Analysis of Assessment Data / Eyad Alfattal / EADM 738 / Ed.D.

/ Cohort 8

Analysis of Assessment Data: A Pilot Report on Factors

Affecting International Students College Choice

Introduction & Theoretical Foundations of the Instrument

Numerous motivators affect international students college choice. These motivators have been
explained through the push-pull model, originally used in migration studies to research the reasons behind
human cross-national movement and resettlement (Hemsley-Brown & Oplatka, 2006). The model was
first introduced by Lee (1966), who proposed a theory that divides motivators for human migration into
pull factors (motivators to move to a destination other than ones home country) and push factors
(motivators to leave ones home country). Push factors can be negative or positive in nature. For instance,
ones home country may have a poorer infrastructure or economic system, negative push factors, or their
country may encourage its citizens to travel and work abroad, positive push factor (Lee, 1966). An example
of a positive push factor is that which is employed by countries such as Syria and Turkey, where national
compulsory military service is waived for individuals who travel and work abroad for a specific period of
time. On the other hand, pull factors, as Lee proposes, involve better economic, social, cultural, and/or
security conditions a destination country offers. An application of the push-pull model to international
student mobility is McMahon (1992), who explored reasons behind international students flows from
developing countries to the United States. McMahon analyzed political, economic and cultural push-pull
factors and compared these domains between international students home countries and the United
States. The author claimed that there were correlations between home country and host country
conditions; home countries have educational weakness compared to host countries; and international
students mainly come from countries with weak yet internationally involved economies (McMahon,
1992, p. 476).
Page 1 of 10

Analysis of Assessment Data / Eyad Alfattal / EADM 738 / Ed.D. / Cohort 8

The data in this report was collected from international students studying at a four-year regional
university in Sothern California. The purpose was to understand the strength of some factors that
motivated these students to travel and study at the campus where the data was collected. The instrument
was pen-and-paper questionnaire consisting of ten five-Likert scale type items ranging from strongly
disagree, coded as one, to strongly agree, coded as five. The ten items in the instrument examined the
strength of factors constituting international students college choice construct. Five of these items were
pull factors: (a) Rounding of Education through International Study, (b) Personal Fulfilment, (c) Possibility
to Emigrate, (d) Possibility to Establish International Connections, and (e) Availability of Scholarships.
There were also five push factors: (a) Unavailability of Similar Program at Home Campuses, (b) Difficulty
to Be Accepted at a Good Program at Home, (c) Desire to Be Away from Home, (d) Family Pressure, and
(e) Peer Pressure.

Data Analysis & Professional Judgment

Using the theory and the instrument explained in the section above, data was collected from fifty
subjects, international students studying at a four-year regional university in Sothern California (n = 50).
Descriptive statistics are in Table 1 below. The table lists items within factors that were assessed.
Table [1]: Factors Affecting International Students College Choice Descriptive Statistics
Items within Factors

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Median

Mode

Std. Deviation

Round Edu.

50

3.60

4.00

4.00

1.1066

No Similar at Home

50

2.96

3.00

2.00

1.2282

Difficult at Home

50

3.34

3.50

4.00

1.0994

Personal Fulfilment

50

3.74

4.00

4.00

1.1031

Emigration

50

3.38

3.00

4.00

1.1045

International Connections

50

2.96

3.00

2.00

1.2282

Away from home

50

3.38

4.00

4.00

1.0476

Family Pressure

50

2.88

3.00

2.00

1.3346

Peer Pressure

50

3.14

3.00

4.00

1.1068

Scholarships

50

2.84

3.00

3.00

1.1132

Table 1 above illustrates the mean, median, modes, range and standard deviations for subjects
responses on the ten items within the factors assessed. The table shows that subjects responses ranged
from one to five on all variables, and means varied with Personal Fulfilment as the factor with the highest
score followed by Rounding Education through International Study, indicating that these were the most
Page 2 of 10

Analysis of Assessment Data / Eyad Alfattal / EADM 738 / Ed.D. / Cohort 8

influential choice factors for the subjects in this report. On the other hand, the Availability of Scholarships
was the least influential factor, followed by Family Pressure to Study Abroad. These variations are also
demonstrated in Table 2 below through item-difficulty-to-embrace scores. These were calculated for each
item by summing the responses of subjects to each different item then dividing that by the product of the
number of subject and 5, which is the number of points in the Likert scale employed. In Table 2 below,
scores are of one with higher values indicating variables that were more likely to be embrace by subjects.

