The Experiences of International Students Studying in the UK during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Abstract

This study investigated the experiences of international students studying in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic by examining how the pandemic impacted their academic, psychological, and sociocultural adaptation. An online survey of 343 international students measured the impact of a range of pandemic-related stressors, including loneliness, and host university support on adaptation outcomes. The results indicated that the pandemic exerted an adverse effect on all adaptation domains. Loneliness emerged as a significant negative predictor of adaptation outcomes, and students who had experienced pandemic-related stressors reported lower adaptation than peers who had not been exposed to these stressors. Group comparisons showed that students who had been offered online social activities, guidance on adapting to remote learning, guidance on housing issues, and advice on how to deal with COVID-related discrimination adapted better than peers who had not been provided with these support measures. We discuss implications for future emergency response strategies in higher education, in particular for student support.

1. Introduction

There are currently more than six million internationally mobile students¹ in the world, a number that has more than doubled since 2007 [1]. These individuals were among the first to acutely feel the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic [2], as countries closed their borders, and universities moved abruptly to online learning. Being “internationally mobile” in higher education (HE) took on a new meaning for students in the academic years 2019–2020 and 2020–2021, with many British universities implementing COVID-19 concessions permitting distance learning from overseas for programmes which would have usually been delivered in-person [3].²

Many international students were confined to their accommodation, at least for part of their studies, with few opportunities to benefit from in-person interactions with university staff or their peers. With mobility and social mixing curtailed, international students were also denied valuable intercultural experiences inherent to study abroad such as experiencing local life and culture through travel and extra-curricular activities.

A small but burgeoning body of social science research has now begun to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the experiences of international students (e.g. [5]), a group which has largely been overlooked in the global response to the pandemic [6] with the initial focus, rightly so, on medical research and vaccine roll-outs. Emerging research studies and academic commentaries suggest that international students across the globe have been adversely affected, and in some cases marginalized, as a result of the pandemic [7]. Efforts to curb the spread of the virus appear to have hit this group disproportionally hard [8]. Restrictions on travel, social distancing measures, and repeated national lockdowns left many international students isolated and with little access to support in situ [9, 10].

Among the many difficulties faced by international students during the pandemic, financial hardship has been well documented both in the academic literature and in mainstream media. Despite measures put in place by several national governments to mitigate the financial impact of the pandemic [11], many international students have been struggling to pay rent and meet their basic needs [7, 12], with hundreds turning to food banks during lockdowns once part-time jobs were no longer available to support them [13, 14], and some even losing access to housing [2]. Additionally, students from Asian backgrounds, especially those from China, have been reporting xenophobic discrimination, scapegoating, as well as physical and verbal assaults [9, 15, 16, 17].

Research also suggests that the pandemic has had a negative impact on international students’ mental health and wellbeing [18], with many reporting feelings of stress, hopelessness, anxiety, sleep problems, loneliness and depression [6, 12, 19, 20]. COVID-19 related stressors such as uncertainty about future academic plans, economic pressure, and health concerns have been found to be associated with negative mental health outcomes [21], and there is also some evidence that international students experienced greater degrees of anxiety during the pandemic than did their domestic peers [22] or the wider population [19, 23]. Emerging research also suggests that the mental health impact of the pandemic was greater for students who remained abroad during the pandemic compared to those who returned home [6]. Being physically distanced from both their host campus environment and their support system in their home countries meant that international students likely found it more difficult to maintain good mental wellbeing than those studying in familiar environments [9]. Worries about their own physical health and that of family and friends may have exacerbated this distress further [7]. There is also a plethora of evidence that a lack of social connectedness due to remote learning may negatively affect academic success [24, 25].

What is strikingly absent from the literature to date are studies on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the adaptation of internationally mobile groups and individuals, a focus increasingly called for by intercultural scholars [26]. There is a fairly well-established body of research on international student adaptation (see [27] for a recent review), but there has been little systematic empirical research on the effects of the coronavirus pandemic on adaptation with the exception of some studies on the impact of online learning on academic adaptation (e.g. [10]). The current project is one of the first studies with a specific focus on the impact of the pandemic on international students’ adaptation.

