Students’ perceptions of hospitality education quality in the United States higher education: Domestic versus international students

Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 25 (2019) 100212

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhlste

Students’ perceptions of hospitality education quality in the United States higher education: Domestic versus international students

T

Myong Jae Leea,∗, Haesang Kangb, Hyunsuk Choic, Joong-won Leed, David Oldse a

The Collins College of Hospitality Management, California State Polytechnic University Pomona, 3801 W. Temple Ave, Pomona, CA, 91768, USA Department of Event & Convention, Dongseo University, 47 Jurye-ro, Sasang-gu, Busan, 47011, South Korea Department of Tourism & Hospitality Management, School of Business, Black Hills State University, 1200 University Street, Spearfish, SD, 57799, USA d Department of Recreation & Tourism Management, California State University, Northridge, 18111 Nordhoff St, Northridge, CA, 91330, USA e Department of Family & Consumer Sciences - Hospitality Leadership, Bradley University, 1501 W Bradley Ave, Peoria, IL, 61625, USA b c

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Keywords: Hospitality management Higher education International students Curriculum

As the competition for recruiting hospitality management students increases among major hospitality management programs in the United States, updating programs based on student needs has become integral to program success. This study explored student perceptions of hospitality education quality in the United States and compared international and domestic student perceptions of 29 education quality attributes in five areas: student support, industry networking, innovative curriculum, learning environment, and program credential. A total of 329 usable responses including 69 responses from international students were collected at four hospitality management programs for data analysis. Overall, study results indicated that domestic students rated all five areas significantly higher than international students. However, some notable differences were found in the relative importance of education quality areas and individual education quality attributes between the two groups. Domestic students chose the industry network as the second most important area of education quality after student support, while international students rated the innovative curriculum as one of top two important quality areas. Detailed implications are discussed for program administrators and faculty.

1. Introduction Providing a diversified, global educational environment has been integral for students in higher education to develop their overall potential and talent. With advancing technology, the global public has witnessed rapid changes in what and how higher education delivers to students (Min & Khoon, 2013). According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2018), approximately 5 million students went abroad for global higher education in 2016, a fivefold increase since the mid-1970s (1 million students). United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) anticipates that worldwide demand for international education will reach to 7.6 million by 2025 (Altbach, Reisberg, & Rumbley, 2009; Costa-String, 2016). From 2017 to 2018, the United States (U.S.) alone saw a record 1.094 million international students, 5.5 percent of total U.S. enrollment (Institute of International Education [IIE], 2018). International students contributed $39 billion to higher education and supported more than ∗ Corresponding author. The Collins College of Hospitality Management, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, 3801 W. Temple Avenue, Pomona, CA, 91768, USA. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M.J. Lee), [email protected] (H. Kang), [email protected] (H. Choi), [email protected] (J.-w. Lee), [email protected] (D. Olds).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2019.100212 Received 2 April 2019; Received in revised form 16 August 2019; Accepted 11 September 2019 1473-8376/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 25 (2019) 100212

M.J. Lee, et al.

455,000 jobs in the U.S. economy during the 2017–2018 academic year (NAFSA: Association of International Educators, 2018). Accordingly, transnational education is now recognized as a hot issue in higher education (Kim, 2012). Job prospects, the costs of international education, and the reputation of a country's higher education can all be part of the decision to participate in global education (Lin & Yi, 1997; Maringe & Carter, 2007; Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002; Pyvis & Chapman, 2007; Tracy & Adler, 2011). For U.S. higher education in 2017–18, the largest number of international students came from China (363,341), followed by India (196,271), South Korea (54,555), and Saudi Arabia (44,432), which totaled 60.2 percent of international students from four Asian countries (IIE, 2018). The top two states in the United States hosting international students were California (14.5 percent) and New York (11 percent) (Zong & Batalova, 2018). As the number of international students enter higher education in the United States, both public and private educational institutions have worked to attract international students (Choudaha & Chang, 2012; Min & Khoon, 2013). According to Choudaha (2015), p. 70 percent of all international students enrolled in 200 out of 4500 U.S. institutions of higher education. Now, more colleges and universities in the United States recognize international students as a route to diversification and internationalization. Furthermore, recruitment of international students can be one of the best ways to build a university's reputation and create significant income opportunities (Ford, 2019; Inomics, 2014). For domestic students, increasing numbers of international students in undergraduate and graduate programs provide enhanced opportunities to learn and experience other countries and cultures (Irungu, 2010; Luo & Jamieson-Drake, 2013). Luo and Jamieson-Drake (2013) noted that domestic students who engaged with international students tended to open themselves to diverse perspectives and were willing to challenge their own beliefs. According to the Institute of International Education's Open Doors Report (IIE, 2018), which provides statistical information on the number of international students in transnational education annually, approximately 20 percent of international students were majoring in Business and Management (196,054), which included hospitality management. English-speaking countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia are the most attractive destinations for non-English speaking international students majoring in hospitality management because studying in an English-speaking country is perceived as advantageous for future career development within the hospitality industry (Pereda, Airey, & Bennett, 2007). In addition, hospitality programs try to provide students with viable hands-on experience and global competencies to succeed within the industry (Rudd, Budziszewski, & Kitzinger, 2014). Lee, Huh, and Jones (2016) found that juniors and seniors ranked the quality dimensions of hospitality within higher education as important to their decision to attend a particular institution. Their study showed that the important quality dimensions were student support, industry networking, innovative curriculum, and learning environment. Choi, Tanya, and Wang (2018) identified eight factors influencing international students in their selection of a hospitality and tourism management program in the United States: facilities, employment, support from other international students, financial aid, research resources, reputation, extra activities, and cost. In an empirical study with hospitality management students attending a university in the western part of the United States in which 26% of students were international students, Chatfield, Lee, and Chatfield (2012) identified eleven factors that influenced undergraduate student selection of hospitality and tourism programs. Those eleven factors included: career support, media, financial assistance, inspiration, environment, family support, facilities, institution character, extra activities, net cost, and influencers. Furthermore, major U.S. hospitality corporations increasingly offer various job opportunities for international students, which has affected the influx of international students into the United States (Vélez & Giner, 2015). For global hospitality companies, international employees can be invaluable assets because they can strategically incorporate the diverse cultural backgrounds of international employees into their global management practices and other professional activities (Beggs, Ross, & Goodwin, 2008). The demand for global hospitality management education increases every year, so many hospitality programs in U.S. higher education have developed and modified their curricula to prepare both international students and domestic students for professional careers in the global hospitality industry (Kuo, Chang, & Lai, 2011). With more hospitality programs targeting international students, investigating international and domestic student perspectives of hospitality management education should help improve the overall quality of hospitality education. Although there have been prior research efforts comparing domestic and international students in terms of internships (Ruhanen, Robinson, & Breakey, 2013), career direction (Richardson, 2010), curricular activity preferences (Kim & Jogaratnam, 2003), and career engagement (Korobova & Starobin, 2015), direct comparison of student perceptions of hospitality management programs overall has not been researched. Thus, the main purpose of this empirical research was to investigate and compare international and domestic student perceptions of hospitality higher education in five quality areas (student support, industry networking, innovative curriculum, learning environment, and program credentials) that were identified from a thorough literature review. Specifically, overall student perceptions of hospitality education quality and the relative importance of student service areas as perceived by students were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Then, the two groups were compared in their perceptions of five student service areas using independent samples t-tests. By comparing domestic and international students, this empirical research provides program administrators and other major stakeholders in hospitality higher education with insights on the direction of future hospitality management education. 2. Literature review Higher education is an important source of new technologies; it also enhances national competitiveness (Jiang, 2000). The goal of higher education in hospitality management programs is to cultivate skilled people who can face a variety of situations in hotels, restaurants, or tourism-related companies, so programs with learner-centered practices are needed to help students prepare for these circumstances. In addition to enhancing practical skills, educators must develop specialized studies to educate specialists who can lead the industry (Kuo et al., 2011). 2

Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 25 (2019) 100212

M.J. Lee, et al.

