A Study Into Wellbeing, Student

1006650
research-article2021
JRI0010.1177/14752409211006650Journal of Research in International EducationMcKeering et al.
Article JRIE
Journal of Research in
A study into wellbeing, student

International Education
2021, Vol. 20(1) 69–92
© The Author(s) 2021
engagement and resilience in Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
early-adolescent international DOI: 10.1177/14752409211006650
https://doi.org/10.1177/14752409211006650
journals.sagepub.com/home/jri
school students
Phillipa McKeering , Yoon-Suk Hwang

and Clarence Ng
Australian Catholic University, Brisbane, Australia
Abstract
Growth in the international school sector continues, with significant expansion of the sector in Asia. Whilst
substantial research has been conducted on the adjustment experience of tertiary-aged students, limited
research attention has been given to school-aged students in international schools. The environment,
conditions and challenges experienced by school-aged international students can differ considerably
from those of tertiary-aged international students. This can be heightened during early-adolescence with
adjustment from school mobility linked to many negative developmental outcomes. The present study
investigates wellbeing, engagement and resilience of 178 early-adolescent international school students (aged
10-14) from an international school in Singapore that offers the International Baccalaureate Diploma and
the national curriculum of England. Results reported a positive significant association between wellbeing,
engagement and resilience constructs. The study also identified demographic and mobility characteristics
that were associated with lower levels of wellbeing, behavioural engagement and resilience. Findings of
the study highlight a potential cohort of early-adolescent international students who could benefit from
additional support.
Keywords
International school student, wellbeing, mobility, engagement, resilience
Introduction
Globalisation has seen a significant and ongoing trend of growth within the international education
sector (Farrugia, 2014). International schools were originally established to provide an education
for students who temporarily lived in a host country rather than their home country as a result of
their family’s global mobility arising from a parent’s career (Hannaford, 2016; Hayden, 2011).
Different terms have been used to describe these students such as ‘foreign student’, ‘sojourner’, or
Corresponding author:
Phillipa McKeering, Institute for Learning Sciences & Teacher Education, Australian Catholic University, Brisbane
Campus, Level 4, 229 Elizabeth Street, Brisbane CBD, QLD 4000, Australia.
Email: [email protected]
70 Journal of Research in International Education 20(1)
‘third culture kid’ (TCK). However, more recently the desire for local students to attend a school
providing an English-medium international curriculum has led to an increase in host country
nationals enrolling in international schools (Hayden and Thompson, 2017). Given the different
motivations and diversity of students presently attending international schools, a clear definition of
what constitutes such a school is not straightforward. ISC (2020), a leading provider of market
intelligence in the international schools market, has defined an international school as a school that
caters for students from a wide variety of cultures with a multinational, multilingual and mobile
student and teacher population, and that offers an English-medium curriculum other than the coun-
try’s national curriculum. Students enrolled in an international school may be drawn from local
enrolments and those travelling from another country. The current study focused on the latter
group, as these international students may experience adjustment issues arisen from the high
mobility lifestyle of their family (Lijadi, 2018; Lijadi and Van Schalkwyk, 2016).
Significant growth has been reported in the international school sector over the past five years.
According to ISC (2020), there were then 11,616 international schools worldwide, with the most
significant growth found in Asia, including Western Asia and the Middle East. Their research also
indicates continued growth in this field with 2020 enrolment numbers of 6.6 million students pro-
jected to reach 9.7 million by 2028. Whilst these figures may also include local students enrolled
in international schools, the continued enrolment of globally mobile students as well as employ-
ment of foreign (non-local) teachers can result in high mobility within the international school
environment. High mobility has been noted as a defining feature within international schools
(Higgins and Wigford, 2018; ISC, 2020), with anticipated turnover of students and teachers
reported to be 25-30% per year (ISC, 2019; Whyte, 2016). High mobility has also been reported as
one of the greatest concerns amongst parents of students attending an international school
(McLachlan, 2007; Whyte, 2016). Given such high mobility, international students will experience
adjustment as they transfer from a familiar setting to an unfamiliar setting in a new school and/or
country. This process of adjustment is necessary to enable them to interact effectively and to feel a
sense of belonging in their new environment (Lessle et al., 2020).
Research in the field of mobility and adjustment of international students has largely been con-
ducted with tertiary-aged students despite the rapid growth reported within the school-aged sector
(Farrugia, 2014). Adjustment is a response to change and can include multiple dimensions, such as
cross-cultural and psychological adjustments to the new environment (Rhein, 2018). Cross-cultural
adjustment, defined in terms of behavioural skills, is influenced by factors underpinning cultural
and social learning (Ward and Kennedy, 1999). These include differences between home and host
country, as well as interaction and identification with host nationals (Berry, 1997; Searle and Ward,
1990; Ward and Kennedy, 1994). Psychological adjustment, defined in terms of psychological and
emotional wellbeing, is broadly influenced by personality, social support, and life changes (Ward
and Kennedy, 1999), including high flexibility and positive mental health traits (Searle and Ward,
1990; Ward and Rana-Deuba, 1999). Both forms of adjustment and the underpinning factors can
present a significant level of difficulty experienced by an international student embarking upon
education in a new host country (Berry, 1997).
Research reports that international students are at a high risk of psychological and cross-cultural
problems as they adjust to their new environment (Altinyelken, 2018; Elliot et al., 2016; Kim and
Okazaki, 2013; Liu and Lu, 2011; Mori, 2000). This line of research however has been conducted at
the tertiary level, despite the rapid growth reported within the school-aged sector (Farrugia, 2014).
Many of the adjustment concerns experienced by tertiary-aged international students may not apply
to school-aged international students (Farrugia, 2014). For example, school-aged students often
relocate with their whole family to the new host country, which may not be the case at the tertiary-
age level. They also attend an international school with, often, a culturally diverse group of students
McKeering et al. 71
and offering an internationally-recognised curriculum, compared to tertiary-aged students who may