In the international student literature, ‘adaptation’ is typically conceptualized in academic, psychological and sociocultural terms [28, 29]. Adaptation involves a process of stress and adjustment, typically termed “acculturative stress” which, rather than focusing on solely negative aspects (i.e. “culture shock”), can be viewed as a period of “highs and lows” [30]. Although an educational sojourn abroad is often conceptualized as a positive and transformative experience (e.g. [31]), there is ample research evidence that international students may experience a range of adaptation challenges as they transition into a new academic and sociocultural environment. This can include language and communication issues [32], difficulties in forming social ties, especially with members of the host community [33, 34], feelings of loneliness [35], as well as academic difficulties associated with language limitations, academic content and new ways of learning [36]. It is likely that these challenges were further exacerbated by the ‘high stress context’ [37] of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the academic, psychological and sociocultural adaptation of international students undertaking degree programmes at universities in the United Kingdom (UK). The UK provided an interesting context – it is still among the most popular destination countries for international students globally [1], with 605,130 non-UK students studying at UK universities in 2020–2021 [38], but it is also among the countries worst affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, with more than 20 million confirmed positive cases and more than 160,000 deaths related to the virus as of March 2022 [39]. This study was guided by the following research questions:

1. How has the COVID-19 pandemic affected international students’ academic, psychological and sociocultural adaptation?

2. What was the role of host university support in this process?

This study is grounded in a conceptual model of international student adjustment and adaptation, where adaptation is viewed as three interrelated processes ([27], Figure 1). The model builds on Ward et al.’s [29] distinction between psychological and sociocultural adaptation, where psychological adaptation refers to affective aspects such as psychological wellbeing and satisfaction with life, and sociocultural adaptation describes behaviors associated with effective performance in the host environment such as carrying out daily tasks. Additionally, international students need to adjust to the demands of academic study and a new national HE system – a phenomenon commonly referred to as academic adaptation [27]. Psychological adaptation is approached here from a stress and coping perspective which highlights “acculturative stress” [30] associated with significant life events, such as an international student sojourn, and the coping strategies required to manage these events [29]. Academic and sociocultural adaptation are viewed here through a culture-learning and social skills lens, which emphasizes the importance of acquiring culturally relevant skills and behaviors to enable the sojourner to function effectively and confidently in the new environment [40].

Figure 1.

Conceptualisation of international student adaptation.

2. Method

2.1 Participants and procedure

Data were collected through a self-report online survey of international students undertaking degree programmes at UK universities in the academic year 2020–2021. The survey was ‘live’ for one month (mid-April to mid-May 2021). The survey was designed using Jisc Online Surveys (formerly Bristol Online Survey), and a link was distributed through the researchers’ own professional networks in the UK and publicized through various university channels (e.g. social media feeds, university webpages, internal SharePoint). In total, 348 survey responses were received. Of these, five were discarded as the respondents did not enter any data other than demographic information. The final sample was therefore 343. The majority of respondents (91%) were between 18 and 34 years of age, and more than two-thirds (68%) were female. The most common country of origin was the People’s Republic of China (33%). The sample was linguistically diverse with more than 50 first languages reported by the respondents, and a large majority (86%) were second language speakers of English. Most respondents were postgraduate (PG) students, undertaking either PG taught programmes³; e.g. MA, MSc (41%) or PG research programmes; e.g. PhD, MPhil (27%). Thirty percent were enrolled in undergraduate degrees. At the time of data collection, the majority of survey respondents (70%) were residing in the UK.

2.2 Survey measures

The survey measured a range of factors related to the pandemic, labeled here as ‘impact measures’, alongside several ‘outcome measures’ related to academic, psychological and sociocultural adaptation (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Overview of survey measures.

2.2.1 Impact measures

Levels of loneliness were assessed using the 6-item shortened version of the De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale [41]. The scale included items on social loneliness (e.g., ‘There are enough people that I feel close to’) and emotional loneliness (e.g., ‘I experience a general sense of emptiness’), and an overall loneliess score was computed. Respondents were asked how often they experienced the feeling in each item and rated their answers from 1 (very rarely or never) to 5 (very often or always). Cronbach’s alpha scores for this scale have previously indicated high internal consistency across samples from multiple countries [42].

Respondents were asked to select from a multiple-choice list of pandemic-related stressors (Table 1, below). For the purpose of analysis, responses were divided into two groups for each stressor: the ‘yes’ group (those who reported having experienced the stressor) and the ‘no’ group (those who did not report having experienced the stressor).