Previous research in student perceptions of hospitality management programs has focused on general student needs, expectations, perceptions, and experiences (Archambault, 2008; Breiter, Cargill, & Fried-Kline, 1995; Moreo, 1983; Pereda et al., 2007; Rudd, Budziszewski, & Litzinger, 2014). Given the increasing trend of international students in U.S. higher education, recent research has begun to focus on this significant shift in demand and continues to focus on details pertaining to international students (Choi et al., 2018; Kim & Jogaratnam, 2003; Korobova & Starobin, 2015; Richardson, 2010; Ruhanen et al., 2013). International students expect programs that help them to be competitive, resolve language problems, offer guidance, and provide constructive feedback (Ndirangu, 1993; Rai, 2002). International students can have difficulty in adapting to a new environment. Thus, hospitality higher education must take into account the differences between international students and domestic students when designing hospitality programs. Many empirical studies have suggested how hospitality program administrators and educators should organize a program using important education attributes (Barron, Baum, & Conway, 2007; Bushell, Prosser, Faulkner, & Jafari, 2001; Chandler & Faiola, 2009; Chathoth & Sharma, 2007; Formica, 1996; Hawkins, Ruddy, & Ardah, 2012; Lee et al., 2016). This literature review discusses the five areas of hospitality education qualities (student support, industry networking, innovative curriculum, learning environment, and program credentials) from the perspectives of both international and domestic students. 2.1. Student support Student support services are recognized as an economic benefit for students, and this is no longer just a minor issue for educational institutions (Garfield & Mchugh, 1978; Lee et al., 2016). Many universities in the United States provide their students with a variety of student support services. With globalization, administrators have begun to also focus on supporting international students as they surmount obstacles and adapt to a new learning environment. According to Sanchez, Fornerino, and Zhang's (2006) survey, which investigated barriers for international students in the United States, France, and China, nostalgia for family and friends, fear of a new environment, and financial problems make it more difficult for international students to adjust to life in foreign countries. Among other influences, financial assistance is critical for international students (Cantwell, 2015; Choi et al., 2018; Misra & Castillo, 2004). Many Asian students worry about their financial situation and even feel frustrated because their financial status heightens mental pressures (Yan & Berliner, 2011). The costs of higher education are an especially big burden for international students because they generally pay out-of-state tuition (Andrade, 2006; Chapdelaine & Alextich, 2004; Zhai, 2002). To reduce these difficulties, hospitality programs at universities and colleges in the United States provide students with financial aid to help pay college expenses. In addition, amicable relationships between faculties and hospitality associations help both international and domestic students secure scholarships that encourage them to seek careers in hospitality (State University, 2016). International students also need support because of language barriers. According to Eder, Smith, and Pitts (2010), English fluency and outstanding presentation skills are one reason international students visit the United States. English is the most common language in business, and most corporations require it. Many professors of hospitality in higher education try to offer extra help, while tailoring their teaching methods for English language learners who speak English as a second language and may be shy in front of classmates (Casado, 2009). In addition, hospitality students can engage in a variety of learning activities through the program (Lee et al., 2016). For instance, mentoring and orientation programs allow hospitality educators to give advice, help students develop their abilities, and teach them the expectations of the hospitality industry (Chuang & Dellmann-Jenkins, 2010). 2.2. Industry networking Opportunities for internships and experiential education through industry networking help students gain firsthand experience, put knowledge from classes into practice, and draw a blueprint for their future careers (Tse, 2010; Zhang, Rashid, & Mohammed, 2016). The first program of higher education in hotel administration in the United States was established in 1922 (Choi et al., 2018), and since then, according to a 1976 survey of hospitality program, 50 percent of programs require internships as part of their curricula (Breiter et al., 1995; Moreo, 1983). Breiter et al. (1995) indicated that by 1992, 95% of undergraduate program in hospitality required students to complete their work experience (internship) in their curriculum. Zopiatis and Constanti (2012) mentioned that all hospitality and tourism programs included the internship as their mandatory or elective course in the program. Zopiatis and Theocharous (2013) stated that the internship is an essential part of all reputable hospitality programs. Petrillose and Montgomery (1998) asserted that internships are essential in hospitality programs, and most require students to have practical experiences before their graduation. In addition, internships affect college students’ performance, with interns earning higher grade point averages, better financial benefits, and more academic credits (Sanahuja Vélez & Ribes Giner, 2015; Swanson & Tomkovick, 2012). Milman and Whitney (2014) suggested that hospitality management students use career services provided by hospitality programs. Particularly, hospitality career fairs organized by hospitality institutions can provide students the opportunity to meet with future employers in the hospitality industry and initiate the relationships with them (Brennan, Daly, Fitzpatrick, & Sweeney, 2004; Milman & Whitney, 2014). Harrison (2016) indicated that the America's high-skill immigration system is chaotic and it is very difficult for international students to stay in the United States after graduation. For example, it can take up to 10 years to obtain a Green Card (officially known as a Permanent Resident Card), which allows an individual to live and work permanently in the United States (Harrison, 2016). The H–1B visa, designed to allow U.S. employers to recruit international professionals, is increasingly provided to international students with a college degree, permitting them to temporarily work in the United States (Kato & Sparber, 2013). Thus, international students who want to remain in the United States must consider sponsorship for an employment visa when contacting employers at career fairs. However, Harrison (2016) argued that efforts in the U.S. Congress to expand the H–1B program would make this situation 3

Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 25 (2019) 100212

M.J. Lee, et al.