Table [2]: Factors Affecting International Students College Choice Item Difficulty & Varp
Round
Edu.

Item
Item
Difficulty

No Similar
at Home

Difficult at
Home

Personal
Fulfilment

Emigration

Internation
al Conn.

Away from
home

Family
Pressure

Peer
Pressure

Scholarshi
ps

0.72

0.59

0.67

0.75

0.68

0.59

0.68

0.58

0.63

0.57

Varp

1.2

1.48

1.18

1.19

1.20

1.48

1.08

1.75

1.20

1.21

Item total

180

148

167

187

169

148

169

144

157

142

In addition to item difficulty, Table 2 above reports on the variance for the items which is used to
calculate the Reliability Coefficient which produced a value of 0.41 (rxx = 0.41). This suggests that the data
collected for this report may not be sufficiently reliable for generalization to the population. This may be
attributed to the small number of subjects who participated in the report or more likely to the small
number of items in the instrument, and suggests that a bigger sample size and/or an instrument with
more items may need to be employed for relevant claims about factors affecting international students
college choice to be made.
On the other hand, the total x varp was 21.61 and the standard deviation of scores was 4.65.
(Total X Varp = 21.61; SD = 4.65). The value of standard deviation was then used together with the
reliability coefficient to calculate the Standard Error of Measurement producing a value of 3.58 (SEM =
3.58). This value for standard deviation of errors of measurement demonstrated the extent to which the
data provide accurate scores.
Further analysis of the data following Bond and Fox (2007) described methodology for the Rasch
model is done with WINSTEPS software Version 3.68.2 (Linacre, 2010). Analysis shows that the data are
good fit for the model as demonstrated in the variable map in Figure 1 below and discussed afterwards.

Page 3 of 10

Analysis of Assessment Data / Eyad Alfattal / EADM 738 / Ed.D. / Cohort 8

Figure [1]:Factors Affecting International Students Choice

INPUT: 50 Internationals 10 Factors MEASURED: 50 Internationals 10 Factors 5 CATS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Internationas - MAP - Factors
<more>|<rare>
2
+
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
015 022 |
|
T|
1
+
035 045 |
|
055 065 075 |
085 |
|
095 S|
103 |T
|
113 |
124 135 145 156 165 174 184 | Family
|S Connections
195 205 215 221 235 245 253 M|
266 272 282 295 |
304 314 325 | Peer
0
+M
335 345 354 365 375 382 |
392 405 | Away
415 |
425 434 445 S|S
| Round Edu.
455 463 |
475 481 | Personal
|T
|
495 |
505 T|
|
|
|
-1
+
<less>|<frequ>

Scholarships
No Similar

Difficult

Emigration

Figure 1 above shows that the analysis resulted in a scale consisting of items that range between
one logit for item difficulty and two logits for person ability. The mean for the item calibrations is slightly
below that for the subjects. Four of the items fall between the mean and one standard deviation, two
items at one standard deviation and two items between one and two standard deviations. As for subjects,
most of these fall within one standard deviation for subjects. Only three subjects were at or above two
standard deviations.
Page 4 of 10

Analysis of Assessment Data / Eyad Alfattal / EADM 738 / Ed.D. / Cohort 8

Overall, subjects were distributed with more intensity closer to the mean for subjects and items,
with fewer subjects to the end of the logit scale. Figure 1, however, suggests that there is some level of
imprecision. There are two subjects who are below items, and eleven subjects who are above the most
difficult item in the instrument. This indicates that the instrument can be improved or modified, by
including items at the upper end of the scale that would be targeted at the level of the persons at the
upper end of the scale.
WINSTEPS was further employed to calculate INFIT and OUTFIT Mean Squares with an expected
value of 1, and 1.5 and 0.70 as arbitrary cut off points to determine misfitting responses; and Standardized
Z with an expected value of 0 and arbitrary cut points of 2.0 and -2.0. The summary statistics of the data
are in Table 3 below.