	Item	% of respondents reporting this experience
1	Worries about friends, family or partners	71.4
2	Fear of contracting Covid-19	64.4
3	Loneliness	57.7
4	Anxiety	57.4
5	Changes to your normal sleep pattern	51.0
6	Personal financial loss	45.5
7	Fear of giving Covid-19 to someone else	39.1
8	Discrimination from other people	24.2
9	Accommodation/housing-related problems	22.4
10	Visa or immigration-related problems	22.4
11	Not having enough basic supplies	13.7
12	Being diagnosed with Covid-19	8.7

Table 1.

Pandemic-related stressors and frequencies of responses.

Respondents were asked to indicate on a multiple-choice list which university support services they had been offered during the pandemic (Table 2, below). Responses were divided into two groups for each stressor: the ‘yes’ group (those who reported having been offered a type of support) and the ‘no’ group (those who did not report having been offered a type of support).

	Item	% of respondents reporting this support
1	Access to online social activities/events	75.2
2	Guidance on adapting to remote learning	66.5
3	Guidance on Covid-related restrictions	57.1
4	University wellbeing support (e.g. counseling)	51.3
5	Guidance on accessing Covid-related medical care	39.4
6	Guidance on visa/immigration issues	28.6
7	Guidance on housing/accommodation	27.1
8	Financial assistance from your university	25.1
9	Guidance on dealing with Covid-related discrimination	18.1
10	Guidance on reporting Covid-related discrimination	15.2

Table 2.

University support items and frequencies of responses.

2.2.2 Outcome measures

To measure academic adaptation, the Academic Adjustment Scale (AAS) developed by Anderson et al. [43] was used. The 9-item scale included items for academic lifestyle (e.g., ‘I am enjoying the lifestyle of being a university student.’), academic achievement (e.g., ‘I am satisfied with the level of my academic performance to date.’) and academic motivation (e.g., ‘The reason I am studying is to lead to a better lifestyle.’). Respondents rated their answers on a scale from 1 (never or very rarely applies to me) to 5 (very often or always applies to me). The AAS has previously demonstrated high internal consistency in student sojourner samples [43].

Two psychological adaptation measures were included in the survey. The first measured respondents’ satisfaction with life using the 5-item Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS, [44]), a common measure of cognitive judgment of life satisfaction [45]. Example items include ‘In most ways my life is close to my ideal’ and ‘The conditions of my life are excellent’. Respondents rated their level of agreement or disagreement on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). An overall satisfaction with life score was computed (see [46]). The second measure was the 12-item Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (SPANE), aimed at measuring subjective feelings of well-being and ill-being [47]. Respondents were provided with a list of six positive and six negative feelings, and asked to rate on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (very rarely or never) to 5 (very often or always), how frequently they had experienced each feeling over the past four weeks. Scores for the positive (SPANE-P) and negative (SPANE-N) subscales were computed separately, and an Affect Balance score (SPANE-AB) was calculated by subtracting the negative score from the positive one [47].

To measure sociocultural adaptation, Wilson et al. [48] 11-item Revised Sociocultural Adaptation Scale (SCAS-R) was used. It included items on social interaction (e.g., ‘Building and maintaining relationships’), community engagement (e.g., ‘Attending or participating in community activities’), and ecological adaptability (e.g., ‘Finding my way around’). Respondents rated their level of competence for each item on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all competent) to 5 (extremely competent). The scale showed strong psychometric properties in a previous international student sample [48].

2.3 Data analysis

The survey data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Alongside descriptive statistics, Pearson’s correlations were computed to explore relationships between the impact and outcome measures, and independent samples t-tests with a 95% confidence interval for the mean difference were carried out to examine group differences for the pandemic stressors and university support items. Where the Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances was statistically significant, the Welch t-test statistic is reported below. Before any parametric tests were carried out the data were visually inspected for normality using quantile-quantile (Q-Q) plots, an effective way of checking for normality of the data [49]. Data analysis tested the following hypotheses:

• H1a: Degree of loneliness will be negatively associated with international students’ academic, psychological, and sociocultural adaptation.

• H1b: Degree of loneliness will negatively predict international students’ academic, psychological, and sociocultural adaptation.

• H2: Students who experienced pandemic-related stressors will report lower adaptation than their peers who did not experience these stressors.

• H3: Students who were offered host university support will report higher adaptation than their peers who were not offered support.