find they are in the cultural minority with a foreign national curriculum to navigate.
Psychological problems associated with mobility experienced by school-aged international stu-
dents may include a confused sense of their own identity, transient friendships with peers, and lack
of connection with a national culture (Carter and McNulty, 2014; Grimshaw and Sears, 2008). As
students recognise that either they are about to move again, or that those around them are about to
move, the relationships and the environment that surrounds them are often in a state of flux.
Students who are friends may begin to fight or pull away from each other in preparation for one of
them leaving (Whyte, 2016). When peer relationships are in a constant state of change or upheaval,
personal identity formation can then be hindered. It is argued that adolescents are the most affected
by mobility, given the great importance placed on friendships at this time (Cockburn, 2002; Gillies,
1998; McKillop-Ostrom, 2000), which can be detrimental to adolescents’ wellbeing (McKillop-
Ostrom, 2000). Such students may be prone to loneliness because of regular changes in their
friendship networks. They may be inclined to avoid solving social or personal problems because
they know that the problem or conflict will ‘go away’ (Gillies, 1998: 37).
School mobility and adjustment outside of the normal structure of school progression (such as
progression from primary to high school) has been linked to many negative developmental out-
comes during early adolescence (Herbers et al., 2013). Risk factors from school mobility in stu-
dents aged 11-14 years include social and psychological difficulties (Herbers et al., 2013; South
et al., 2007), lower academic grades (Crockett et al., 1989), and higher student disengagement
(Langenkamp, 2014). These findings highlight the importance of providing support to early-ado-
lescent school students who may be experiencing a period of adjustment as a result of school
mobility.
The continued growth of the international school sector, the high mobility and adjustment expe-
rienced by many international school students, and the negative effects reported of school mobility
and development during early-adolescence, necessitate research into ways to better support these
students. The present study examines wellbeing, student engagement, and resilience of early-ado-
lescent international school students, along with their contributing factors.
Wellbeing
The wellbeing of an individual has been argued by the World Health Organisation (WHO, 2014) to
encompass an individual’s ability to cope with normal stresses of life, work productively and fruit-
fully, and contribute to the community. Whilst there is no consensus around a single definition of
wellbeing, it can include key psychological dimensions, such as the presence of a positive emo-
tional state and positive outlook (Liddle and Carter, 2015), and the ability to make decisions and
take responsibility in achieving a fulfilled life (Ager et al., 2015; Roscoe, 2009). Research on
wellbeing of international students has largely focused on negative psychological constructs, such
as stress and depression. For example, substantial research on the wellbeing of tertiary-aged inter-
national students reported a significant positive association between acculturative stress levels and
wellbeing (Forbes-Mewett and Sawyer, 2011; Hilario et al., 2014; Lee et al., 2004; Nahidi, 2014;
Popadiuk, 2009; Zhang and Goodson, 2011). When they move to a new host country, tertiary-aged
international students, irrespective of their levels of education, experience heightened acculturative
stress, which may present with a combination of psychological, physical, or social problems
(Hilario et al., 2014; Popadiuk, 2009).
The identification of negative variables influencing wellbeing is important. It does not, how-
ever, provide information that can lead to a rewarding and fulfilling life for an individual. Seligman
(2011) proposed the PERMA model, that integrates components of hedonia and eudaimonia, which
includes a presence of positive affect and absence of negative affect as well as a process of living
a deeply satisfying and fulfilling life (Deci and Ryan, 2008). Under the PERMA model framework
(2011) an individual’s wellbeing can be increased by focusing on a combination of five core ele-
ments. These elements include positive emotion (e.g. feeling good), engagement (e.g. being fully
engaged with life), relationship (e.g. establishing positive and supportive relationships), meaning
(e.g. living meaningfully), and achievement (e.g. accomplishing goals). The PERMA framework
also encompasses dimensions that are valued by young people (e.g. positive relationships and emo-
tions) while aligning itself to learning strategies (e.g. engagement) (Norrish et al., 2013; Waters
et al., 2012). This conceptual framework of wellbeing supports each student not only to achieve
their academic potential but also to become a caring, responsible and productive member of their
school. The use of the constructs identified under the PERMA model in this study can advance the
field of research that has mainly focused on identifying risk factors of wellbeing.
Higgins and Wigford (2018) conducted the first ever global research study on wellbeing in
international schools, involving participation from teachers and specialist staff including counsel-
lors, at international schools across 70 countries. The research employed an online survey with 31
questions about teachers’ wellbeing and that of their own students, without providing specific
information in their preliminary report on how this was measured. The majority of teachers
responded that their students’ wellbeing was high, and only a small proportion (8% of the 1056
respondents) identified that about a third of their students had significant problems that were cause
for concern, though they did not specify what these problems were. These findings suggest inter-
national school-aged students were adjusting to their environment, which is in contrast to research
conducted with tertiary-aged international students that reports various negative effects on wellbe-
ing as students transition to a new host country (Forbes-Mewett and Sawyer, 2011; Hilario et al.,
2014; Mori, 2000; Nahidi, 2014). Differences in these findings may reflect the different adjustment
conditions experienced by students in these two age groups. Alternatively, they may indicate limi-
tations of proxy reports on student wellbeing completed by international school teachers (Higgins
and Wigford, 2018), compared with the self-reports made by tertiary-aged students. The use of
proxy reports may limit findings in international school-based research as it can be argued that
teachers and specialist staff within a school community may have minimal contact with students
outside of the classroom, making it difficult for staff to comment meaningfully on student
wellbeing.
Of note, the majority of teachers in the international school study found mobility a key barrier
to student wellbeing, with 48% of respondents reporting transition between schools as having a
negative impact on student wellbeing as students adjusted to a new and unfamiliar environment
(Higgins and Wigford, 2018). The teacher respondents also called for attention to be given to this
issue, with only 55% of respondents reporting that their school had adopted effective strategies to
support newly-arrived students. This study, however, did not explore potential effects of different
mobility variables (such as number of international moves, period of time residing in host country)
on student wellbeing. Given the lack of research and understanding on wellbeing of school-aged
international students, further studies are clearly necessary to contribute to better understanding of
the wellbeing of this specific group of students.
Student Engagement
Student engagement is another field of growing interest within the international education (school
and university level) sectors (Baxter, 2019; Green, 2019; Metro-Roland, 2018; Trinh and Conner,
2019; Wekullo, 2019). A strong correlation has been reported between student engagement and
wellbeing amongst tertiary-aged international students (Pietarinen et al., 2014; Trowler, 2010),
McKeering et al. 73
which suggests that wellbeing and student engagement are interrelated constructs. High student
engagement has also been associated with achievement, retention, and pro-social behaviour in
student research at school level (Fredricks et al., 2004; Lippman and Rivers, 2008; Trowler, 2010).
Recent studies conducted in several American tertiary institutions found that international students
were less engaged compared with their domestic classmates (Korobova and Starobin, 2015; Van
Horne et al., 2018). These findings are in line with those of a previous study, using a national online
survey data in the United States, that reported lower levels of campus connection of international
tertiary-aged students compared with domestic students (Glass et al., 2013).
Student engagement, like wellbeing, is multidimensional. Fredricks et al. (2004) identified
behavioural, emotional, and cognitive engagement as three interrelated dimensions of student
engagement. Behavioural engagement refers to participation and involvement by the student in
academic, social and extracurricular activities, as well as in the promotion of prosocial behaviour,
including adherence to educational rules (Fredricks et al., 2005). Cognitive engagement draws on
the idea of investment by the student and includes a willingness to exert effort necessary to master
complex tasks. Emotional engagement refers to both positive and negative reactions the student
may experience with peers, teachers, and the school, centring around creating ties with the institu-
tion (Fredricks et al., 2005). This student engagement model addresses conceptual limitations of
earlier theoretical models found in school engagement research with students (e.g. Connell and
Wellborn, 1991; Finn, 1989), which did not offer the same multifaceted construct of school engage-
ment. The examination of all three engagement constructs together is important for addressing the
complexity of engagement of international students. For example, a combined examination of a
sense of belonging in their new environment (e.g., emotional engagement), ability to persevere in
learning under a new educational framework (e.g., cognitive engagement), and immersion into
new social and community groups (e.g., behavioural engagement) can provide a comprehensive
picture of international school-aged students’ engagement.
The majority of research into student engagement among international students has been under-
taken at the tertiary level. As argued earlier, these findings could only be applied to the interna-
tional school sector after careful consideration. According to the recent wellbeing report on
international schools (Higgins and Wigford, 2018), 78% of 1056 teachers reported students
behaved well, 75% of students respected their classmates, and 68% of students were interested to
learn, indicating high levels of behavioural and emotional engagement. These findings again con-
trast with research conducted with tertiary-aged international students (e.g., Korobova and Starobin,
2015; Van Horne et al., 2018), thus suggesting differences in student engagement levels across
different age groups of international students. Considering that the lowest engagement levels are
reported during high school years (Marks, 2000), the lack of research conducted on student engage-
ment with school-aged international students, and the potential contradictions with findings derived
from studies of tertiary-aged students, there is clearly a need for further exploration in the context
of the growing numbers of international schools worldwide.
Resilience
Along with wellbeing and student engagement, resilience is another growing field of interest
within the international education sector (Kim et al., 2019; Sabouripour and Roslan, 2015; Wang,
2008; Yoo et al., 2013). Resilience has been described as a desirable trait for international students
to possess as it can enable them to adjust to their new environment and withstand the stress they
may experience (Cheung and Yue, 2013; Sabouripour and Roslan, 2015). Resilience has been
defined in many ways, including as the ability to adjust to stressful circumstances (Masten, 2013;
Smith et al., 2008), to deal with adverse changes (Bene et al., 2013, Southwick et al., 2014), and to
adapt in the face of trauma, adversity or significant sources of stress (American Psychological
Association, 2012). Resilient people have been described as having control over their destiny and
being able to make the best of whatever situation they are in (Feldmen, 2011). Since resilience has
been described as a construct to help people to manage their life during periods of adjustment
(Amat et al., 2014), it is an important concept to apply to international students given the changes
they experience when relocating to a new country.
Research on resilience in international students has examined the effect resilience may have on
adjustment, and has reported consistently that international students with high levels of resilience
have fewer adjustment issues. For example, Wang (2008) found a negative correlation between
resilience characteristics and adjustment problems in a study of 209 tertiary-aged international
students in the United States. In line with this finding, research by Amat et al. (2014) concluded
that international students with high resilience levels would be better able to find ways to meet the
challenges they experience and to continue with a purposeful life. Resilience research has also
reported a significant association with both wellbeing and student engagement. In a study of 291
international tertiary-aged students, Sabouripour and Roslan (2015) reported that optimism meas-
ured by the Life Orientation Test Revised was a significant predictor of resilience. As optimism has
been found to be linked to psychological wellbeing when confronted with adversity (Carver and
Connor-Smith, 2010), this research provides support for the suggestion of positive association
between wellbeing and resilience. Further support comes from a study (Hjemdal et al., 2011) that
found that higher resilience levels predicted lower levels of depression, anxiety and stress in
Norwegian high school students. Research also identifies an association between resilience and
student engagement, with students who report low levels of resilience also reporting low levels of
campus connection (e.g., emotional engagement) in a sample of international tertiary-aged stu-
dents (Pidgeon et al., 2014).
Taken together, these findings derived from studies with tertiary-aged students (Hjemdal et al.,
2011; Pidgeon et al., 2014; Sabouripour and Roslan, 2015) highlight the importance of resilience
for international students in adjusting to their new environment, as well as highlighting its associa-
tion with wellbeing and student engagement. However, little research attention has been paid to
resilience in international students at a school-aged level. With the continual state of flux reported
in international schools as a result of mobility (Whyte, 2016), the capacity of such students to
adjust to change is linked to the promoting of wellbeing and sustaining engagement in a new
school setting. Further understanding of resilience levels in international students in the school
sector, and any association there may be between their resilience levels and either wellbeing or
student engagement, can then be used to inform educators about ways to better support this grow-
ing population of students.
The Current Study