worse for international students, and discourage them to stay in United States. Field trips in hospitality programs are an experiential learning instrument beyond the classroom (Sanders & Armstrong, 2008). Alan and Chak-Keung (2009) mentioned that by participating in field trips, students become more motivated to pursue authentic learning opportunities, engaging in hands-on experiences in the hospitality industry while applying the theories learned in class. As the number of students in hospitality in the United States increases (Ayoun & Palakurthi, 2008), graduate student research conferences become pivotal as a catalyst for international students who are seeking an academic position. Many students in higher education recognize that presentation and publication experiences are vital and beneficial in helping them to successfully complete their research manuscripts (Kim, Lee, Choi, & Huffman, 2010). 2.3. Innovative curriculum The hospitality curriculum is fundamental to higher education (Lee et al., 2016). Many universities are increasingly concerned about the quality of their programs and about student satisfaction (Archambault, 2008; Kotler, 1985; Pereda et al., 2007). Hospitality programs in higher education are no exception. Pereda et al. (2007) highlighted the four dimensions of service quality in hospitality programs: recognition, quality of instruction and interaction with faculty, sufficiency of resources, and physical quality. Hospitality programs have tried to progressively develop curricula as student-oriented instruments (Pereda et al., 2007), and many hospitality students prefer educational programs that lead to success (Archambault, 2008). Huang (2015) noted another trend in hospitality programs. Business education has evolved from traditional classes to innovative and practical approaches (Huang, 2015). Providing a creative and innovative curriculum is essential for both international and domestic students in hospitality management, a fundamental cornerstone that helps them build comprehensive knowledge of hospitality and prepare themselves to be the best employees working in a competitive industry. For international students in the United States, the instruction they receive allows them to obtain knowledge and skills, which is particularly important because they want to be prepared for work by the time they graduate (Irungu, 2010). Some international students are concerned about the correlation between curriculum and work as well as the transferability of their acquired abilities to the working environment in their home countries (Trice & Yoo, 2007). Thus, experiential learning provided by hospitality programs helps students have the chance to experience the industry and apply hospitality theories in the field (Zopiatis & Constanti, 2012). Harris (2012) revealed that using Facebook in a hospitality curriculum to provide experiential teaching and activities is effective. Furthermore, experiential learning can give international students the opportunity to learn service dynamics and knowledge that they may not have experienced in their home countries. Because hospitality employers and customers want hospitality professionals to understand the dynamics of service and community needs (Gursoy & Swanger, 2005), service learning, a form of experiential learning, must also be included in hospitality curricula. By doing this, faculty can try various pedagogical approaches that better prepare hospitality students to become hospitality professionals (Cecil, 2012). Thus, competencies related to curricula must be developed. Hospitality educators must pay attention to components of the program that allow students to gain competencies for their careers after graduation (Assante, Huffman, & Harp, 2008). 2.4. Learning environment Students do focus on the quality of the learning environment such as the campus facilities and components of courses (Gray, Fam, & Llances, 2003; Alhelalat et al., 2015). One important part of a university's learning environment is its physical appearance and atmosphere. This pertains to all tangible products, including buildings and facilities offered to students, geographical location, the conditions of classrooms and libraries, and the availability of advanced technology (Soedijati & Pratminingsih, 2011). These tangible items provide strong and lasting impressions upon international students, which can affect other perceptions as well (Tomkovick, AlKhatib, Baradwaj, & Jones, 1996). Many international students in hospitality management are sensitive to the internal and external quality of facilities because they pay a lot for their tuition (Russell, 2005). In terms of universities, although improving physical learning environment and facilities in higher education is complex and expensive, it can indicate the quality of the university (Okorie & Uche, 2004). Furthermore, Han, Kiatkawsin, and Kim (2018) found that the physical conditions of the classroom such as ambience, spatial layout, and functionality significantly enhance student satisfaction. Therefore, administrators must identify weak and strong points in their physical environment to maintain a positive relationship with students. In addition, to be more effective, hospitality educators must recognize how international students adapt to the learning environment. The U.S. learning environment stresses class discussion more so than the Asian education system, and international students are often asked to express their opinions (Lee & Ciftci, 2014). International students sometimes face culture shock or disorientation in this foreign academic system (Chen, 2000). Hence, to help international hospitality students overcome the cultural distance between their home country's learning environment and the U.S. learning environment, educators must consider multicultural effectiveness and acculturation when organizing and modifying the learning environment. Communication and technology development means e-learning can be useful for international students accessing the educational curriculum in higher education (Lee et al., 2016). E-learning provides both international and domestic students flexibility in class times and locations, helps them think critically, and assists students in making appropriate decisions, while they become more technologically competent (Cantoni, Kalbaska, & Inversini, 2009; Cho & Schmelzer, 2000). In addition, through e-learning, students can learn self-direction as a critical skill to take control of their own learning (Dabbagh & Bannan-Ritland, 2005). Thus, educators must also examine how to deliver their lectures effectively, share knowledge broadly, and continuously develop intercommunication between educators and students. 4

Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 25 (2019) 100212

M.J. Lee, et al.

2.5. Program credentials Program credentials have diverse components. Faculty are the most important resources in a university, designing and delivering educational programs to students (Bandyopadhyay & Lichtman, 2007). Faculties are recognized as partners of hospitality students in higher education, motivating their students to be outstanding in their field after graduation. In addition, Assante et al. (2008) noted that faculty members also help their students become more responsible members of society by helping them fully understand how their knowledge can have a positive effect on society. According to Hill, Lomas, and MacGregor (2003), teaching styles and industry experiences among faculty members affect the quality of hospitality higher education. Van Hoof, Wu, and Zhang (2014) indicated having high quality faculty was related to programs’ reputation. For international students in higher education, teaching style can be vital in mapping out their goals. For instance, some international students may decide to become an educator under the influence of a particularly talented faculty member. Moreover, students may even change their future career path as result of what they learned from their instructors. Faculty members with a variety of industry experiences provide hospitality students with useful information and resources, indirectly showing them daily life working in hospitality, providing worthwhile ideas and practical information to their students (Lee et al., 2016; Rahman, 2010). According to Van Gyn, Schuerholz-Lehr, Caws, and Preece (2009), another challenge for academics is to facilitate engagement between international and domestic students, helping them to understand cross-cultural factors and to further develop their knowledge and skills. Therefore, with the expectations of an increasing number of international students in hospitality higher education, international programs can assist faculty members to help international students overcome barriers and adapt to the culture of the education in the United States. In international programs, faculty members must be sensitive to culturally different styles of learning (Otten, 2003), and they must choose flexible teaching styles to embrace different cultural perspectives of international students (Brookes & Becket, 2011). Faculty members who have international experiences and hospitality administrators must adapt to a learning environment very different from their own. 3. Methods 3.1. Measurement development The initial 40 education quality attributes were collected through the review of previous literature (Alexander, Lynch, & Murray, 2009; Angelo & Vladimir, 2009; Barron et al., 2007; Bushell et al., 2001; Casado, 2009; Christou & Eaton, 2000; Deale, 2013; Deale, O’Halloran, Jacques, & Garger, 2010; Edelheim & Ueda, 2007; Fawcett, 2002; Fawcett & Lockwood, 2000; Hawkins et al., 2012; Hsu, 2007; Liburd & Hjalager, 2010; McCleary & Weaver, 2008; Rahman, 2010; Stevenson, 2009; Tahir, Bakar, & Ismail, 2010; Williams, Nicholas, & Gunter, 2005; Yorke & Harvey, 2005). These attributes were then classified into five quality areas suggested by Lee et al. (2016) (see Table 1). The list of 40 initial quality attributes was then reviewed by a panel of eight experts comprising faculty, staff, and students in hospitality. A few redundant and ambiguous attributes were removed, combined, and/or fine-tuned after a series of expert panel discussions. Finally, a pilot study with fifty students majoring in hospitality management in the United States was conducted to check the content validity and reliability of measurements. As a result, 29 quality attributes were retained for the main survey as presented with the data in Table 4. An online survey using a popular online marketing platform was developed for the main survey. Student perceptions of the importance of the education quality attributes were measured using a 7-point scale with 1 = Not at all important and 7 = Extremely important. Socio-demographic questions were added to the survey to profile respondents’ demographic characteristics. 3.2. Data collection The population of this study was hospitality management students currently enrolled in a 4-year bachelor's degree program in the United States. Four hospitality management programs representing the West, Mountain West, Midwestern, and Eastern regions of the United States were chosen for data collection. Research partners at each target institution distributed the online survey link to students using the school's online proprietary virtual learning environment system. International students were sought more aggressively. After removing extreme outliers and incomplete responses, 314 usable responses were initially obtained; of these, 54 responses came from international students. To increase the sample size for international students, another search was launched to identify international students at the same four universities in fall 2017, resulting in fifteen additional responses from international students. In total, 329 usable responses, with 260 responses from domestic students and 69 responses from international students were collected for data analysis. 3.3. Data analysis The collected data were analyzed through a series of required steps. First, descriptive statistics were conducted to profile the socio-demographics of survey participants. Then, student perceptions of the importance of the education quality attributes were calculated using descriptive statistics. Important attributes and areas were ranked for both target groups (domestic students and international students) and descriptively compared. Finally, the Welch approximation t-test was conducted to see if there was any significant differences in the perceptions of important quality attributes between domestic and international students. Welch's t-test

5

Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 25 (2019) 100212

M.J. Lee, et al.