3. Results

3.1 Descriptive statistics

Table 3 presents means, standard deviations, and coefficient alpha reliabilities of the survey measures. The mean score for academic adaptation was slightly higher than in a previous student sojourner sample using the AAS [43]. The mean for satisfaction with life in this sample lies towards the lower end of the average score range (20–24) for the SWLS, indicating that ‘the majority of people are generally satisfied, but have some areas where they very much would like some improvement’ (cf. [46]: 1). The mean SPANE Affect Balance score was relatively low, albeit on the positive side of the range that can vary from −24 (unhappiest possible) to 24 (highest affect balance possible) [47]. Mean scores ranged from −22 to 24, indicating a wide range of wellbeing experiences. The mean score for both the positive and negative subscales sat roughly in the middle of the range of 6 (lowest possible score) to 30 (highest possible score). The mean for the positive feelings subscale was somewhat lower than in previous research on HE student samples, for example 22.05 in Diener et al. [47]. Conversely, the mean score for the negative feelings subscale was somewhat higher, 17.59 compared to 15.36 in Diener et al. [47]. The average Affect Balance score was lower than in other student samples, 2.34 compared to 6.69 in Diener et al. [47]. The mean score for loneliness was roughly at the mid-point of the scale. The mean score for sociocultural adaptation was above the mid-point of the scale but was lower than in previous international student samples; e.g. 3.61 in an international student sample in New Zealand [48] and 4.05 in an international students sample in the UK [27].

Variable	M	SD	Min	Max	α
Academic Adaptation Scale (AAS)	3.46 (N = 340)	0.63	1.67	5.00	.73
Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS)	21.03 (N = 335)	6.88	5.00	35.00	.87
SPANE-positive Subscale	19.92 (N = 334)	4.41	7.00	30.00	.85
SPANE-negative Subscale	17.59 (N = 331)	4.69	6.00	30.00	.91
SPANE Affect Balance (AB) Score	2.34 (N = 328)	8.02	−22.00	24.00	n/a
Loneliness Scale	2.97 (N = 337)	0.78	1.00	5.00	.77
Revised Sociocultural Adaptation Scale (SCAS-R)	3.42 (N = 294)	0.72	1.00	5.00	.89

Table 3.

Descriptive statistics for the survey measures.

The data indicated that students’ overall sense of wellbeing suffered during the COVID-19 pandemic, with 41% of respondents expressing concern about their mental health, and more than half reporting that they had experienced loneliness, anxiety, and changes to their normal sleep pattern (Table 1). One in four students reported feeling ‘very worried’ about the COVID-19 pandemic overall, and a majority (71%) had experienced worries about loved ones. One in four students reported having experienced Covid-related discrimination, and nearly a quarter (22%) reported having experienced problems with housing/accommodation during the pandemic. More than half of respondents reported feeling either ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ worried about travel restrictions (60%), finding work after graduation (55%) and their academic performance (52%). A considerable percentage of students were also concerned about the economic impact of the pandemic, both on them personally (48%) and on a more global level (47%). Table 2 lists all university support items include in the survey and the percentages of respondents who reported having been offered them. More than half of respondents had received access to online social activities, guidance on adapting to remote learning, information on Covid-related restrictions, and information on university wellbeing support.

3.2 Impact of Covid-related stressors on adaptation

Hypothesis 1a posited that greater loneliness would be related to lower academic, psychological and sociocultural adaptation. This hypothesis was supported. A Pearson’s correlation revealed a significant negative association between loneliness and academic adaptation (r(337) = −.32, p < .001). Moderately strong negative associations were also found between loneliness and the psychological adaptation measures. Firstly, loneliness was associated with lower subjective wellbeing as reflected in the Affect Balance score (r(328) = −.63, p < .001). Secondly, loneliness was negatively associated with satisfaction with life (r(334) = −.55, p < .001). Finally, a significant negative association was found between loneliness and sociocultural adaptation (r(294) = −.32, p < .001).