In order to contribute to the limited research conducted to date with school-aged international stu-
dents, despite rapid growth in the school sector, the present study explores wellbeing, student
engagement and resilience in early-adolescent international students as well as the effects of indi-
vidual characteristics and mobility factors on these critical variables. In particular, this study exam-
ines the effects of age and gender. In the context of the effect of gender, research on wellbeing of
tertiary-aged international students presents inconsistent findings, with some studies reporting
higher levels of psychological distress in females (e.g., Nahidi, 2014; Rosenthal et al., 2008) while
others report no gender difference (e.g., Poyrazli et al., 2004; Yeh and Inose, 2003). In addition, the
effect of age has not been considered in studies conducted with tertiary-aged students. In relation
to the effect of mobility, research with tertiary-aged students consistently reports lowered levels of
McKeering et al. 75
wellbeing during the early period of their arrival into the host country and suggests such students
may require more intensive support during this period (Cemalcilar and Falbo, 2008; Wilton and
Constantine, 2003). It might also be expected that early-adolescent international school students
would experience lower wellbeing levels if they have recently adjusted to a new school or external
environment. To develop a better understanding of possible challenges for these school students,
the present study specifically addresses the following research questions:
1. What are the associations between measures of wellbeing, student engagement, and resil-
ience in early-adolescent international school students?
2. What effect do age, gender, and mobility factors have on wellbeing, student engagement,
and resilience in early-adolescent international school students?
On the basis of previous research findings conducted with international tertiary-aged students, a
significant positive association was expected between wellbeing, student engagement and resil-
ience constructs, along with significant effects of mobility on these constructs. As little research
has been conducted on the effects of age and gender across these constructs, the present study also
explores the effects of these individual characteristics.
Methodology
Participants
Students from years six to eight at an international school in Singapore (K-12) were invited to
participate in the study. Singapore was identified as a suitable country for the research as interna-
tional schools rely heavily on expatriate enrolment due to restrictions on attendance by local stu-
dents (Ministry of Education Singapore, 2018), and it is one of the most business-friendly countries
in the world, ensuring an ongoing expatriate presence (Keeling, 2018). Additionally, international
schools in Singapore have reported substantial growth in enrolment numbers with a compound
annual growth rate of 11% between 2012 and 2018 (Keeling, 2018). This ensured that the early-
adolescent international students in the study would be attending a school with high student mobil-
ity and might experience a period of adjustment as they commence their education in a new country.
The independent privately-owned school in question offered both the International Baccalaureate
Diploma and the national curriculum of England at the time of this study, and had approximately
2,000 students enrolled across all year levels.
One hundred and eighty-six students participated in the study, with analysis conducted on data
from 178 students (108 females, 70 males) aged between 10 and 14 years old. Eight students were
removed from the study due to missing data as outlined in the data analysis section below. Students’
age, gender, period of time residing in the country, period of time attending the school, and number
of countries they had resided in, were also analysed (Table 1). The students were of 24 different
nationalities, with 26 students (14.6%) identifying as having dual nationality. The highest
percentage of passports held were from the United Kingdom (40.4%), followed by Australia (18%),
China (6.2%), India (5.6%), and America and Japan (3.9% each).
Measures
The study employed a six-item demographic measure and three self-report measures, assessing
wellbeing, student engagement, and resilience. The independent variables in the study are age,
gender, and three mobility constructs. The dependent variables are five wellbeing constructs, three
Table 1. Participant frequency distribution by demographic variables (n =178).
Variable Female Male Total
Age
10 Years 26 24.1% 18 25.7% 44 24.7%
11 Years 36 33.3% 18 25.7% 54 30.3%
12 Years 24 22.2% 19 27.1% 43 24.2%
13-14 Years 22 20.4% 15 21.4% 37 20.8%
Time in Country
0 - 2 Years 30 27.8% 26 37.1% 56 31.5%
3 - 4 Years 56 51.9% 25 35.7% 81 45.5%
5 Years + 22 20.4% 19 27.1% 41 23.0%
Time at School
6 - 12 Months 38 35.2% 26 37.1% 64 36.0%
2 Years 21 19.4% 18 25.7% 39 21.9%
3 Years 22 20.4% 11 15.7% 33 18.5%
4 Years + 27 25.0% 15 21.4% 42 23.6%
Number of Moves
1 - 2 Countries 68 63.0% 40 57.1% 108 60.7%
3 + Countries 40 37.0% 30 42.9% 70 39.3%
student engagement constructs, and one resilience construct. The participants completed one ques-
tionnaire containing all measures (Appendix A) in morning registration time at school, requiring
30 minutes under the supervision of teachers.
Wellbeing. The EPOCH Measure of Adolescent Wellbeing scale (Kern et al., 2016) was developed
to measure wellbeing in adolescents under Seligman’s PERMA (2011) model. The scale focuses on
positive adolescent characteristics that will support flourishing in adulthood. The 20-item instru-
ment comprises five sub-scales of relevance to an adolescent’s wellbeing: engagement, persever-
ance, optimism, connectedness, and happiness. Participants are required to respond on a five-point
Likert scale and scores are computed across each dimension, with higher scores indicating higher
levels of wellbeing. Past studies have reported strong reliability for the scale with adolescent stu-
dents in an Australian school (α = .94), and a US inner city school (α = .87) (Kern et al., 2016),
suggesting reliability of the scale across different cultures. Validity of the scale was examined by
determining any positive correlation between the EPOCH factors and relevant measures, with the
highest correlations reported between perseverance and academic performance, between engage-
ment and physical activity, and between happiness and physical vitality (Kern et al., 2016).
Student Engagement. The School Engagement Measure–MacArthur (SEM) was developed spe-
cifically to measure behavioural, emotional and cognitive engagement in elementary school stu-
dents (Fredricks et al., 2005). The scale was utilised in the current study as it offers a
multidimensional construct for student engagement not offered by other instruments in the field
(Fredricks and McColskey, 2012). It also offers sub-scales of measurement that differed from the
EPOCH wellbeing sub-scales utilised in the study. This was important as other student engage-
ment instruments employed within the international school sector (e.g., GL Education’s PASS,
2020) included sub-scales of measurement that overlapped between the student engagement and
wellbeing constructs measured here. In addition, the scale had been reported as a reliable instru-
ment in assessing student engagement with adolescent students in Singapore (Yusof et al., 2017).
McKeering et al. 77
The 15-item instrument has three subscales: behavioural engagement, emotional engagement and
cognitive engagement. These three constructs are all different from the engagement construct
being measured through the wellbeing instrument that examines a person’s engagement in life
(e.g. “I get completely absorbed in what I am doing”), as opposed to engagement within the
school sector (e.g. “I pay attention in class”). It uses a five-point Likert scale, with higher scores
indicating higher levels of student engagement. Acceptable reliability of the scale has been
reported on behavioural engagement (α = .77), emotional engagement (α = .86), and cognitive
engagement (α = .93) (Fredricks et al., 2005).
Construct validity for the scale was tested and shown to be positively related to engagement
indicators, including perceived teacher support (r = .35 to .49), peer support (r = .23 to .41), and
work orientation (r = .37 to .42) (Fredricks et al., 2005). An examination of the behavioural
engagement four item subscale item-total statistics indicated that Cronbach’s alpha reliability
would increase to α = .63 from α = .47 by removing item two. This item stated “When I am in
class I just act as if I am working” and was identified as possibly being too ambiguous for a sub-
stantial portion of the participant sample. Consequently, this item was removed from the scale, and
all subsequent analyses are based on the participants’ responses to the remaining three items.
Resilience. The Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) was developed to examine the ability to recover from
stress (Smith et al., 2008). The scale was utilised in the current study as it measures a person’s abil-
ity to cope with adversity and continue to thrive. It has also been reported as a reliable instrument
for measuring resilience levels in a study with international tertiary-aged students (Amat et al.,
2014). The original scale was modified slightly to make the statements more age-appropriate for
the participating students, in accordance with another study with similar aged students (Windle
et al., 2011). For example, the statement “I tend to bounce back quickly after hard times” was re-
worded to “I tend to get over hard times quickly”. The six-item construct required participants to
respond on the basis of a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5. A total score is calculated, with
higher scores indicating greater resilience. The BRS is reliable as a construct (Smith et al., 2008),
with high internal consistency reported (α = .93) on a study with tertiary-aged international stu-
dents (Amat et al., 2014). Adequate evidence of the scores’ convergent, concurrent and predictive
validity have also been documented (Rodríguez-Rey et al., 2016).
Procedure
An information session was held for students and parents at the school following ethical approval
from the Human Research Ethics Committee of the university through which the research was
being undertaken, and the school Headmaster. An invitation to participate in the study was distrib-
uted to 314 students in years six to eight at the school. A total of 186 students (59%) returned
signed parental consent and student assent forms to confirm they would participate. The question-
naire was administered to students in morning form time. It was expected to take approximately
20-30 minutes to complete, and no additional time was required. The students were informed that
their responses would be treated as confidential, and questionnaires were assigned a unique code
to ensure the privacy of participants. Students were also advised that they could withdraw from the
study at any time without consequence.
Data Analysis
All analyses were conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), version
25 (IBM Corp, 2017) and all negatively stated scale items were reverse scored in data input.
Descriptive analysis was conducted to determine central tendency and measures of dispersion for
the variables of interest across independent and dependent variable constructs. Correlational analy-
ses were performed to explore the association between each of the nine dependent variables in the
study. One–way Multivariate Analyses of Variance (MANOVA)s were run to determine the effect
of gender, age, and mobility variables on the wellbeing subscales (engagement, perseverance, opti-
mism, connectedness, happiness), and engagement subscales (behavioural, emotional, cognitive).
Separate one-way Analyses of Variance (ANOVA)s were also performed to examine gender, age,
and mobility effects on resilience.
Initial inspection of the collected data indicated that some was incomplete. Detailed examina-
tion of the pattern of missing data in the study (independent t-tests and correlations) indicated that
the missing data could be categorised as missing at random (Little and Rubin, 2002). Of the 186
students who completed the questionnaire, eight participants (4%) had more than one item missing
for each of the subscales being explored, and were eliminated from further analyses. Analysis was
undertaken of data from 178 students (108 female and 70 male) between 10-14 years old. Missing
values were replaced with the subscale mean for 11 participants who had one missing item under
any subscale (Roth, 1994).
Statistical assumptions were assessed prior to conducting analysis. Data were screened to check
for outliers and to ensure normality, multicollinearity and homogeneity of variance and covariance
assumptions were met. No univariate outliers were identified, and Shapiro-Wilk Tests (p ⩾ .05)
confirmed normality for the dependent variables at each level of the independent variable. The
assumption of multicollinearity indicated no concerns, as there were no high correlations found
between dependent variables, and collinearity statistics reported variance inflation factor (< 5) and
tolerance values (> .20) at acceptable levels. The assumption of equality of covariance was also met
for the independent variables with Box’s M Test reporting appropriate significance levels (p ⩾ .05).
Results
Correlational Analyses
Pearson bivariate correlations were conducted to assess whether there were positive associations
between wellbeing, student engagement and resilience subscales. Results are presented in Table 2,
with descriptive statistics and Cronbach’s alpha presented. Analysis indicated a weak to strong,
statistically significant association across most of the subscales measured, with all correlations
positive in direction. The strongest associations were reported between wellbeing subscales includ-
ing happiness and optimism (r =.66), happiness and connectedness (r =.73), optimism and con-
nectedness (r =.61), and optimism and perseverance (r =.66). The student engagement subscales
reported a weak to moderate, statistically significant correlation with one another as well as with
the wellbeing subscales. Resilience showed no statistically significant correlation with subscales
of the student engagement, except the student emotional engagement (r =.32). Resilience showed
a weak but significant correlation with perseverance (r =.29) and a moderate correlation with the
other wellbeing subscales.
Inferential Analysis
Wellbeing. Descriptive statistics are reported for each independent variable across the wellbeing
subscales in Table 3. Results of the one-way MANOVAs for the subscales of wellbeing are pre-
sented for each independent variable below in Table 4.
Results indicated that age groupings did have a significant multivariate effect on wellbeing.
Inspection of univariate effects indicated that age had a significant effect at alpha of .05 for
McKeering et al. 79
Table 2. Instruments’ reliability, mean, standard deviation, and correlations (n =178).
Variables α M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
1. BRS .77 18.45 3.91 – .14 .32*** .14 .19* .29*** .35*** .32*** .43***
2. SEM BEH .63 13.08 1.43 – .50*** .32*** .21** .41*** .33*** .26*** .31***
3. SEM EMO .85 22.53 3.78 – .48*** .39*** .44*** .48*** .39*** .59***
4. SEM COG .79 13.30 4.10 – .27*** .46*** .38*** .20** .27***
5. EPO ENG .87 11.66 3.73 – .47*** .54*** .55*** .58***
6. EPO PER .81 14.36 3.03 – .66*** .49*** .48***
7. EPO OPT .80 13.23 3.36 – .61*** .66***
8. EPO CON .83 15.72 3.38 – .73***
9. EPO HAP .89 15.49 3.61 –
Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. BRS = Brief Resilience Scale; SEM BEH = Behavioural Engagement,
SEM EMO = Emotional Engagement; SEM COG = Cognitive Engagement, EPO ENG = Engagement, EPO PER =
Perseverance; EPO OPT = Optimism, EPO CON = Connectedness; EPO HAP = Happiness.
Table 3. Descriptive results for wellbeing across each of the independent variables.
Variables Engagement Perseverance Optimism Connectedness Happiness
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Age 11.66 (3.73) 14.36 (3.03) 13.23 (3.36) 15.72 (3.38) 15.49 (3.61)
10 Years 12.77 (3.26) 15.15 (2.78) 14.54 (2.95) 16.75 (2.92) 16.67 (3.13)
11 Years 11.74 (3.74) 14.07 (3.01) 12.81 (3.35) 15.57 (3.20) 15.91 (3.32)
12 Years 10.72 (3.51) 14.21 (2.81) 12.98 (3.19) 15.70 (3.15) 14.47 (3.54)
13-14 Years 11.32 (4.26) 14.03 (3.50) 12.57 (3.70) 14.73 (4.11) 14.67 (4.17)
Gender 11.66 (3.73) 14.36 (3.03) 13.23 (3.36) 15.72 (3.38) 15.49 (3.61)
Male 11.49 (3.86) 14.23 (2.92) 12.94 (3.50) 15.10 (3.58) 14.82 (3.94)
Female 11.77 (3.66) 14.45 (3.10) 13.42 (3.26) 16.12 (3.19) 15.93 (3.31)
Time in country 11.66 (3.73) 14.36 (3.03) 13.23 (3.36) 15.72 (3.38) 15.49 (3.61)
0-2 Years 11.09 (3.89) 13.83 (3.47) 12.63 (3.57) 14.45 (3.77) 14.76 (3.99)
3-4 Years 11.88 (3.61) 14.56 (2.83) 13.56 (3.31) 16.53 (2.98) 16.09 (3.44)
5 + Years 12.02 (3.75) 14.71 (2.70) 13.41 (3.12) 15.85 (3.10) 15.32 (3.23)
Time at School 11.66 (3.73) 14.36 (3.03) 13.23 (3.36) 15.72 (3.38) 15.49 (3.61)
6-12 Months 10.77 (3.70) 14.13 (3.48) 13.05 (3.52) 14.89 (3.66) 14.90 (3.65)
2 Years 12.87 (4.16) 14.46 (2.92) 13.69 (3.52) 16.08 (3.45) 15.54 (3.60)
3 Years 12.15 (3.34) 14.00 (2.65) 12.71 (2.91) 15.61 (3.40) 15.30 (3.83)
4 + Years 11.52 (3.39) 14.90 (2.65) 13.49 (3.31) 16.73 (2.52) 16.50 (3.26)
Number of moves 11.66 (3.73) 14.36 (3.03) 13.23 (3.36) 15.72 (3.38) 15.49 (3.61)
1-2 countries 11.94 (3.68) 14.75 (2.94) 13.50 (3.42) 16.10 (3.22) 15.59 (3.52)
3 + countries 11.22 (3.79) 13.77 (3.08) 12.82 (3.24) 15.12 (3.55) 15.34 (3.75)
optimism and happiness. Follow up post-hoc tests indicated that 10 year olds had significantly
higher optimism levels (M = 14.54, SD = 2.95) than 13/14 year olds (M = 12.57, SD = 3.70).
However, no other age groups statistically differed. For happiness, results indicated that 10 year
olds (M = 16.67, SD = 3.13) had significantly higher scores than 12 year olds (M = 14.47, SD =
3.54). No other age groups differed.
Table 4. Significant MANOVA results for wellbeing scales across each independent variable.
Pillai’s F (df) p η2
Trace
Age .15 1.77 (15, 516) .04 .05

