501; 10.539%. That is, the hierarchy of factors in this model is very conditional.

Russian Russian is the first factor that combines all the characteristics of Russian language proficiency (Ability to use Russian/English: Listening skills: to understand the lecturer/teacher (0.746)). Friendship with Russian students is also included (Are there any Russian students among your friends? (0,524)). At the same time, the help of a psychologist is required – 0.616.

The second factor is the "relationship". Possible problems with relationships with both teachers (Relationships with a male/female teacher - 0.722/0.678) and with students "Relationships with other students in the group" – 0.771 are included.

The third factor is "differences". Statements: "Social differences (features of behavior and communication) (-0.592)"; "Household differences" (-0.784). That this can lead to conflicts "Conflicts in your group" 0.509.

Thus, for first-year students, the Russian language is relevant, and therefore the sphere of communication and possible problems due to differences are updated.

The factor model for second-year students is more powerful than the previous one. The explained cumulative variance was 60.096%. While the first factor is 23.629%; the second is 19.547; 16.921%. The loads of factors also determine their hierarchy.

The first factor can be conditionally called "adaptability". Students characterize confidence as in relation to the assessment of external conditions "Climate in Russia" (-0.562); "Food in Russia" (-0.581); "Relations with female/male teachers" (-0.799). "Far from family" (-0.547); "Far from friends" (-0.552) are not as relevant for them as for freshmen. At the same time, they demonstrate a positive attitude towards interactions with teachers: "Do you express a different point of view, do not agree with the teacher /employee of the university" (0.563); "Are you satisfied with the relationship (interaction) that you have with the teachers?" (0.836).

The second factor is "educational communication". Combines statements regarding the ability to use Russian/English (0.771, 0.627). What ensures the success of the "Paperwork at the university" (0.765).

The third factor is "support". It includes the statements: "Tutor" (0.739); "You received full information about the university and the campus immediately after your arrival" (0.695), "Do the teachers and staff of the university provide you with the necessary assistance?" (0.548).

Thus, for foreign students of the second year of study, the fact of integration into the socio-cultural and educational environment of Russia is relevant. Further, the possibilities of communication in the educational space of the university. And, the organization of support, which apparently becomes especially important in the second year.

The obtained factor models demonstrated differences in the actual educational needs of first- and second-year students. If the social context is more relevant for the first year. Then for the second one it is educational and communicative. These results should be taken into account when building the design of the educational process at the university.

The position of an inclusive university requires not only a declaration of relevant principles and values. It is necessary to provide organizational conditions for the openness of the educational process, its lability and flexibility. International students are a good challenge, first of all, to the didactics and design of educational programs and educational processes. International students create a good basis for the heterogeneity of the student environment. And the task of the teaching staff is to professionally ensure that the educational needs of diverse students are met. In inclusion, the implementation of the GEF should be coupled with consideration and satisfaction of special educational needs. Thus, their analysis and objectification should form the basis of the design of the educational process of building an individual educational trajectory.