Hypothesis 1b posited that loneliness would be negatively associated with international students’ adaptation. This hypothesis was also supported. Four separate regressions were conducted with academic adaptation, satisfaction with life, subjective wellbeing, and sociocultural adaptation as outcome variables. Firstly, degree of loneliness was a significant predictor of academic adaptation (β = −.32, p < .001), and explained 10% of the variance in the data, F(1, 335) = 37.50, p < .001, R2 = .101. Secondly, loneliness was significantly correlated with satisfaction with life (β = −.55, p < .001), and explained 30% of the variability, F(1, 332) = 140.27, p < .001, R2 = .297. Thirdly, loneliness was a significant predictor for subjective wellbeing (β = −.63, p < .001), and explained 39% of the variance, F(1, 326) = 210.16, p < .001, R2 = .392. Finally, loneliness was a significant predictor for sociocultural adaptation (β = −.32, p < .001), and explained 10% of the variance, F(1, 292) = 33.50, p < .001, R2 = .103.

Hypothesis 2 posited that students who had experienced pandemic-related stressors would adapt less well than students who did not experience these stressors. This hypothesis was partially supported. Table 4 displays the descriptive statistics for the pandemic-related stressors with a significant group effect for the adaptation measures. Firstly, students who reported having experienced the following pandemic-related stressors scored significantly lower on academic adaptation than their peers who did not report having experienced these stressors: loneliness (item 3), anxiety (item 4), discrimination from other people (item 8), and accommodation/housing-related problems (item 9). Secondly, students who reported having experienced the following pandemic-related stressors reported significantly lower satisfaction with life scores compared to their peers who did not report having experienced these stressors: loneliness (item 3), anxiety (item 4), changes to your normal sleep pattern (item 5), and accommodation/housing-related problems (item 9). Thirdly, students who reported having experienced the following pandemic-related stressors provided significantly lower Affect Balance scores compared to their peers who did not report having experienced these stressors: worries about friends, family or partners (item 1), fear of getting Covid-19 (item 2), loneliness (item 3), anxiety (item 4), changes to your normal sleep pattern (item 5), fear of giving Covid-19 to someone else (item 7), and accommodation/housing-related problems (item 9). No statistically significant group differences were found for sociocultural adaptation.

Item 1: Worries about friends, family or partners
	Yes		No		t	p
	M	SD	M	SD	−2.46	.014
SPANE – AB Score	1.67 (N = 237)	7.91	4.09 (N = 91)	8.06
Item 2: Fear of getting Covid-19
	Yes		No		t	p
	M	SD	M	SD	−3.57	< .001
SPANE – AB Score	1.20 (N = 213)	7.84	4.45 (N = 115)	7.94
Item 3: Loneliness
	Yes		No		t	p
	M	SD	M	SD	−3.29	.001
AAS	3.37 (N = 197)	0.62	3.59 (N = 143)	0.61
SWLS	19.63 (N = 195)	6.76	22.98 (N = 140)	6.57	−4.53	< .001
SPANE – AB Score	0.59 (N = 189)	7.94	4.72 (N = 139)	7.52	−4.76	< .001
Item 4: Anxiety
	Yes		No		t	p
	M	SD	M	SD
AAS	3.39 (N = 197)	0.63	3.56 (N = 143)	0.61	−2.44	.015
SWLS	19.64 (N = 195)	6.83	22.96 (N = 140)	6.48	−4.48	< .001
SPANE – AB Score	−0.03 (N = 189)	7.39	5.57 (N = 139)	7.73	−6.65	< .001
Item 5: Changes to your normal sleep pattern
	Yes		No		t	p
	M	SD	M	SD
SWLS	19.97 (N = 174)	7.21	22.17 (N = 161)	6.31	−2.97	.003
SPANE – AB Score	0.08 (N = 168)	7.89	4.71 (N = 160)	7.46	−5.45	< .001
Item 7: Fear of giving Covid-19 to someone else
	Yes		No		t	p
	M	SD	M	SD
SPANE – AB Score	1.05 (N = 130)	7.74	3.19 (N = 198)	8.10	−2.39	.017
Item 8: Discrimination from other people
	Yes		No
	M	SD	M	SD	t	p
AAS	3.32 (N = 83)	0.63	3.51 (N = 257)	0.62	−2.43	.016
Item 9: Accommodation/housing-related problems
	Yes		No
	M	SD	M	SD	t	p
AAS	3.24 (N = 76)	0.62	3.53 (N = 264)	0.62	−3.63	< .001
SWLS	18.68 (N = 76)	7.95	21.71 (N = 259)	6.38	−3.05	.003
SPANE-AB Score	−0.89 (N = 73)	8.32	3.27 (N = 255)	7.70	−4.00	< .001

Table 4.