Engagement 2.38 (3, 174) .07 .04
Perseverance 1.37 (3, 174) .26 .02
Optimism 3.18 (3, 174) .03 .05
Connectedness 2.53 (3, 174) .06 .04
Happiness 3.81 (3, 174) .01 .06
Gender .03 1.19 (5, 172) .32 .03
Engagement 0.25 (1, 176) .62 .001
Perseverance 0.22 (1, 176) .64 .001
Optimism 0.88 (1, 176) .35 .01
Connectedness 3.98 (1, 176) .05 .02
Happiness 4.04 (1, 176) .05 .02
Time in country .09 1.62 (10, 344) .10 .05
Engagement 0.98 (2, 175) .38 .01
Perseverance 1.31 (2, 175) .27 .02
Optimism 1.34 (2, 175) .27 .02
Connectedness 6.74 (2, 175) .002 .07
Happiness 2.33 (2, 175) .10 .03
Time at School .15 1.77 (15, 516) .04 .05
Engagement 2.90 (3, 174) .04 .05
Perseverance 0.74 (3, 174) .53 .01
Optimism 0.66 (3, 174) .58 .01
Connectedness 2.78 (3, 174) .04 .05
Happiness 1.72 (3, 174) .16 .03
Number of Moves .05 1.69 (5, 172) .14 .05
Engagement 1.59 (1, 176) .21 .01
Perseverance 4.55 (1, 176) .03 .03
Optimism 1.74 (1, 176) .19 .01
Connectedness 3.62 (1, 176) .06 .02
Happiness 0.20 (1, 176) .66 .001
Time at school also had a significant multivariate effect on wellbeing. Inspection of univariate
effects indicated that time at school had a significant effect at alpha of .05 for engagement and con-
nectedness. Follow-up post-hoc tests indicated that students at the school for 6-12 months had
significantly lower levels of engagement (M = 10.77, SD = 3.70) than those at the school for 2
years (M = 12.87, SD = 4.16), although no other period of time groups differed. Similarly, stu-
dents at the school for 6-12 months had lower levels of connectedness (M = 14.89, SD = 3.66)
than did those at school for 4+ years (M = 16.73, SD = 2.52). No other age groups showed statis-
tically significant differences. Gender, time in country, and number of moves did not have a signifi-
cant multivariate effect on wellbeing.
Engagement. Descriptive statistics are reported for each independent variable across the engage-
ment subscales in Table 5. Results of the one-way MANOVAs for the subscales of engagement are
presented in Table 6. Results indicated that gender did have a significant multivariate effect on
McKeering et al. 81
Table 5. Descriptive results for engagement across each of the independent variables.
Variable Behavioural Emotional Cognitive
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Age 13.08 (1.43) 22.53 (3.78) 13.30 (4.10)