Table 1 Initial quality attributes of hospitality higher education. Category Student Support

Industry Networking

Innovative Curriculum

Learning Environment

Program Credentials

Quality Attribute -

References

Personal attention provided by teaching staff Availability of financial aid and scholarship Job, internship, and/or work experience opportunity OPT and CPT programs for international students Availability of student exchange programs Access to library and online resources Student orientation programs for new/transfer students Staff members specializing in student services Services for students with physical challenges Industry tours/field trips Guest speakers from diverse hospitality sectors Strong industry partnerships Future employment accessibility Presence of industry mentor program Presence of student chapter of industry organizations On-campus career events or career expos Student organizations targeting hospitality industry Courses with hospitality-related content Hands-on learning in the classrooms and laboratories Easily transferable practical and theoretical skills Advanced higher-level management courses Earning industry certificate as part of curriculum Group and teamwork discussions Simulation-based training to for real world learning Keep curriculum up-to-date Visually appearing campus environment Reliable facility designs, labs, lounges, and study rooms Adequate faculty to student ratio Good facility to cater to student learning Constant program assessment and evaluation Conceptual and technical teaching methods Tutoring services during school times and vacations Diversity of teaching methods (online, hybrid etc.) Fair assessment of student performance Optimal length of degree programs Clear program goal, philosophy, and learning outcomes Faculty research publications Knowledgeable teaching staff Reputable hospitality degree programs Faculty/staff members with hospitality certificates

Barron et al. (2007), Horng (2007), Hsu (2007), Owen (2002), Petrillose and Montgomery (1998), Stevenson (2009), Tahir et al. (2010), Williams and Ceci (1997)

Angelo and Vladimir (2009), Christou and Eaton (2000), Casado (2009), Horng (2007), Horng, Teng, and Baum (2009), Hsu (2007), Jennings (2002), Jiang (2000), Kuo et al. (2011), Lam and Ching (2007), McCleary and Weaver (2008), Okumus and Wong (2004)

Barron et al. (2007), Casado (2009), Deale (2013), Elliot & Shin (2002), Manhas and Dogra (2011), Mejia and Phelan (2011), Nelson and Dopson (1999), Rainsbury, Hodges, Burchell, and Lay (2002), Stanley and French (2009), Taylor (2004), Tew & Hoof (2012)

Angell, Heffernan, and Megicks (2008), Krehbiel, McLure, and Pratsini (1998), Liburd and Hjalager (2010), Malik, Danish, and Usman (2010), Owen (2002), Pearlman, Ryu, and Schaffer (2010), Spowart (2011), Stevenson (2009), Tan and Kek (2004), Williams (2013), Williams and Ceci (1997)

Barron et al. (2007), Casado (2009), Goodman et al. (1991), Hsu (2007), Manhas and Dogra (2011), Mejia and Phelan (2011), Nelson and Dopson (1999), Rahman (2010), Spowart (2011)

was used because sample size and variables were unequal; Welch's t-test can compare central tendencies for two unrelated samples (Ruxton, 2006). 4. Results 4.1. Demographic characteristics of the sample The social-demographic information from survey participants is summarized in Table 2. More than two-thirds of survey respondents were female. Most survey participants were upperclassmen; 41.3% were seniors, and 30.7% were juniors. Freshman and sophomore respondents accounted for 28% of the sample. More than three-fourths of the students were domestic, while 17.3% were international. 4.2. Comparison of education quality areas To examine for significant differences in the perceptions of education quality areas between domestic and international students, Welch's t-test was conducted because of unequal sample size. Before the t-test, composite means of the five areas of education quality were calculated and the normality of data distribution as an assumption check for the t-test was scrutinized. The results of the t-test are shown in Table 3. Descriptive statistics revealed that the most important areas of hospitality education quality for domestic students was student support (M = 6.21), followed by industry network (M = 5.95), innovative curriculum (M = 5.93), and learning environment (M = 5.71). International students also chose student support (M = 5.83) as the most important area of hospitality education. International students, however, chose innovative curriculum (M = 5.67) as the second most important area of education 6

Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 25 (2019) 100212

M.J. Lee, et al.

Table 2 Descriptive profile of survey participants. Demographic Variable

Number of Respondents (%)

Gender Male Female Total Academic Year Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Total

97 (29.5) 232 (70.5) 329 (100) 44 (13.4) 48 (14.6) 101 (30.7) 136 (41.3) 329 (100)

Residential Status Domestic International Total

272 (82.7) 57 (17.3) 329 (100)

Table 3 Comparisons of education quality areas. Education Area

Domestic Students (N = 272) Composite mean (Std. Deviation)

International Students (N = 57) Composite means (Std. Deviation)

t-value

Sig.

Student Support Industry Network Innovative Curriculum Learning Environment Program Credentials

6.21 5.95 5.93 5.71 5.55

5.83 5.61 5.67 5.46 5.42

2.68 2.48 1.97 1.98 .969

.009* .016* .049* .048* .335

(.78) (.83) (.84) (.85) (.96)

(.99) (.90) (.92) (.80) (.91)

Based on mean value on a 7-point Likert scale, where 1 = Not at all important and 7 = Extremely important. *p < .05.

quality. For both groups, program credentials (M = 5.55 for domestic and M = 5.42 for international students) was the least important area of hospitality education quality. Overall, as shown in Table 3, domestic students rated all five areas of education quality significantly higher than international students. The results of the t-tests revealed statistically significant differences between domestic and international students for four of five areas of education quality: student support, industry network, innovative curriculum, and learning environment. In these four areas, the composite means scores of domestic students were consistently higher than international students. However, no significant difference between two groups was found for program credentials. 4.3. Comparison of individual education attributes The mean importance scores of twenty-nine education attributes in five areas are presented in Table 4. As presented in Table 5, the highly ranked attributes by both domestic and international students were quality attributes in the area of student support, such as ‘Availability of scholarship,’ ‘Availability of career services,’ and ‘Availability of financial aid.’ For domestic students, ‘Networking opportunity on and off campus’ was also highly ranked. International students chose ‘Availability of exchange program’ as one of most important education attributes. As for the least important education attributes, both domestic and international students chose two items from program credentials: ‘Program reputation and image’ and ‘Faculty with significant academic reputation.’ To determine whether domestic and international students showed any statistically significant differences in perceptions of education attributes, Welch's t-tests were conducted. The results revealed statistically significant differences in thirteen education attributes that domestic students saw as significantly higher than international students. Specifically, significant difference was found in five education attributes in the category of student support, such as “Availability of financial aid,’ ‘Availability of scholarship,’ ‘Availability of services for students with challenges,’ ‘Availability of career services,’ and ‘Availability of staff members specialized in student services.’ Also, industry network is another notable area where significant difference was found in four attributes, including ‘Presence of student organizations,’ ‘Diverse opportunity for employment,’ ‘Availability of industry mentor program,’ and ‘Networking opportunities on and off campus.’ Moreover, domestic students' importance perceptions were significantly higher that international students' importance perception in the following attributes: ‘Hands-on learning in the classroom/laboratories,’ ‘Wide variety of classes in different components of the hospitality industry,’ ‘Courses being offered in a variety of delivery formats,’ and ‘Faculty/staff members with significant industry experiences and knowledge.’

7

Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 25 (2019) 100212

M.J. Lee, et al.

Table 4 Comparisons of individual education quality attributes. Education Quality attributes

Domestic Students (N = 272)

International Students (N = 57)

t

Sig.