TABLE [3]: Summary Statistics for Factors Affecting International Students Choice
INPUT: 50 Internationals 10 Factors MEASURED: 50 Internationals 10 Factors 5 CATS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------SUMMARY OF 50 MEASURED Internationals
------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
RAW
MODEL
INFIT
OUTFIT
|
|
SCORE
COUNT
MEASURE
ERROR
MNSQ
ZSTD
MNSQ
ZSTD |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| MEAN
32.2
10.0
.18
.31
1.00
.0
1.00
.0 |
| S.D.
4.6
.0
.44
.03
.43
1.2
.42
1.1 |
| MAX.
42.0
10.0
1.23
.40
2.37
2.9
2.27
2.7 |
| MIN.
22.0
10.0
-.75
.29
.21
-2.9
.19
-3.0 |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| REAL RMSE
.33 ADJ.SD
.29 SEPARATION
.86 Intern RELIABILITY .43 |
|MODEL RMSE
.31 ADJ.SD
.31 SEPARATION 1.02 Intern RELIABILITY .51 |
| S.E. OF International MEAN = .06
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------International RAW SCORE-TO-MEASURE CORRELATION = 1.00
CRONBACH ALPHA (KR-20) International RAW SCORE RELIABILITY = .44
SUMMARY OF 10 MEASURED Factors
------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
RAW
MODEL
INFIT
OUTFIT
|
|
SCORE
COUNT
MEASURE
ERROR
MNSQ
ZSTD
MNSQ
ZSTD |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| MEAN
161.1
50.0
.00
.14
1.00
.0
1.00
.0 |
| S.D.
14.8
.0
.28
.00
.17
1.0
.17
.9 |
| MAX.
187.0
50.0
.35
.15
1.40
2.2
1.39
2.2 |
| MIN.
142.0
50.0
-.50
.13
.84
-1.0
.85
-.9 |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| REAL RMSE
.14 ADJ.SD
.24 SEPARATION 1.69 Factor RELIABILITY .74 |
|MODEL RMSE
.14 ADJ.SD
.24 SEPARATION 1.76 Factor RELIABILITY .76 |
| S.E. OF Factor MEAN = .09
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------UMEAN=.000 USCALE=1.000
Factor RAW SCORE-TO-MEASURE CORRELATION = -1.00
500 DATA POINTS. LOG-LIKELIHOOD CHI-SQUARE: 1389.99 with 438 d.f. p=.0000

Page 5 of 10

Analysis of Assessment Data / Eyad Alfattal / EADM 738 / Ed.D. / Cohort 8

Table 3 above shows the mean for the raw score is 32.2 with a standard deviation of 4.6 (M =
32.2; SD = 4.6). The maximum score is 42.0, and the minimum score is of 22.0. The Measure calculation
and Model Error are respectively .18 and .31 for the mean, .44 and .03 for the standard deviation, 1.23
and .40 for the maximum score, and -.75 and .29 for the minimum score. The analysis suggests that the
data fits the Rach model very well since MNSQ produced a value of 1.00 and ZSTD produced a value of .0
for INFIT and OUTFIT measures. However, and as demonstrated in traditional statistical analysis above,
the internal reliability is quite low at .43 and Cronbach Alpha is at .44. This may be attributed to the items
in the instrument as the scelogram in Figure 1 above suggested that items are not well spread along the
scale.
Further investigation of the data fit for the model is done through fit order analysis for the
individual items in the questionnaire. Table 4 below illustrates some descriptive statistics together with
INFIT/OUTFIT MSQ and ZSTD, as well as PT-Measure correlation and expected values and expected match
for each individual item in the instrument. The table below puts items in their misfit order.
TABLE [4]: Individual Item Fit for Factors Affecting International Students Choice
INPUT: 50 Internationals 10 Factors MEASURED: 50 Internationals 10 Factors 5 CATS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------International: REAL SEP.: .86 REL.: .43 ... Factor: REAL SEP.: 1.69 REL.: .74
Factor STATISTICS:

MISFIT ORDER

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|ENTRY
TOTAL
MODEL|
INFIT | OUTFIT |PT-MEASURE |EXACT MATCH|
|
|NUMBER SCORE COUNT MEASURE S.E. |MNSQ ZSTD|MNSQ ZSTD|CORR. EXP.| OBS% EXP%| Factor
|
|------------------------------------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+-------------|
|
8
144
50
.31
.13|1.40
2.2|1.39
2.2|A .31
.42| 18.0 31.6| Family
|
|
10
142
50
.35
.13|1.18
1.1|1.17
1.0|B .12
.42| 22.0 31.7| Scholarships|
|
4
187
50
-.50
.15|1.08
.5|1.08
.5|C .37
.37| 34.0 39.7| Personal
|
|
3
167
50
-.10
.14| .99
.0| .98
-.1|D .34
.41| 34.0 32.6| Difficult
|
|
1
180
50
-.35
.14| .97
-.1| .93
-.3|E .46
.39| 40.0 37.3| Round Edu. |
|
9
157
50
.08
.13| .94
-.3| .95
-.2|e .36
.42| 22.0 31.2| Peer
|
|
7
169
50
-.14
.14| .94
-.3| .91
-.5|d .31
.40| 36.0 32.6| Away
|
|
5
169
50
-.14
.14| .86
-.8| .85
-.9|c .50
.40| 38.0 32.6| Emigration |
|
2
148
50
.24
.13| .84 -1.0| .85
-.9|b .64
.42| 26.0 31.4| No Similar |
|
6
148
50
.24
.13| .84 -1.0| .85
-.9|a .64
.42| 26.0 31.4| Connections |
|------------------------------------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+-------------|
| MEAN
161.1
50.0
.00
.14|1.00
.0|1.00
.0|
| 29.6 33.2|
|
| S.D.
14.8
.0
.28
.00| .17
1.0| .17
.9|
| 7.3
2.8|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As demonstrated in Table 4 all items fitted the model with Family Pressure and Scholarships items
as the closest to the cut off point of 1.50 for MNSQ (IFIT MNSQ = 1.40, OUTFIT MNSQ = 1.39; IFIT MNSQ
= 1.18, OUTFIT MNSQ = 1.17 respectively) . Furthermore, Family item exceeded the cutoff point of 2.00
for ZSTD (INFIT ZSTD = 2.2, OUTFIT ZSTD = 2.2). On the other hand, PT-MEASURE produced positive values
for all items with small deviation between the observed correlation and expected value indicating that
data was consistent with the model expected scores. A deeper examination of the data is illustrated in
Table 5 and Table 6 below.
Page 6 of 10