10 Years 13.20 (1.21) 23.11 (3.44) 14.91 (3.98)
11 Years 13.04 (1.45) 22.99 (4.32) 13.39 (3.85)
12 Years 12.81 (1.37) 21.62 (3.89) 12.20 (3.97)
13-14 Years 13.32 (1.67) 22.21 (3.05) 12.56 (4.28)
Gender 13.08 (1.43) 22.53 (3.78) 13.30 (4.10)
Male 12.70 (1.28) 22.37 (4.03) 13.15 (4.14)
Female 13.33 (1.47) 22.63 (3.63) 13.40 (4.09)
Time in country 13.08 (1.43) 22.53 (3.78) 13.30 (4.10)
0-2 Years 13.07 (1.44) 22.69 (3.72) 13.45 (4.30)
3-4 Years 13.12 (1.40) 22.67 (3.64) 13.47 (4.15)
5 + Years 13.02 (1.49) 22.02 (4.18) 12.78 (3.76)
Time at school 13.08 (1.43) 22.53 (3.78) 13.30 (4.10)
6-12 months 13.08 (1.43) 22.79 (3.60) 13.16 (4.16)
2 Years 13.44 (1.07) 23.10 (3.39) 14.21 (3.49)
3 Years 12.76 (1.44) 21.90 (3.63) 13.39 (4.37)
4 + Years 13.02 (1.66) 22.09 (4.47) 12.62 (4.31)
Number of moves 13.08 (1.43) 22.53 (3.78) 13.30 (4.10)
1-2 Countries 13.11 (1.47) 22.61 (3.81) 13.45 (4.09)
3 + Countries 13.04 (1.37) 22.39 (3.77) 13.08 (4.13)
Table 6. Significant MANOVA results for engagement scales across each independent variable.
Variable Pillai’s F (df) p η2

Trace
Age .09 1.81 (9, 522) .06 .03

Behavioural 0.99 (3, 174) .40 .02
Emotional 1.54 (3, 174) .21 .03
Cognitive 3.88 (3, 174) .01 .06
Gender .06 3.37 (3, 174) .02 .06
Behavioural 8.75 (1, 176) .004 .05
Emotional 0.19 (1, 176) .66 .001
Cognitive 0.16 (1, 176) .69 .001
Time in Country .01 0.23 (6, 348) .97 .004
Behavioural 0.07 (2, 175) .93 .001
Emotional 0.48 (2, 175) .62 .01
Cognitive 0.43 (2, 175) .65 .01
Time at School .04 0.86 (9, 522) .56 .02
Behavioural 1.40 (3, 174) .24 .02
Emotional 0.89 (3, 174) .45 .02
Cognitive 1.05 (3, 174) .37 .02
Number of Moves .002 0.12 (3, 174) .95 .002
Behavioural 0.10 (1, 176) .76 .001
Emotional 0.14 (1, 176) .71 .001
Cognitive 0.35 (1, 176) .56 .002
Table 7. ANOVA and descriptive results for resilience across each of the independent variables.
Variable F (df) p η2 M (SD)
Age 0.61 (3, 174) .61 .01 18.45 (3.91)

10 Years 17.94 (3.45)
11 Years 18.91 (4.12)
12 Years 18.65 (4.04)
13-14 Years 18.16 (4.00)
Gender 0.68 (1, 176) .41 .004 18.45 (3.91)
Male 18.75 (3.81)
Female 18.26 (3.97)
Time in Country 4.02 (2, 175) .02 .04 18.45 (3.91)
0 - 2 Years 17.34 (3.76)
3 - 4 Years 19.23 (3.85)
5 Years + 18.44 (3.94)
Time at School 3.01 (3, 174) .03 .05 18.45 (3.91)
6 - 12 Months 17.95 (3.84)
2 Years 17.98 (3.24)
3 Years 18.00 (3.99)
4 Years + 20.01 (4.22)
Number of Moves 0.59 (1, 176) .44 .003 18.45 (3.91)
1 - 2 Countries 18.27 (3.83)
3 + Countries 18.73 (4.04)
engagement. Inspection of univariate effects indicated that gender had a significant effect at alpha
of .05 for behavioural engagement. Follow-up post-hoc tests indicated behavioural engagement in
females (M = 13.33, SD = 1.47) was significantly higher than in males (M = 12.70, SD = 1.28).
However, there were no differences between males and females on the other two engagement sub-
scales. Age groupings, time in country, time at school, and number of moves did not have a signifi-
cant multivariate effect on engagement.
Resilience. Results of the one-way ANOVAs for resilience are presented across each independent
variable below, with significant and appropriate descriptive statistics provided in Table 7. Results
indicated that time in country did have a significant effect on resilience. Results of follow-up post-
hoc tests showed that students who had been in the country for 0-2 years had significantly lower
resilience than those who had been there for 3-4 years. However, no other time periods differed.
Time at school also had a significant effect on resilience. Results of follow-up post-hoc tests indi-
cated that those who had been at the school for 6-12 months had significantly lower resilience than
did those who had been at the school for 4+ years, although no other school time periods differed.
Age, gender, and number of moves did not have a significant effect on resilience.
Discussion
In response to the growth reported in the international school sector and the limited research con-
ducted with this specific student group, the study aimed to explore wellbeing, student engagement,
and resilience among early-adolescent international school students in one international school in
Singapore. As expected, the findings highlighted positive significant associations
McKeering et al. 83
between wellbeing, student engagement and resilience levels in early-adolescent international