6.39 6.49 6.25 6.42 6.05 6.04 5.82

5.91 6.04 5.74 5.96 5.89 5.67 5.57

2.98 3.17 3.29 3.32 .992 2.42 1.49

.003* .002* .001* .001* .322 .016* .137

5.82 5.54 5.75 6.24 5.92 6.36 6.04

5.39 5.31 5.65 5.83 5.48 5.87 5.80

2.61 1.30 .539 2.61 2.77 3.24 1.59

.010* .192 .590 .010* .006* .001* .111

6.27 6.09 6.12 5.73 5.72

5.80 5.81 5.74 5.63 5.48

2.88 1.63 2.36 .557 1.51

.004* .102 .019* .578 .133

Student Support (Reliability Alpha: .905) Availability of financial aid Availability of scholarships Availability of services for students with (physical/mental) challenges Availability of career services Availability of domestic and international exchange programs Availability of staff members specialized in student services Availability of orientation programs Industry Network (Reliability Alpha: .885) Presence of student organizations that target the hospitality industry Presence of student chapters of industry organizations Required work experience as a part of the curriculum Diverse opportunities for employment Availability of industry mentor programs Networking opportunities on and off campus Opportunities for one-on-one interactions between students and industry Innovative Curriculum (Reliability Alpha: .874) Hands-on learning in the classrooms/laboratories Opportunities for earning industry certifications as a part of the curriculum Wide variety of classes in different components of the hospitality industry Practical and theoretical hospitality courses Demonstration of continuous assessment and evaluation of the course offerings The use of technology, such as simulations, in coursework Learning Environment (Reliability Alpha: .842) Visually appealing campus environment Live demonstration facilities Courses offered in a variety of delivery formats (hybrid, online) Computer laboratories/study areas Availability of tutoring services for students Adequate student-to-faculty ratio

5.64

5.57

.400

.690

5.58 5.80 5.69 5.85 5.79 5.57

5.30 5.50 5.35 5.57 5.70 5.36

1.64 1.88 1.95 1.73 .053 1.24

.102 .060 .049* .084 .615 .214

Program Credential (Reliability Alpha: .634) Program reputation and image that separates from other programs Faculty with significant academic reputation Faculty/staff members with significant industry experiences and knowledge

5.13 5.19 6.34

5.14 5.24 5.88

-.013 -.236 3.17

.990 .813 .002*

Based on mean value on a 7-point Likert scale, where 1 = Not at all important and 7 = Extremely important. *p < .05. Table 5 Most important & least important education quality attributes. Domestic Students (Mean) Top Five 1. Availability of scholarships (6.49) 2. Availability of career services (6.42) 3. Availability of financial aid (3.39) 4. Networking opportunities on and off campus (6.36) 5. Faculty/staff members with significant industry experiences and knowledge (6.34)

International Students (Mean) Bottom Five

Top Five

1. Program reputation and image that separates from other programs (5.13) 2. Faculty with significant academic reputation (5.19) 3. Presence of student chapters of industry organizations (5.54) 4. Adequate student-to-faculty ratio (5.57) 5. Visually appealing campus environment (5.58)

1. Availability of scholarships (6.04) 2. Availability of career services (5.96) 3. Availability of financial aid (5.91) 4. Availability of domestic and international exchange programs (5.89) 5. Faculty/staff members with significant industry experiences and knowledge (5.88)

Bottom Five 1. Program reputation and image that separates from other programs (5.14) 2. Faculty with significant academic reputation (5.24) 3. Visually appealing campus environment (5.30) 4. Presence of student chapters of industry organizations (5.31) 5. Courses offered in a variety of delivery formats (5.35)

Based on mean value on a 7-point Likert scale, where 1 = Not at all important and 7 = Extremely important.

5. Discussion The main purpose of this study was to investigate and compare international and domestic student perceptions of hospitality management programs in U.S. higher education by looking at five quality areas: student support, industry networking, innovative curriculum, learning environment, and program credentials. This study concluded that domestic students rated these areas significantly higher than international students across all five areas of education quality because international students may be 8

Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 25 (2019) 100212

M.J. Lee, et al.

culturally less likely to express extreme agreement. Additionally, Asian students may be passive or silent in classes (Sit, 2013; Zhao, Kuh, & Carini, 2005). This study provided several interesting discussion points. First, both domestic and international students considered student support to be the most important area of hospitality education quality. Previous research revealed that finances are a major concern for international students (Andrade, 2006; Cantwell, 2015; Chapdelaine & Alextich, 2004; Choi et al., 2018; Misra & Castillo, 2004; Sanchez, Fornerino, & Zhang, 2006; Yan & Berliner, 2011; Zhai, 2002). This study concluded that both domestic and international students considered financial support (availability of financial aid and scholarships) was the most important quality attribute. Interestingly, availability of career services had the second highest score for both groups, which indicated that both groups thought internship experience was critical to their career development after graduation. Second, the two groups differed on the importance of industry network. The industry network was ranked second highest among domestic students, but international students ranked the industry network third of the five attributes. This may be caused by the different levels of communication skills and immigration restrictions for international students. The main purpose of studying at universities and receiving a degree for both groups was to get a better job (Lee, Olds, & Lee, 2010). Networking with industry professionals while in school is critical in obtaining a better job after graduation. However, making strong connections with the industry during college is difficult for most students because it requires excellent communication and relationship skills (Eder et al., 2010; Ndirangu, 1993; Rai, 2002). Compared with domestic students, international students tend to be more reluctant to connect with industry professionals because of cultural and language differences (Lee et al., 2010). In addition, immigration restrictions in the U.S. job market may be a disadvantage for international students (Li, 2015). The National Center for Education Statistics (2018) investigated the unemployment rate for young adults with bachelor's degrees between the ages of 25 and 29. According to NCES (2017), the unemployment rate in the hospitality and tourism industry was 3.0%; accordingly, 97% of hospitality students were potentially employable in the hospitality and tourism industry following graduation. However, the National Association of College and Employment (2016) noted that only 34.2% of international students were actually hired in the United States following graduation. One reason for this could have been immigration restrictions for international students who needed a job-related visa and the challenge of finding employers who were supportive of them working in U.S. hospitality industry. This additional legal hurdle for international students may have discouraged them from actively connecting with the industry during their college years. Third, the study revealed that an innovative curriculum was the second most important quality area for international students. Both domestic and international students sought hospitality management programs that provided hands-on curricula with experiential learning because companies in the hospitality industry require future employees to have practical as well as theoretical knowledge (Trice & Yoo, 2007; Zopiatis & Constanti, 2012). The hands-on learning component in the hospitality management curriculum is particularly important for international students. This result is consistent with the Institute of International Education (IIE) report (2015) which investigated international students’ motives for studying in United States. According to the IIE report (2015), one of major motives to come to the United States was to get more practice-oriented education, which was not offered enough in their home countries. Unlike domestic students, many international students do not have opportunities for practical training at universities in their own countries (Gursoy & Swanger, 2005). Thus, it is very important for international students to receive hands-on hospitality management education in the United States. Fourth, there was an interesting finding in the area of learning environment. Among the five attributes in the category, the availability of tutoring services for students was the most important quality attribute for international students. It showed that international students desired individual tutoring services to help them catch up in their classes and to improve their learning ability and language skills. This language barrier tends to affect international students’ learning styles, the consequences of which may be students becoming more passive or even silent, and asking fewer questions in class (Sit, 2013; Zhao et al., 2005). Finally, students thought program credentials were the least important aspect of education quality. Program reputation and image were not that important for either group of students. Notably, however, faculty/staff credentials were very important to students. This result indicates that students understand that the hospitality industry puts a premium on practical skills and knowledge. Students want to see more faculty and staff members with significant industry experience and knowledge in hospitality management programs. Interestingly, domestic and international students differed significantly on this attribute. Domestic students saw this attribute as significantly more important than international students. Compared with international students, domestic students wanted to learn from faculty and staff members with a network with industry professionals, learn how to interpret current trends and the future of the industry, and utilize this knowledge to guide them to securing job opportunities. 6. Conclusion This empirical research focused on the differences in perceptions of important education quality attributes between domestic and international students in hospitality management education in the United States. As a new generation enters college with new expectations (Sima, 2016), the results of this study should serve to provide program administrators and faculty with valuable insights on student needs, as well as how to evaluate and update a program to better meet the expectations of both domestic and international students. Although the research questions were satisfactorily addressed, this research is not free from limitations. The most obvious and inherent limitation of the study is the lack of balance in the sample size used for data analysis. More responses from international students would have been helpful, and targeting hospitality institutions where many international students were enrolled would have provided a more balanced sample. Increasing the sample size for international students would have made possible group comparisons using meaningful demographic variables like gender and nationality among international students, which would have provided 9

Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 25 (2019) 100212

M.J. Lee, et al.

deeper insights. Second, this research focused on U.S. higher education and thus should be extended to cover other outbound education markets, such as Europe, Australia, and Asia. Cross-cultural research involving international students studying hospitality management in different countries would help administrators of global hospitality management programs understand both the differences and similarities among students of various cultures throughout the world. Lastly, the methodology could be improved by using confirmatory factor analysis in future research to test the validity of the five education quality areas. This could help enable researchers to further examine the causal relationships among education quality, student satisfaction, and other latent constructs included in various human behavior theories. References Alan, W., & Chak-Keung (Simon), W. (2009). Factors affecting students' learning and satisfaction on tourism and hospitality course-related field trips. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 21(1), 25–35. Alexander, M., Lynch, P., & Murray, R. (2009). Reassessing the core of hospitality management education: The continuing importance of training restaurants. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sports and Tourism Education, 8(1), 55–69. Alhelalat, J. (2015). Consumer behaviour analysis of hospitality students' evaluation and satisfaction with their universities. Tourism and Hospitality Management, 21(2), 127–143. Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, L. E. (2009). Trends in global higher education: Tracking an academic revolution: A report prepared for the UNESCO world conference on higher education. SIDA/SAREC. Andrade, M. S. (2006). International students in English-speaking universities: Adjustment factors. Journal of Research in International Education, 5(2), 131–154. Angell, R., Heffernan, T., & Megicks, P. (2008). Service quality in postgraduate education. Quality Assurance in Education, 16(3), 236–254. Angelo, R., & Vladimir, A. (2009). Hospitality today: An introduction. Miami, FL: Educational Institute of the American Hotel and Lodging Association. Archambault, L. (2008). Measuring student satisfaction and its impact on student retention: Developing a combined model for use in private post-secondary institutions. (doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/304815323?pq-origsite=gscholar. Assante, L., Huffman, L., & Harp, S. (2008). Conceptualization of quality indicators for U.S. based four-year undergraduate hospitality management programs. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 7(2), 51–71. Ayoun, B., & Palakurthi, R. (2008). Doctoral students in U.S. Hospitality programs: A survey of their demographic, academic, and professional characteristics. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 20(4), 6–17. Bandyopadhyay, J., & Lichtman, R. (2007). Six sigma approach to quality and productivity improvement in an institution for higher education in the United States. International Journal of Management, 24(4), 802–807 824. Barron, P., Baum, T., & Conway, F. (2007). Learning, living and working: Experiences of international postgraduate students at a Scottish university. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 14(2), 85–101. Beggs, B., Ross, C. M., & Goodwin, B. (2008). A comparison of student and practitioner perspectives of the travel and tourism internship. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sports and Tourism Education, 7, 31–39. Breiter, D., Cargill, C., & Fried-Kline, S. (1995). An industry view of experiential learning. Hospitality Review, 13(1), 75–80. Brennan, C., Daly, M., Fitzpatrick, E., & Sweeney, E. (2004). Tradition versus technology: Career fairs in the 21st century. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 4(1), 23–41. Brookes, M., & Becket, N. (2011). Internationalising hospitality management degree programmes. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 23(2), 241–260. Bushell, R., Prosser, G., Faulkner, H., & Jafari, J. (2001). Tourism research in Australia. Journal of Travel Research, 39(3), 323–326. Cantoni, L., Kalbaska, N., & Inversini, A. (2009). E-Learning in tourism and hospitality: A map. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sports and Tourism Education, 8(2), 148–156. Cantwell, B. (2015). Are international students cash cows? Examining the relationship between new international undergraduate enrollments and institutional revenue at public colleges and universities in the US. Journal of International Students, 5(4), 512–525. Casado, M. A. (2009). Student perceptions towards cultural diversity classroom approaches: Implications for the hospitality curriculum. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 21(2), 15–23. Cecil, A. (2012). A framework for service learning in hospitality and tourism management education. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 12(4), 313–331. Chandler, J., & Faiola, N. (2009). Attitudes and opinions of hospitality management educators and students regarding the importance of industry experience: Pilot test. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism, 13(2), 41–47. Chapdelaine, R. F., & Alexitch, L. R. (2004). Social skills difficulty: Model of culture shock for international graduate students. Journal of College Student Development, 45(2), 167–184. Chatfield, H. K., Lee, S. J., & Chatfield, R. E. (2012). The analysis of factors affecting choice of college: A case study of university of Nevada Las Vegas hotel college students. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 24(1), 26–33. Chathoth, P., & Sharma, A. (2007). Core curricular issues in hospitality and tourism education present structure and future directions. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 19(1), 10–19. Chen, Z. (2000). International students' preparation for and adaptation to the American higher education system: A study of cross-cultural communication. World Communication, 29, 25–48. Choi, E.-K., Tanya, R., & Wang, A. (2018). Hospitality program selection criteria: A comparison of international undergraduate, masters, and doctoral students. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 31(1), 149–158. Cho, W., & Schmelzer, C. D. (2000). Just-in-time education: Tools for hospitality managers of the future? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 12(1), 31–37. Choudaha, R. (2015). International student enrollment: Evidence-driven strategies. International Higher Education, 79, 2–21. Choudaha, R., & Chang, L. (2012). Trends in international student mobility. World Education News & Reviews, 25(2), 1–3. Christou, E., & Eaton, J. (2000). Management competencies for graduate trainees of hospitality and tourism programs. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(4), 1058–1061. Chuang, N., & Dellmann-Jenkins, M. (2010). Career decision making and intention: A study of hospitality undergraduate students. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 34(4), 512–530. Costa-Sring, K. C. (2016). Involvement patterns of international students and their overall college experience. Glassboro, New Jersey: Unpublished Thesis, Rowan University. Dabbagh, N., & Bannan-Ritland, B. (2005). Online learning: Concepts, strategies and application. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Deale, C. (2013). Sustainability education: Focusing on hospitality, tourism, and travel. Journal of Sustainability Education, 4(2), 17–25. Deale, C., O'Halloran, R., Jacques, P., & Garger, J. (2010). An examination of current hospitality and tourism teaching methods. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 22(2), 20–29. Edelheim, J., & Ueda, D. (2007). Effective use of simulations in hospitality management education: A case study. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sports and Tourism Education, 6(1), 18–28. Eder, J., Smith, W., & Pitts, R. (2010). Exploring factors influencing student study abroad destination choice. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 10(3), 232–250. Elliott, K. M., & Shin, D. (2002). Student satisfaction: An alternative approach to assessing this important concept. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 24(2), 197–209. Fawcett, S. (2002). Group gaming and simulation in hospitality management: A user's guide. Oxford, UK: Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Network.

10

Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 25 (2019) 100212

M.J. Lee, et al.