Analysis of Assessment Data / Eyad Alfattal / EADM 738 / Ed.D. / Cohort 8

TABLE [5]: Item Option vs. Distractor Analysis

INPUT: 50 Internationals 10 Factors MEASURED: 50 Internationals 10 Factors 5 CATS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Factor CATEGORY/OPTION/DISTRACTOR FREQUENCIES: MISFIT ORDER
---------------------------------------------------------------------------|ENTRY
DATA SCORE |
DATA
| AVERAGE S.E. OUTF PTMEA|
|
|NUMBER CODE VALUE | COUNT
% | MEASURE MEAN MNSQ CORR.| Factor
|
|--------------------+------------+--------------------------+-------------|
|
8 A 1
1 |
8 16 |
-.22
.08
.8 -.39 |Family
| 1
|
2
2 |
16 32 |
.11
.13 1.5 -.11 |
| 2
|
3
3 |
7 14 |
.60
.10 1.0
.39 |
| 3
|
4
4 |
12 24 |
.25* .12 1.2
.09 |
| 4
|
5
5 |
7 14 |
.24* .11 1.3
.05 |
| 5
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 B 1
1 |
6 12 |
.14
.18 1.4 -.03 |Scholarships | 1
|
2
2 |
14 28 |
.10* .10 1.1 -.11 |
| 2
|
3
3 |
15 30 |
.19
.16 2.2
.01 |
| 3
|
4
4 |
12 24 |
.26
.10 1.1
.10 |
| 4
|
5
5 |
3
6 |
.25* .08 1.2
.04 |
| 5
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 C 1
1 |
2
4 |
-.33
.04
.8 -.24 |Personal
| 1
|
2
2 |
6 12 |
-.26
.18
.8 -.36 |
| 2
|
3
3 |
8 16 |
.37
.15 2.1
.19 |
| 3
|
4
4 |
21 42 |
.17* .09 1.0 -.01 |
| 4
|
5
5 |
13 26 |
.34* .11 1.0
.22 |
| 5
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 D 1
1 |
2
4 |
-.22
.53 1.1 -.18 |Difficult
| 1
|
2
2 |
11 22 |
.01
.11 1.1 -.20 |
| 2
|
3
3 |
12 24 |
.11
.10
.8 -.09 |
| 3
|
4
4 |
18 36 |
.29
.11 1.0
.19 |
| 4
|
5
5 |
7 14 |
.37
.21 1.1
.18 |
| 5
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 E 1
1 |
3
6 |
-.15
.12 1.0 -.19 |Round Edu.
| 1
|
2
2 |
5 10 |
-.09
.20 1.0 -.20 |
| 2
|
3
3 |
11 22 |
-.03
.10
.6 -.24 |
| 3
|
4
4 |
21 42 |
.24
.09
.9
.11 |
| 4
|
5
5 |
10 20 |
.51
.15
.9
.38 |
| 5
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 e 1
1 |
3
6 |
.02
.25 1.2 -.09 |Peer
| 1
|
2
2 |
14 28 |
.01* .08
.9 -.23 |
| 2
|
3
3 |
10 20 |
.11
.19 2.1 -.07 |
| 3
|
4
4 |
19 38 |
.25
.09 1.1
.13 |
| 4
|
5
5 |
4
8 |
.67
.14
.8
.33 |
| 5
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 d 1
1 |
2
4 |
-.22
.53 1.1 -.18 |Away
| 1
|
2
2 |
10 20 |
.01
.09 1.0 -.19 |
| 2
|
3
3 |
10 20 |
.10
.12
.9 -.08 |
| 3
|
4
4 |
23 46 |
.30
.09 1.0
.25 |
| 4
|
5
5 |
5 10 |
.27* .28 1.3
.07 |
| 5
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 c 1
1 |
3
6 |
-.18
.10
.9 -.20 |Emigration
| 1
|
2
2 |
7 14 |
.10
.14 1.2 -.07 |
| 2
|
3
3 |
16 32 |
-.07* .08
.5 -.39 |
| 3
|
4
4 |
16 32 |
.29
.11
.9
.18 |
| 4
|
5
5 |
8 16 |
.65
.13
.8
.46 |
| 5
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 b 1
1 |
6 12 |
-.13
.10
.9 -.26 |No Similar
| 1
|
2
2 |
14 28 |
-.01
.10
.9 -.27 |
| 2
|
3
3 |
12 24 |
.02
.11 1.1 -.20 |
| 3
|
4
4 |
12 24 |
.35
.07
.7
.23 |
| 4
|
5
5 |
6 12 |
.89
.14
.6
.60 |
| 5
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 a 1
1 |
6 12 |
-.13
.10
.9 -.26 |Connections | 1
|
2
2 |
14 28 |
-.01
.10
.9 -.27 |
| 2
|
3
3 |
12 24 |
.02
.11 1.1 -.20 |
| 3
|
4
4 |
12 24 |
.35
.07
.7
.23 |
| 4
|
5
5 |
6 12 |
.89
.14
.6
.60 |
| 5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------* Average measure does not ascend with category score