school students. These findings are in line with those of past studies conducted with tertiary-aged
students that reported a significant positive association between wellbeing and student engagement
(Pietarinen et al., 2014; Trowler, 2010), wellbeing and resilience (Hjemdal et al., 2011; Sabouripour
and Roslan, 2015), and student engagement and resilience (Pidgeon et al., 2014).
The identification of the positive association between wellbeing, student engagement and resil-
ience adds to our current understanding, as little research to date has considered these variables
simultaneously in a single study. This finding provides preliminary evidence to inform those support-
ing the growing number of international school students as it may indicate that in early-adolescent
students any increased level of measure across any one of these constructs may be related to an
increased level in the other examined constructs. Higher levels of student engagement are associated
with achievement, retention, and pro-social behaviour (Trowler, 2010) as well as higher levels of
resilience in readily adapting in the face of change (Smith et al., 2008) that can enable early-adoles-
cent international students to thrive in their new environment. Understanding the interrelated nature
of these constructs and their importance will benefit not only individual students, but also interna-
tional schools and the wider communities of which they are part, although it should be noted that the
causal ordering between these constructs has not been established in the current study.
The findings also identified the demographic (e.g. age) and mobility (e.g. period of time at the
school and in the country) characteristics of early-adolescent international school students who
may be at a high risk of psychological and cross-cultural problems as they adjust to their new envi-
ronment. Early-adolescent international students who had resided in the country for less than 2
years reported lower levels of resilience than did students who had resided in the country for more
than 2 years, and students who had attended the school for less than 12 months reported lower
levels of wellbeing (e.g. engagement and connectedness subscales) than did students who had
attended the school for a longer period of time. The findings of the present study are overall in line
with those of prior longitudinal research with tertiary-aged international students that reported
lower levels of wellbeing among students who were newly arrived (e.g. within three months) in
their host country (Cemalcilar and Falbo, 2008). This would suggest that recent relocation to a new
country and/or school may negatively affect students’ general ability to thrive, regardless of the
different adjustment factors and conditions experienced by the two different age groups of stu-
dents. In addition, being newly arrived at a school was negatively associated with early-adolescent
international students feeling loved, supported and valued by others and being engaged with life.
Highlighting the different adjustment issues early-adolescent international students experience
compared to tertiary-aged international students (Farrugia, 2014), these quantitative findings may
provide complementary evidence, affirming the previous qualitative findings on the effects (e.g.
relational conflicts with peers, uncertainty) that mobility has on wellbeing in international school-
aged students (Higgins and Wigford, 2018; McLachlan, 2007; Whyte, 2016).
The effect of mobility on wellbeing is especially pertinent within the international school sector
where turnover rates of students are reported to be between 25-30% per year (ISC, 2019; Whyte,
2016). These figures suggest that each year there are large numbers of early-adolescent interna-
tional students with lower wellbeing levels moving between different international schools. The
study of Higgins and Wigford (2018), however, reported high levels of student wellbeing. The
contradictory picture may be linked to the difference in research methods as Higgins and Wigford
(2018) employed the teacher proxy report to examine their students’ wellbeing. In the current
study, the student self-report was used to examine their own wellbeing. In addition, Higgins and
Wigford (2018) examined a much broader sample of international school-aged students (e.g., pre-
school through to high school-aged students), which may suggest that student age has an effect on
the level of adjustment problems they experience as compared to the current study’s focus on
early-adolescence. It needs also to be acknowledged that the current study was undertaken in just
one international school, in Singapore, whilst Higgins and Wigford’s study (2018) covered a
broader range of international schools. Nevertheless, the discrepancy between the findings of the
current study and those of Higgins and Wigford’s report (2018) suggests that teachers and students
may have different views about student wellbeing. Future research would benefit from examining
the views of these two groups of participants in a single design, to understand to what extent there
is a discrepancy in their responses and the reasons behind this, as well as examining wellbeing of
international school-aged students across other age groups. Interestingly, the number of moves
students had made to different countries in the current study had no effect on their levels of wellbe-
ing, student engagement and resilience levels. These findings suggest that some mobility variables
may be more important to consider in examining the adjustment experience of early-adolescent
international students. Specifically, mobility variables that identify students who have recently
arrived at a new school and/or country may be pertinent in identifying a cohort of students who
may need additional support.
In addition to school and country mobility time periods, this study identified age and gender
effects on wellbeing and student engagement, highlighting potential risk factors in the adjustment
of early-adolescent international school students. Being in an older age group (12-14 years of age
compared to 10 year old students) was associated with lower levels of being optimistic and feeling
happy, and being male was associated with lower levels of behavioural engagement. These find-
ings provide support for prior research conducted by the WHO (2016) that identified lower wellbe-
ing levels in 15 year olds compared with 11 years olds. This information may be useful to
professionals working with early-adolescent international students in developing effective preven-
tion and early intervention strategies and identifying which students would most likely benefit
from additional support. By understanding the risk and protective factors in the adjustment of these
students, international educators can have a holistic view of dynamics within the classroom, and
may engage with other professionals in providing adequate student support. This is especially evi-
dent in examining the mobility variable effects on student wellbeing and resilience. These findings
indicate that early-adolescent international students experience a period of adjustment in arriving
in a new school or a new country, at which time they may present with lowered wellbeing and
resilience levels. This cohort of students might be more likely to benefit from additional support
through a school-based program.
School-based intervention programs have been identified as an effective way to offer additional
support to at-risk groups of students (Dray et al., 2014; Waters, 2011). Given this, it could be
argued that a school-based wellbeing program may be beneficial in supporting early-adolescent
international students when they first arrive at the school during their period of adjustment. Given
the interrelated association reported between wellbeing, student engagement, and resilience, it may
be expected that any increased wellbeing levels that a school-based program generates may also be
related to increased student engagement and resilience levels. This is especially relevant in inter-
national schools, given the anticipated growth in this sector (ISC, 2020), along with the growing
rise of wellbeing issues reported generally with adolescents (WHO, 2016).
Limitations of this study include its small sample size and participation by students from one
international school, which restricts the generalisability of the findings. In future research, the use
of self-report survey methods might be complemented with qualitative approaches, such as semi-
structured interviews. In addition, the inclusion of responses from parents and teachers could add
valuable knowledge to a study on early-adolescent international students and strengthen the valid-
ity of the findings. The causal ordering between wellbeing, engagement and resilience cannot be
determined in the current study, which used a cross-sectional design. Longitudinal designs would
McKeering et al. 85
be required in future research to examine this important issue, explicating the causal relationships
between these constructs.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to investigate wellbeing, student engagement and resilience con-
structs in early-adolescent international students, given the mobility and adjustment many of them
experience. In doing so, it builds on findings derived from earlier wellbeing research conducted
with tertiary-aged international students. In particular, the current findings highlight the interre-
lated association between wellbeing, student engagement and resilience, and the effect that demo-
graphic and mobility variables may have on these constructs. These findings provide valuable
information for educational professionals that relates to students who may need additional support.
Further research could explore whether school-based programs such as those that promote mind-
fulness could promote wellbeing, student engagement and resilience levels with these students.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publica-
tion of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iDs
Phillipa McKeering https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3821-2418
Clarence Ng https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2976-1762
References
Ager K, Albrecht N and Cohen M (2015) Mindfulness in schools research project: Exploring students’ per-
spectives of mindfulness. Psychology. 6(7): 896–914.
Altinyelken HK (2018) Promoting the psycho-social well-being of international students through mindful-
ness: A focus on regulating difficult emotions. Contemporary Buddhism. 19(2): 185–202.
Amat S, Subhan M, Jaafar WMW, et al. (2014) Evaluation and psychometric status of the brief resilience
scale in a sample of Malaysian international students. Asian Social Science. 10(18): 240–245.
American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) (2020) Response rates: An Overview. Available
at: https://www.aapor.org/Education-Resources/For-Researchers/Poll-Survey-FAQ/Response-Rates-
An-Overview.aspx (accessed 10 May 2020).
American Psychological Association (APA) (2012) Building your resilience. Available at: https://www.apa.
org/topics/resilience (accessed 2 February 2021).
Baxter A (2019) Engaging underrepresented international students as partners: Agency and constraints among
Rwandan students in the United States. Journal of Studies in International Education. 23(1): 106–122.
Béné C, Wood G, Newsham A, et al. (2012) Resilience: New utopia or new tyranny? Reflection about the
potentials and limits of the concept of resilience in relation to vulnerability reduction programmes.
Brighton: Central Communications, Institute of Development Studies.
Berry JW (1997) Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology. 46(1): 5-34.
Carter M and McNulty Y (2014) International school teachers’ professional development in response to the
needs of third culture kids in the classroom. In: Christiansen B (ed) Handbook of Research on Global
Business Opportunities. Hershey, PA, US: IGI Global, pp. 367–389.
Carver CS and Connor-Smith J (2010) Personality and coping. Annual Review of Psychology. 61: 679–704.
Cemalcilar Z and Falbo T (2008) A longitudinal study of the adaptation of international students in the United
States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 39(6): 799–804.
Cheung C and Yue XD (2013) Sustaining resilience through local connectedness among sojourn students.
Social Indicators Research 111(3): 785–800.
Cockburn L (2002) Children and young people living in changing worlds: The process of assessing and
understanding the ‘Third culture kid’. School Psychology International. 23(4): 475–485.
Connell JP and Wellborn JG (1991) Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of
self-system processes. In: Gunnar M and Sroufe LA (eds) Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology, 23.
Hillsdale, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., pp. 43–77.
Crockett L, Petersen A, Graber J, et al., (1989) School transitions and adjustment during early adolescence.
Journal of Early Adolescence. 9(3): 181-210.
Deci E and Ryan R (2008) Hedonia, eudaimonia, and well-Being: An introduction. Journal of Happiness
Studies. 9(1): 1–11.
Dray J, Bowman J, Freund M, et al. (2014) Improving adolescent mental health and resilience through a resil-
ience-based intervention in schools: Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 15(1): 289.
Elliot DL, Reid K and Baumfield V (2016) Beyond the amusement, puzzlement and challenges: An enquiry
into international students’ academic acculturation. Studies in Higher Education. 41(12): 2198–2217.
Farrugia CA (2014) Charting new pathways to higher education: International secondary students in the
United States. Center for Academic Mobility Research, Institute of International Education. Available
at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.432.9903&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed
12 August 2018).
Feldman RS (2011) Understanding psychology (10th ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill.
Finn JD (1989) Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research. 59(2): 117–142.
Forbes-Mewett H and Sawyer AM (2011) Mental health issues amongst international students in Australia:
Perspectives from professionals at the coal-face. In: Threadgold S and Kirby E (eds) The Annual
Conference of The Australian Sociological Association 2011: Local Lives/Global Networks. Conference
