How International Students Use Generative Al as a Sociocultural Adaptation Strategy and Its Impact on Academic Performance:A Cross-Cultural Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/vsmg7p82Keywords:
Generative Artificial Intelligence, International Students, Sociocultural Adaptation, Adaptation Strategies, Cross-Cultural Education, Higher EducationAbstract
With the deepening internationalization of higher education, the sociocultural adaptation of international students has become an increasingly important research topic. However, existing studies have paid limited attention to how international students utilize emerging technological resources to address adaptation challenges. Grounded in sociocultural adaptation theory, this study adopted a qualitative exploratory design, employing purposive sampling to recruit approximately 12 international master's students from non-English-speaking countries studying in English-medium higher education environments. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and analyzed using thematic analysis. The study addressed two research questions: Do international graduate students use generative AI as a sociocultural adaptation strategy? How does generative AI function as a mediator in their adaptation process? Findings reveal that international master's students clearly employ generative AI as a strategic resource for sociocultural adaptation. At the language level, AI assists students through real-time text optimization and expression suggestions; at the cultural norm level, AI provides scenario simulations and behavioral demonstrations to help decode implicit academic rules; at the social interaction level, AI compensates for limited interpersonal networks by offering strategic communication advice. This study extends sociocultural adaptation theory by incorporating generative AI as an actionable strategic resource, providing new theoretical perspectives and practical references for understanding technology-mediated cross-cultural adaptation processes.
Downloads
References
[1] Brown, L., & Holloway, I. (2008). The adjustment journey of international postgraduate students at an English university: An ethnographic study. Journal of Research in International Education, 7 (2), 232–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475240908091306.
[2] Leong, C. H., & Ward, C. (2000). Identity conflict in sojourners. International journal of intercultural relations, 24(6), 763-776.
[3] Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1999). The measurement of sociocultural adaptation. International journal of intercultural relations, 23(4), 659-677.
[4] Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education promises and implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign.
[5] Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46(1), 5–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01087.x.
[6] Ward, C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2020). Psychology culture shock. Routledge.
[7] Andrade, M. S. (2006). International students in English-speaking universities: Adjustment factors. Journal of Research in International Education, 5(2), 131–154. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/ 14752 40906065589.
[8] Arkoudis, S., Baik, C., & Richardson, S. (2010). English language standards in higher education: From entry to exit. Australian Universities’ Review, 52(2), 31–36.
[9] Arkoudis, S., & Tran, L. (2010). Writing blah, blah, blah: Lecturers’ approaches and challenges in supporting international students.
[10] Holmes, W., & Miao, F. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. Unesco Publishing.
[11] Kasneci, E., Seßler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., ... & Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and individual differences, 103, 102274.
[12] Zhai, X. (2022). ChatGPT user experience: Implications for education. Available at SSRN 4312418.
[13] Lee, S. J., & Kwon, K. (2024). A systematic review of AI education in K-12 classrooms from 2018 to 2023: Topics, strategies, and learning outcomes. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, 100211.
[14] Ouyang, F., & Jiao, P. (2021). Artificial intelligence in education: The three paradigms. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100020.
[15] Selwyn, N. (2021). Education and technology: Key issues and debates. Bloomsbury Publishing.
[16] Williamson, B., & Eynon, R. (2020). Historical threads, missing links, and future directions in AI in education. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(3), 223-235.
[17] Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications.
[18] Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. sage.
[19] Maxwell, J. A. (2012). A realist approach for qualitative research. Sage.
[20] Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field methods, 18(1), 59-82.
[21] Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. sage.
[22] Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
[23] Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers.
[24] Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. (No Title).
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Academic Journal of Management and Social Sciences

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