Page 7 of 10

Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree

Analysis of Assessment Data / Eyad Alfattal / EADM 738 / Ed.D. / Cohort 8

Table 5 above reports on the frequencies of five different options of the five-Likert scale used in
the instrument in relationship to expected responses. The least fitting items are at the top of the table,
and some categories in the table are marked with asterisks, which indicate that the mean for the lower
category is higher than the mean of persons who responded by choosing a higher category. In other
words, while we expect subjects with a higher mean logit measure to select the categories with higher
values than those with lower values, this was not the case in the categories marked with asterisks. These
categories where average measure did not ascend with category score were Agree and Strongly Agree for
Family item, Disagree and Strongly Agree for Scholarship item, Agree and Strongly Agree for Personal
Fulfilment item, Disagree for Peer Pressure item, Strongly Agree for Being Away from Family item, and
Neutral for Possibility to Emigrate item.

TABLE [6]: Subjects with Unexpected Responses

INPUT: 50 Internationas 10 Factors MEASURED: 50 Internationas 10 Factors 5 CATS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------MOST MISFITTING RESPONSE STRINGS
Factor
OUTMNSQ |Internationa
| 1111233444
|161549905025
high-----------8 Family
1.39 A|2.......55..
10 Scholarships
1.17 B|.1....5.....
4 Personal
1.08 C|..2.......11
3 Difficult
.98 D|....1......5
1 Round Edu.
.93 E|.......1.1..
9 Peer
.95 e|...1.1......
7 Away
.91 d|....1......5
|--------low|161111233444
| 1549905025

Finally, Table 6 above identifies subjects who had unexpected responses for the items in the scale.
There were a total of 12 such subjects out of the total sample of 50 in this report. For example, subjects
35 and 40 marked the item Family as 5 while they were expected to mark that item towards the lower
end of the scale. One subject gave three unexpected responses, subject 45, on Personal, Difficult and
Away items. This suggests that the data and report conclusions will benefit from excluding this particular
subjects responses from the analysis.

Page 8 of 10

Analysis of Assessment Data / Eyad Alfattal / EADM 738 / Ed.D. / Cohort 8

Conclusions & Future Studies

In this report, I have used the push-pull theoretical model to develop an instrument that collected
data on factors affecting international students college choice. The push-pull model suggests that
students leave their home countries and study abroad due to a combination of inviting factors such as the
reputation of educational quality at host countries, and push factors such as the difficulty of being
admitted to a good program at home. The instrument was a questionnaire with ten 5-Likert scale items
that collected data from 50 international students studying at a 4-year public university campus in
Southern California, United States of America. Results from descriptive statistics showed that students
choice is shaped primarily by students desire to round their education through international study.
International students also saw international education as a source for personal fulfilment.
Rasch analysis in this report suggested that claims that are made based on available data need to
be tentative. The sample size in this report resulted in a low reliability coefficient value suggesting that
the data collected for this report may not be sufficiently reliable for generalization to the population. A
future study will benefit from a bigger sample size. Furthermore, although Rasch analysis suggests that
the data is good fit for the model, there were subjects below and above items level on the Rasch map.
This suggested that the instrument can benefit from a stretch in both ends of its scale, easier and more
challenging ends. Such stretch will help a future study contain more subjects abilities within the
measurement scale.

Page 9 of 10

Analysis of Assessment Data / Eyad Alfattal / EADM 738 / Ed.D. / Cohort 8

References
Bond, T. & Fox, C. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences.
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hemsley-Brown, J. V. & Oplatka, I. (2006). Universities in a competitive global marketplace: A systematic
review of the literature on higher education marketing. International Journal of Public Sector
Management, 19 (4), 316 338.
Lee, E. S. (1966). A theory of migration. Demography, 3(1), 47 57.
McMahon, M. E. (1992). Higher education in a world market: An historical look at the global context of
international study. Higher Education, 24, 465 482.

Page 10 of 10