Proceedings. Refereed Papers. Australia: The Australian Sociological Association (TASA), pp. 1–19.
Fredricks JA and McColskey W (2012) The measurement of student engagement: A comparative analysis
of various methods and student self-report instruments. In: SL Christenson, Reschly AL and C Wylie
(eds) Handbook of research on student engagement. New York: Springer Science + Business Media,
pp. 763–782.
Fredricks JA, Blumenfeld PC and Paris AH (2004) School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the
evidence. Review of Educational Research. 74(1): 59–109.
Fredricks JA, Blumenfeld PC, Friedel J, et al. (2005) School engagement. In: Moore KA and Lippman LH
(eds) What do children need to flourish: Conceptualizing and measuring indicators of positive develop-
ment. New York, NY, US: Springer Science + Business Media, pp. 305–321.
Gillies WD (1998) Children on the move: Third culture kids. Childhood Education. 75(1): 36–38.
GL Education (2020) Pupil attitudes to self and school (PASS). Available at: https://www.gl-education.com/
media/352034/gl2656-international-guide-to-reports-2020.pdf (Accessed 4 February 2020).
Glass CR, Buus S and Braskamp LA (2013) Uneven experiences: What’s missing and what matters for
today's international students. Chicago: Global Perspective Institute, Inc.
Green W (2019) Engaging students in international education: Rethinking student engagement in a globalized
world. Journal of Studies in International Education. 23(1): 3–9.
Grimshaw T and Sears C (2008) ‘Where am I from?’ ‘Where do I belong?’ Journal of Research in International
Education. 7(3): 259–278.
Hannaford J (2016) Digital worlds as sites of belonging for third culture kids: A new literacies perspective.
Journal of Research in International Education. 15(3): 253-265.
Hayden M (2011) Transnational spaces of education: the growth of the international school sector.
Globalisation, Societies and Education. 9(2): 211-224.
Hayden M and Thompson J (2017) International Schools: some issues for the future. Journal of the Association
for the Advancement of International Education. 44(123): 1-7.
McKeering et al. 87
Herbers J, Reynolds A and Chen C (2013) School mobility and developmental outcomes in young adulthood.
Development and Psychopathology. 25(2): 501–515.
Higgins A and Wigford A (2018) Wellbeing in international schools: The 2018 report. Available at: http://
www.iscresearch.com (accessed 5 June 2019).
Hilario CT, Vo DX, Johnson JL, et al. (2014) Acculturation, gender, and mental health of southeast Asian
immigrant youth in Canada. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health. 16(6): 1121–1129.
Hjemdal O, Vogel PA, Solem S, et al. (2011) The relationship between resilience and levels of anxiety,
depression, and obsessive–compulsive symptoms in adolescents. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy.
18(4), 314-321.
IBM Corp (2017) IBM SPSS Statistics for Macintosh, Version 25.0 [Computer software]. Armonk, NY: IBM
Corp.
ISC (2019) ISC research global opportunities report 2019. Available at: http://www.iscresearch.com
(Accessed 22 May 2019).
ISC (2020) ISC research global opportunities report 2020. Available at: http://www.iscresearch.com/data
(accessed 2 February 2021).
Keeling A (2018) Investment in international schools: An expanding market. Available at: https://www.iscre-
search.com/uploaded/images/Publicity/EIFeb18_Investment_in_international_schools_an_expanding_
market.pdf (accessed 8 February 2021).
Kern ML, Benson L, Steinberg EA, et al. (2016) The EPOCH measure of adolescent well-being. Psychological
Assessment. 28(5): 586–597.
Kim HJ and Okazaki S (2013) Navigating the cultural transition alone: Psychosocial adjustment of Korean
early study abroad students. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology. 20(2): 244–253.
Kim Y, Maleku A, Lemieux C, et al. (2019) Behavioral health risk and resilience among international stu-
dents in the United States: A study of socio-demographic differences. Journal of International Students.
9(1), 282-305.
Korobova N and Starobin SS (2015) A comparative study of student engagement, satisfaction, and academic
success among international and American students. Journal of International Students. 5(1): 72–85.
Langenkamp A (2014) Effects of school mobility on adolescent social ties and academic adjustment. Youth
and Society. 48(6): 810-833.
Lee J, Koeske GF and Sales E (2004) Social support buffering of acculturative stress: A study of mental health
symptoms among Korean international students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 28(5):
399–414.
Lessle A, Haslberger A and Brewster C (2020) Expatriate Adjustment. In: Bonache J, Brewster C and Froese
F (eds) Global Mobility and the Management of Expatriates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
pp. 57-79.
Liddle I and Carter G (2015) Emotional and psychological well-being in children: The development and vali-
dation of the Stirling Children’s Well-being Scale. Educational Psychology in Practice. 31(2): 174–185.
Lijadi A (2018) “I am not weird, I am third culture kids”: Identifying enabling modalities for place identity
construction among high mobility populations. Journal of Identity and Migration Studies. 12(2): 2-24.
Lijadi A and Van Schalkwyk G (2016) The international schools are not so international after all: The edu-
cational experiences of third culture kids. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology.
6(1): 50-61.
Lippman LC and Rivers AM (2008) Assessing school engagement: A guide for out-of- school time program
practitioners. Available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8d9f/6e97a152d6d88d514ee1cb70791c723
9ef93.pdf (accessed 23 July 2019).
Little RJA and Rubin DB (2002) Statistical analysis with missing data (2nd ed). New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
Liu Y and Lu Z (2011) The Chinese high school student’s stress in the school and academic achievement.
Educational Psychology. 31(1): 27–35.
Marks HM (2000) Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary, middle, and high
school years. American Educational Research Journal. 37(1), 153–184.
Masten AS (2013) Risk and resilience in development. In: Zelazo PD (ed) The Oxford handbook of
Developmental Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 579-607.
McKillop-Ostrom A (2000) Student mobility and the international curriculum. In: Hayden M and Thompson
J (eds) International Schools and International Education. London: Kogan Page Limited, pp. 73–84.
McLachlan DA (2007) Global nomads in an international school: Families in transition. Journal of Research
in International Education. 6(2): 233–249.
Metro-Roland M (2018) Community, identity, and international student engagement. Journal of International
Students. 8(3): 1408–1421.
Ministry of Education, Singapore (2018) Admissions. Available at: https://www.moe.gov.sg/admissions/
returning-singaporeans/other-information (accessed 4 April 2019).
Mori S (2000) Addressing the mental health concerns of international students. Journal of Counseling &
Development. 78(2): 137–144.
Nahidi S (2014) Mental health and psychological help-seeking or Iranian international students at UNSW
Australia. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Norrish JM, Williams P, O’Connor M, et al. (2013) An applied framework for positive education. International
Journal of Wellbeing. 3(2): 147–161.
Pidgeon AM, Rowe N, Stapleton PB, et al. (2014) Examining characteristics of resilience among university
students: An international study. Open Journal of Social Sciences. 2(11): 14–22.
Pietarinen J, Soini T and Pyhältö K (2014) Students’ emotional and cognitive engagement as the determinants
of well-being and achievement in school. International Journal of Educational Research. 67: 40–51.
Popadiuk NE (2009) Unaccompanied Asian secondary students in Canada. International Journal for the
Advancement of Counselling. 31(4): 229–243.
Poyrazli S, Kavanaugh PR, Baker A, et al. (2004) Social support and demographic correlates of acculturative
stress in international students. Journal of College Counselling. 7(1): 73–82.
Rhein D (2018) International university students in Thailand: Shifting from universalistic models to an ethnic-
ity matters approach. Journal of Research in International Education. 17(3): 286–308.
Rodríguez-Rey R, Alonso-Tapia J and Hernansaiz-Garrido H (2016) Reliability and validity of the Brief
Resilience Scale (BRS) Spanish Version. Psychological Assessment. 28(5): e101–e110.
Roscoe LJ (2009) Wellness: A review of theory and measurement for counselors. Journal of Counselling and
Development. 87(2): 216–226.
Rosenthal DA, Russell J and Thomson G (2008) The health and wellbeing of international students at an
Australian university. Higher Education. 55(1): 51–67.
Roth PL (1994) Missing data: A conceptual review for applied psychologists. Personnel Psychology. 47(3):
537–560.
Sabouripour F and Roslan SB (2015) Resilience, optimism and social support among international students.
Asian Social Science. 11(15): 159–170.
Searle W and Ward C (1990) The prediction of psychological and sociocultural adjustment during cross-
cultural transitions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 14(4): 449–464.
Seligman MEP (2011) Flourish: A Visionary New Understanding of Happiness and Well- Being. New York:
Free Press.
Smith BW, Dalen J, Wiggins K, et al. (2008) The brief resilience scale: Assessing the ability to bounce back.
International Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 15(3): 194–200.
South SJ, Haynie DL and Bose S (2007) Student mobility and school dropout. Social Science Research. 36(1):
68–94.
Southwick SM, Bonanno GA, Masten AS, et al. (2014) Resilience definitions, theory, and challenges:
Interdisciplinary perspectives. European Journal of Psychotraumatology. 5.
Trinh AN and Conner L (2019) Student engagement in internationalization of the curriculum: Vietnamese
domestic students’ perspectives. Journal of Studies in International Education. 23(1): 154–170.
Trowler V (2010) Student engagement literature review. York: Higher Education Academy.
Van Horne S, Lin S, Anson M, et al. (2018). Engagement, satisfaction, and belonging of international under-
graduates at US research universities. Journal of International Students. 8(1): 351–374.
McKeering et al. 89
Wang J (2008) A study of resiliency characteristics in the adjustment of international graduate students at
American universities. Journal of Studies in International Education. 13(1): 22–45.
Ward C and Kennedy A (1994) Acculturation strategies, psychological adjustment, and sociocultural compe-
tence during cross-cultural transitions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 18(3): 329–344.
Ward C and Kennedy A (1999) The measurement of sociocultural adaptation. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations. 23(4): 659–677.
Ward C and Rana-Deuba A (1999) Acculturation and adaptation revisited. Journal of Cross- cultural
Psychology. 30(4): 422–442.
Waters L (2011) A review of school-based positive psychology interventions. The Australian Educational
and Developmental Psychologist. 28(2): 75-90.
Waters L, Barsky A and McQuaid M (2012) Positive education: A whole-school approach. International
Positive Psychology Association Newsletter 5(2). Available at: http://www.ippanetwork.org/article_
resources/newsletters/ (accessed 25 September 2018).
Wekullo C (2019) International undergraduate student engagement: Implications for higher education admin-
istrators. Journal of International Students. 9(1): 320–337.
Whyte SJ (2016) ‘Thinking about our feelings’: A pedagogical innovation centred on the skills of emo-
tional intelligence with Third culture kids (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Newcastle University,
Newcastle upon Tyne.
Wilton L and Constantine MG (2003) Length of residence, cultural adjustment difficulties, and psychologi-
cal distress symptoms in Asian and Latin American international college students. Journal of College
Counselling. 6(2): 177–187.
Windle G, Bennett KM and Noyes J (2011) A methodological review of resilience measurement scales.
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 9(1): 8.
World Health Organisation (2014) Mental Health: A State of Wellbeing. Available at: http://www.who.int/
features/factfiles/mental_health/en/ (accessed 28 September 2018).
World Health Organisation, Regional Office for Europe (2016) Adolescents’ mental well-being. Available at:
https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/303482/HBSC-No.7_factsheet_Well-being.pdf
(accessed 28 September 2018).
Yeh C and Inose M (2003) International students’ reported English fluency, social support satisfaction, and
social connectedness as predictors of acculturative stress. Counselling Psychology Quarterly. 16(1):
15–28.
Yoo M, Choi SY, Kim YM, et al. (2013) Acculturative stress, resilience, and depression among Chinese
Students in Korea. The Journal of Korean Academic Society of Nursing Education. 19(3): 320–329.
Yusof N, Ang RP and Oei TPS (2017) The psychometric properties of the school engagement measure in
adolescents in Singapore. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. 35(5): 521–533.
Zhang J and Goodson P (2011) Predictors of international students’ psychosocial adjustment to life in the
United States: A systematic review. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 35(2): 139–162.
Author biographies
Phillipa McKeering is undertaking her Doctorate of Education through Australian Catholic University. She is
a qualified mindfulness practitioner, and her research focuses on the promotion and delivery of wellbeing
programs to international school students.
Dr Yoon-Suk Hwang is an adjunct researcher at the Centre for Disability Studies, the University of Sydney.
Her research interests include applications of mindfulness-based training to individuals with social, emo-
tional, behavioural, and learning difficulties, and the use of mindfulness-based positive behaviour support
(MBPBS) as a systems-change program in agencies serving people with different abilities.
Professor Clarence Ng is Research Director of the ‘learning and learner’ concentration at the Institute for
Learning Sciences and Teacher Education, Australian Catholic University. His current research, funded by
the Australian Research Council, focuses on promoting literacy engagement and learning among disadvan-
taged students from low income families.
Appendix A. Questionnaire with all measures