Fawcett, S., & Lockwood, A. (2000). Improving the learning environment for the development of hospitality accountancy skills using computer simulation gaming. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 2(3), 262–276. Ford, R. (2019). 4 benefits of bringing foreign students to study at American universities. Retrieved from https://fordmurraylaw.com/4-benefits-bringing-foreign-studentsstudy-american-universities/. Formica, S. (1996). European hospitality and tourism education: Differences with the American model and future trends. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 15(4), 317–323. Garfield, L., & Mchugh, E. (1978). Learning counseling: A higher education student support service. The Journal of Higher Education, 49(4), 382–392. Goodman, R., & Sprague, L. (1991). The future of hospitality education: Meeting the industry's needs. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 32(2), 66–70. Gray, B., Fam, K. S., & Llanes, V. (2003). Branding universities in Asian markets. The Journal of Product and Brand Management, 12(2), 108–120. Gursoy, D., & Swanger, N. (2005). An industry-driven model of hospitality curriculum for programs housed in accredited colleges of business: Part II. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 17(2), 46–56. Han, H., Kiatkawsin, K., & Kim, W. (2018). Physical classroom environment and student satisfaction with courses. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(1), 110–125. Harris, C. W. (2012). The uses of Facebook© technologies in hospitality curriculum on an experiential learning platform for a new generation of students. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing & Logistics, 24(5), 805–825. Harrison, R. (2016). Green card vs. h-1b visas. ASEE Prism, 25(6), 10. Hawkins, D., Ruddy, J., & Ardah, A. (2012). Reforming higher education: The case of Jordan's hospitality and tourism sector. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 12(1), 105–117. Hill, Y., Lomas, L., & MacGregor, J. (2003). Students' perceptions of quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(1), 15–20. Horng, J. S. (2007). The planning and development of hospitality curriculum. Horng, J., Teng, C., & Baum, T. (2009). Evaluating the quality of undergraduate hospitality, tourism and leisure programmes. Journal of Hospitality Leisure Sport and Tourism, 8(1), 37–54. Hsu, C. (2007). Global tourism higher education: Past, present, and future. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Hospitality Press. Huang, R. (2015). Industry engagement with tourism and hospitality education: An examination of students' perspective. In D. Dredge, D. Airey, & M. J. Gross (Eds.). The Routledge handbook of tourism and hospitality education (pp. 408–421). New York: Routledge. Inomics (2014). The benefits of international students for universities. Retrieved from https://inomics.com/insight/the-benefits-of-international-students-for-universities282052. Institute of International Education (2015). Report of open door. Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/Research-and-Publications/Open-Doors/Data/ InternationalStudents/Enrollment-Trends/1948-2014. Institute of International Education (2018). International students enrollment trends, 1948/49 - 2017/18. Open Doors report on international educational exchange. Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/opendoors. Irungu, J. N. (2010). The relationship between Engagement and perceived academic, personal, and social Outcomes for senior international undergraduate Students in research universities (doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/6157/IRUNGU_ku_0099D_10710_DATA_1. pdf;sequence=1. Jennings, D. (2002). Strategic management: An evaluation of the use of three learning methods. The Journal of Management Development, 21(9), 655–665. Jiang, Y. P. (2000). To construct and analyze the teaching service quality. Asia Pacific Management Review, 5(1), 95–115. Kato, T., & Sparber, C. (2013). Quotas and quality: The effect of h-1b visa restrictions on the pool of prospective undergraduate students from abroad. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(1), 109–126. Kim, J. (2012). The birth of academic subalterns: How do foreign students embody the global hegemony of American universities? Journal of Studies in International Education, 16(5), 455–476. Kim, K., & Jogaratnam, G. (2003). Activity preferences of Asian international and domestic American university students: An alternate basis for segmentation. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9(3), 260–270. Kim, H., Lee, D., Choi, E., & Huffman, L. (2010). Research activity at the annual graduate student research conference in hospitality & tourism. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 10(1), 75–85. Korobova, N., & Starobin, S. S. (2015). A comparative study of student engagement, satisfaction, and academic success among international and American students. Journal of International Students, 5(1), 72–85. Kotler, P. (1985). Strategic marketing for educational institutions. London: Prentice-Hall. Krehbiel, T., McLure, R., & Pratsini, E. (1998, November/December). Assessing an academic major using a service quality model. The Journal of Education for Business, 74, 92–98. Kuo, N., Chang, K., & Lai, C. (2011). Identifying critical service quality attributes for higher education in hospitality and tourism: Applications of the Kano model and importance-performance analysis (ipa). African Journal of Business Management, 5(30), 12016–12024. Lam, T., & Ching, L. (2007). An exploratory study of an internship program: The case of Hong Kong students. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 26(2), 336–351. Lee, J., & Ciftci, A. (2014). Asian international students' socio-cultural adaptation: Influence of multicultural personality, assertiveness, academic self-efficacy, and social support. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 38, 97–105. Lee, M., Huh, C., & Jones, M. F. (2016). Investigating quality dimensions of hospitality higher education: From students' perspective. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 28(2), 95–106. Lee, M. J., Olds, D. A., & Lee, C. (2010). Why students choose a hospitality and tourism program: A pilot study of U.S. Undergraduate students. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 22(3), 20–26. Li, J. (2015). Despite a tough process, international students are getting hired after graduation. The Daily Pennsylvanian. Retrieved from https://www.thedp.com/article/ 2015/04/international-student-employment. Liburd, J., & Hjalager, A. (2010). Changing approaches to education, innovation and research student experiences. Tourism Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 17(1), 12–20. Lin, J.-C. G., & Yi, J. K. (1997). Asian international students' adjustment: Issues and program suggestions. College Student Journal, 31(4), 473–479. Luo, J., & Jamieson-Drake, D. (2013). Examining the educational benefits of interacting with international students. Journal of International Students, 3(2), 85–101. Malik, M. E., Danish, R. Q., & Usman, A. (2010). The impact of service quality on students' satisfaction in higher education Institutes of Punjab. Journal of Management Research, 2(2), 1. Manhas, P., & Dogra, J. (2011). Hospitality and tourism management graduates expectations: Future implications for the educators. Journal of Tourism, 7(1), 103–111. Maringe, F., & Carter, S. (2007). International students' motivations for studying in UK HE: Insights into the choice and decision making of African students. International Journal of Educational Management, 21(6), 459–475. Mazzarol, T., & Soutar, G. N. (2002). Push-pull factors influencing international student destination choice. International Journal of Educational Management, 16(2/3), 82–91. McCleary, K., & Weaver, P. (2008). The effective use of guest speakers in the hospitality and tourism curriculum. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 8(4), 401–414. Mejia, C., & Phelan, K. (2011). Importance of industry experience among hospitality faculty in higher education. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University, Nutrition, Hospitality, and Retailing Department. Milman, A., & Whitney, P. (2014). Evaluating students' experience and satisfaction at a hospitality and tourism college career fair. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 13(2), 173–189. Min, S., & Khoon, C. (2013). Demographic factors in the evaluation of service quality in higher education: International students' perspective. International Review of

11

Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 25 (2019) 100212

M.J. Lee, et al.