Dear Student,
Many thanks for your time in completing the questionnaire. Please answer each question or state-
ment as best you can and check that you have not missed any sections.
Student Name: _________________________ Date____________
Part A: Personal details
1. Age: _____________
2. Gender: Male Female
3. Nationality: (on your passport, if dual passports please record both):__________________
______________________________
4. How long have you resided in Singapore?
Less than a year 1-2 years 3-4 years 5-6 years More than 6 years
5. How long have you attended this school?
6 months 1 year 2 years 3 years More than 3 years
6. How many different countries have you lived in?
1 2 3 4 5 or more
Please circle the statement that best describes your experience:
I tend to get over hard times Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
quickly.
I have a hard time coping Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
through stressful events.
It does not take me long to Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
recover from a stressful event.
It is hard for me to return to Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
normal when something bad
happens.
I usually come through difficult Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
times with little trouble.
I tend to take a long time to get Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
over problems in my life.
McKeering et al. 91
Here are some statements or descriptions about how you might be feeling at school at the moment.
For each one, please circle the number which best describes your thoughts and feelings; there are
no right or wrong answers.
Statements Never On occasion Some of the time Most of the time All of the time
I pay attention in class 1 2 3 4 5

When I am in class I just 1 2 3 4 5
act as if I am working
I follow the rules at school 1 2 3 4 5
I get in trouble at school 1 2 3 4 5
I feel happy in school 1 2 3 4 5
I feel bored in school 1 2 3 4 5
I feel excited by the work 1 2 3 4 5
at school
I like being at school 1 2 3 4 5
I am interested in the work 1 2 3 4 5
at school
My classroom is a fun place 1 2 3 4 5
to be
When I read a book, I ask 1 2 3 4 5
myself questions to make
sure I understand
I study at home even when 1 2 3 4 5
I don’t have a test
I try to watch TV shows 1 2 3 4 5
about things we are doing
in school
I check my schoolwork for 1 2 3 4 5
mistakes
I read extra books to learn 1 2 3 4 5
more about things we do
in school
Here are some statements or descriptions about how you might be feeling generally at the
moment. Please read each of the statements and circle the response which best describes your
thoughts and feelings. Please be honest – there are no right or wrong answers.
When something good happens Almost never Sometimes Often Very Often Almost always
to me, I have people who I like to
share the good news with.
I finish whatever I begin. Almost never Sometimes Often Very often Almost always
I am optimistic about my future. Almost never Sometimes Often Very often Almost always
I feel happy. Almost never Sometimes Often Very often Almost always
When I do an activity, I enjoy it so Almost never Sometimes Often Very often Almost always
much that I lose track of time.
I have a lot of fun. Almost never Sometimes Often Very often Almost always
I get completely absorbed in what Almost never Sometimes Often Very often Almost always
I am doing.
I love life. Almost never Sometimes Often Very often Almost always
I keep at my schoolwork until I am Almost never Sometimes Often Very often Almost always
done with it.
When I have a problem, I have Almost never Sometimes Often Very often Almost always
someone who will be there for me.
I get so involved in activities that I Almost never Sometimes Often Very often Almost always
forget about everything else.
When I am learning something Not at all like A little like Somewhat Mostly like Very much
new, I lose track of how much me me like me me like me
time has passed.
In uncertain times, I expect the Not at all like A little like Somewhat Mostly like Very much
best. me me like me me like me
There are people in my life who Not at all like A little like Somewhat Mostly like Very much
really care about me. me me like me me like me
I think good things are going to Not at all like A little like Somewhat Mostly like Very much
happen to me. me me like me me like me
I have friends that I really care Not at all like A little like Somewhat Mostly like Very much
about. me me like me me like me
Once I make a plan to get Not at all like A little like Somewhat Mostly like Very much
something done, I stick to it. me me like me me like me
I believe that things will work out, Not at all like A little like Somewhat Mostly like Very much
no matter how difficult they seem. me me like me me like me
I am a hard worker. Not at all like A little like Somewhat Mostly like Very much
me me like me me like me
I am a cheerful person. Not at all like A little like Somewhat Mostly like Very much
me me like me me like me
Thank you for your time and effort in completing this questionnaire. Your contribution is
valuable.

A Study Into Wellbeing, Student

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Study Into Wellbeing, Student

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Study Into Wellbeing, Student

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1006650

A study into wellbeing, student

Phillipa McKeering , Yoon-Suk Hwang

and offering an internationally-recognised curriculum, compared to tertiary-aged students who may

The Current Study

Table 1. Participant frequency distribution by demographic variables (n =178).

Variable Female Male Total

Table 2. Instruments’ reliability, mean, standard deviation, and correlations (n =178).

Variables Engagement Perseverance Optimism Connectedness Happiness

M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

Age .15 1.77 (15, 516) .04 .05

Variable Behavioural Emotional Cognitive

M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

Age 13.08 (1.43) 22.53 (3.78) 13.30 (4.10)

Variable Pillai’s F (df) p η2

Age .09 1.81 (9, 522) .06 .03

Variable F (df) p η2 M (SD)

Age 0.61 (3, 174) .61 .01 18.45 (3.91)

between wellbeing, student engagement and resilience levels in early-adolescent international

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Appendix A. Questionnaire with all measures

Please circle the statement that best describes your experience:

I pay attention in class 1 2 3 4 5

You might also like