Management and Business Research, 2(4), 994–1010. Misra, R., & Castillo, L. (2004). Academic stress among college students: Comparison of American and international students. International Journal of Stress Management, 11(2), 132–148. Moreo, P. (1983). University schools of hotel administration: A comparative description. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://digitalschoalrship.unlv.edu/rtds/ 2899. NAFSA: Association of International Educators (2018). NAFSA international student economic value tool. Retrieved from https://www.nafsa.org/Policy_and_Advocacy/ Policy_Resources/Policy_Trends_and_Data/NAFSA_International_Student_Economic_Value_Tool/. National Association of College Employment (2016). International student hiring to level off. Retrieved from https://www.naceweb.org/job-market/trends-andpredictions/international-student-hiring-to-level-off/. National Center for Education Statistics (2018). Employment outcomes of bachelor's degree recipients. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/coe_sbc.pdf. Ndirangu, W. (1993). Foreign students in U.S. Graduate schools of social work: Their choices, expectations, and levels of satisfaction(Doctoral dissertation). Pennsylvania: Graduate School of Social Work and Social Research, Bryn Mawr College. Nelson, A., & Dopson, L. (1999). Future of hotel education: Required skills and knowledge for graduates of US hospitality programs beyond the year 2000—part one. Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Education, 13(5), 58–67. Okorie, N. C., & Uche, C. M. (2004). Total quality management (TQM) in education: Its imperatives and key content. In P. O. M. Nnabuo, N. C. Okorie, O. G. Agabi, & L. E. B. Igwe (Eds.). Fundamental publishers of educational management (pp. 43–78). Owerri: OJ Prints. Okumus, F., & Wong, K. (2004). A critical review and evaluation of teaching methods of strategic management in tourism and hospitality schools. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 16(2), 22–33. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2018). Education at a glance 2018. Retrieved from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/eag-2018-en. pdf?expires=1543362289&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=3D98445DCC79FB38920DE47336EA7DBE. Otten, M. (2003). Intercultural learning and diversity in higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7(12), 12–26. Owen, M. (2002). ‘Sometimes you feel you’re in niche time’ the personal tutor system, a case study. Active Learning in Higher Education, 3(1), 7–23. Pearlman, D., Ryu, K., & Schaffer, J. D. (2010). Assessing hospitality programs using objective criteria: An exploratory study. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 10(2), 103–124. Pereda, M., Airey, D., & Bennett, M. (2007). Service quality in higher education: The experience of overseas students. The Journal of Hospitality Leisure Sport and Tourism, 6(2), 55–67. Petrillose, M. J., & Montgomery, R. (1998). An exploratory study of internship practices in hospitality education and industry's perception of the importance of internship in hospitality curriculum. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 9(4), 46–51. Pyvis, D., & Chapman, A. (2007). Why university students choose an international education: A case study in Malaysia. International Journal of Educational Development, 27, 235–246. Rahman, I. (2010). Students' perceptions of effectiveness of hospitality curricula and their preparedness (dissertation)Amherst, MA: Graduate School of University of Massachusetts Amherst. Rai, G. (2002). Meeting the educational needs of international students: A perspective from U.S. Schools. International Social Work, 45(1), 21–33. Rainsbury, E., Hodges, D., Burchell, N., & Lay, M. (2002). Ranking workplace competencies: Student and graduate perceptions. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 3(2), 9–18. Richardson, S. (2010). Generation Y's perceptions and attitudes towards a career in tourism and hospitality. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 9(2), 179–199. Rudd, D., Budziszewski, D., & Litzinger, P. (2014). Recruiting for retention: Hospitality programs. ASBBS Proceedings, 21(1), 628–635. Ruhanen, L., Robinson, R., & Breakey, N. (2013). A tourism immersion internship: Student expectations, experiences and satisfaction. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sports and Tourism Education, 13, 60–69. Russell, M. (2005). Marketing education; a review of service quality perceptions among international students. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 17(1), 65–77. Ruxton, G. (2006). The unequal variance t-test is an underused alternative to student's t-test and the Mann–Whitney U test. Behavioral Ecology, 17, 688–690. Sanahuja Vélez, G., & Ribes Giner, G. (2015). Effects of business internships on students, employers, and higher education institutions: A systematic review. Journal of Employment Counseling, 52(3), 121–130. Sanchez, C. M., Fornerino, M., & Zhang, M. (2006). Motivations and the intent to study abroad among U.S. French and Chinese students. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 18(1), 27–52. Sanders, D., & Armstrong, E. K. (2008). Understanding students' perceptions and experience of a tourism management field trip: The need for a graduated approach. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 20(4), 29–37. Sima, C. (2016). Generations BB, X, Y, Z, α-the changing consumer in the hospitality industry. In M. Ivandova, S. Ivanov, & V. P. Magnini (Eds.). The routledge handbook of hotel chain management (pp. 471–479). New York: Routledge- Taylor & Francis group. Sit, H. H. W. (2013). Characteristics of Chinese students' learning styles. International proceedings of economics development and research, 62, 36. Soedijati, E., & Pratminingsih, S. (2011). The impact of marketing mix on students choice of university:Study case of private university in Bandung, Indonesia. Paper presented at the 2nd international conference on business and economic research: Vols. 14–16Malaysia: Langkawi March. Spowart, J. (2011). Hospitality students' competencies: Are they work ready? Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 10(2), 169–181. Stanley, R., & French, E. (2009). Evaluating increased enrollment levels in institutions of higher education: A look at merit-based scholarship programs. Public Administration Quarterly, 33(1), 4–36. State University (2016). Scholarships for hospitality students - grants, student loans, fellowships. Retrieved June 26, 2016, from http://www.stateuniversity.com/financialaid-articles/pages/7961/Scholarships-for-Hospitality-Students.html. Stevenson, N. (2009). Enhancing the student experience by embedding personal tutoring in the curriculum. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sports and Tourism Education, 8(2) 177– 122. Swanson, S. R., & Tomkovick, C. (2012). Marketing internships: How values and search strategies differ across the student–employer dyad. Marketing Education Review, 22, 251–262. https://doi.org/10.2753/MER1052-8008220305. Tahir, I., Bakar, N., & Ismail, W. (2010). Importance-performance analysis of service quality among business students: An exploratory study. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 2(1), 132–137. Tan, K., & Kek, S. (2004). Service quality in higher education using an enhanced servqual approach. Quality in Higher Education, 10(1), 17–24. Taylor, J. (2004). Toward a strategy for internationalization: Lessons and practice from four universities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8, 149–171. Tews, M., & Hoof, H. (2012). Favor of hospitality management education, Vol. 29, Florida International University (FIU) Hospitality Review121–129 2. Tomkovick, C., Al-Khatib, J., Baradwaj, B., & Jones, S. (1996). An assessment of the service quality provided to foreign students at U.S. business schools. The Journal of Education for Business, 71(3), 130–135. Tracy, L., & Adler, H. (2011). Perspectives of international undergraduate students in hospitality and tourism management programs in the United States: Implications for educators and administrators. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 23(3), 16–25. Trice, A. G., & Yoo, J. Y. (2007). International graduate students' perceptions of their academic experience. Journal of Research in International Education, 6(1), 41–66. Tse, T. (2010). What do hospitality students find important about internships?. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 10(3), 251–264. Van Gyn, G., Schuerholz-Lehr, S., Caws, C., & Preece, A. (2009). Education for world mindedness: Beyond superficial notions of internationalization. In C. Kreber (Vol. Ed.), Internationalizing the curriculum in higher education (new directions for teaching and learning: Vol. 118, (pp. 25–38). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Van Hoof, H. B., Wu, L., & Zhang, L. (2014). Hospitality graduate students' program choice decisions: Implications for faculty and administrators. Hospitality Review, 31(3), 68–93. Williams, W., & Ceci, S. (1997). How'm i doing? Problems with student ratings of instructors and courses. Change, 29(5), 12–23.

12

Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 25 (2019) 100212

M.J. Lee, et al.

Williams, K. H., Childers, C., & Kemp, E. (2013). Stimulating and enhancing student learning through positive emotions. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 13(3), 209–227. Williams, P., Nicholas, D., & Gunter, B. (2005). E-learning: What the literature tells us about distance education: An overview. ASLIB Proceedings, 57(2), 109–122. Yan, K., & Berliner, D. (2011). An examination of individual level factors in stress and coping processes: Perspectives of Chinese international students in the United States. Journal of College Student Development, 52(5), 523–542. Yorke, M., & Harvey, L. (2005). Graduate attributes and their development. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2005(128), 41–58. Zhai, L. (2002). Studying international students: Adjustment and social support. San Diego: Office of institutional Research Community College District. [ERIC Document no. ED 474481]. Zhang, H., Rashid, B., & Mohammed, A. (2016). The moderating effect on an internship programme on the relationship between motivational factors and students' carrier decision in the hospitality industry in China. Journal of Environmental Management & Tourism, 4(16), 688–697. Zhao, C. M., Kuh, G. D., & Carini, R. M. (2005). A comparison of international student and American student engagement in effective educational practices. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(2), 209–231. Zong, J., & Batalova, J. (2018). International students in the United States. Retrieved from https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/international-students-united-states. Zopiatis, A., & Constanti, P. (2012). Managing hospitality internship practices: A conceptual framework. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 24(1), 44–51. Zopiatis, A., & Theocharous, A. L. (2013). Revisiting hospitality internship practices: A holistic investigation. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sports and Tourism Education, 13(1), 33–46.

13