Pandemic-related stressors with significant group effects.

3.3 Impact of host university support

Hypothesis 3 posited that student who had been offered host university support would adapt better than their counterparts without this support. This hypothesis was partially supported. Table 5 displays the descriptive statistics for the host university support types with a significant group effect for the adaptation measures. Firstly, students who reported having been offered the following types of support scored significantly higher on the Academic Adjustment Scale than their peers who had not been offered this support: guidance on adapting to remote learning (item 2), guidance on Covid-related restrictions (item 3), guidance on visa/immigration issues (item 6), and guidance on accommodation/housing-related issues (item 7). Secondly, students who reported having been offered the following types of support had significantly higher satisfaction with life scores than their peers who had not been offered this support: guidance on adapting to remote learning (item 2), and guidance on accommodation/housing-related issues (item 7). Thirdly, students who reported having been offered the following types of support had a significantly higher Affect Balance score than their peers who had not been offered this support: access to online social activities/events (item 1), guidance on visa/immigration issues (item 6), guidance on accommodation/housing-related issues (item 7), and guidance on reporting Covid-related discrimination (item 10). The following support types showed no significant group differences: university wellbeing support (item 4), guidance on accessing Covid-related medical care (item 5), financial assistance (item 8), and guidance on dealing with Covid-related discrimination (item 9). No statistically significant group differences were found for sociocultural adaptation.

Item 1: Access to online social activities/events
	Yes		No
	M	SD	M	SD	t	p
Subjective Wellbeing	2.93 (N = 247)	7.82	0.56 (N = 81)	8.39	2.33	.021
Item 2: Guidance on adapting to remote learning
	Yes		No
	M	SD	M	SD	t	p
Academic Adaptation	3.52 (N = 228)	0.61	3.35 (N = 112)	0.64	2.40	.017
Satisfaction with Life	21.63 (N = 224)	6.65	19.81 (N = 111)	7.18	2.29	.022
Item 3: Guidance on Covid-related restrictions
	Yes		No
	M	SD	M	SD	t	p
Academic Adaptation	3.55 (N = 196)	0.64	3.35 (N = 144)	0.81	2.88	.004
Item 6: Guidance on visa/immigration issues
	Yes		No
	M	SD	M	SD	t	p
Academic Adaptation	3.60 (N = 98)	0.60	3.41 (N = 242)	0.63	2.61	.010
Subjective Wellbeing	4.41 (N = 97)	6.99	1.47 (N = 231)	8.27	3.07	.002
Item 7: Guidance on housing/accommodation
	Yes		No
	M	SD	M	SD	t	p
Academic Adaptation	3.66 (N = 93)	0.62	3.39 (N = 247)	0.61	3.66	< .001
Satisfaction with Life	22.89 (N = 93)	6.08	20.31 (N = 242)	7.04	3.12	.002
Subjective Wellbeing	4.71 (N = 92)	6.76	1.42 (N = 236)	8.29	3.39	.001
Item 10: Guidance on reporting Covid-related discrimination
	Yes		No
	M	SD	M	SD	t	p
Subjective Wellbeing	4.42 (N = 50)	6.91	1.97 (N = 278)	8.15	2.00	.046

Table 5.

Host university support types with significant group effects.

4. Discussion

Findings from this study suggest that the pandemic adversely affected international students’ sense of wellbeing and satisfaction with life, corroborating what has been found in the international student literature to date [19]. Overall, the students in this study reported lower subjective wellbeing than students in pre-pandemic studies of similar cohorts (cf. [47]), although it was evident from the data that there was a broad range of wellbeing experiences. Students were most concerned about the health of loved ones, travel restrictions, their future job prospects and their academic performance. This pattern is broadly in line with key concerns identified in other studies of the experiences of domestic and international students during the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., [16, 50, 51, 52]). Many also worried about their own mental health, which ties in with other similar findings on the negative impact of the pandemic on the mental health of HE students globally [53, 54, 55], although variations do exist between countries [56].

Loneliness was a common experience in this international student sample, reflecting recent evidence of an increase in loneliness during the pandemic in societies generally [57]. Loneliness was negatively associated with all three adaptation domains, and was most strongly correlated with psychological adaptation. This finding is not surprising given that loneliness has previously been identified as strongly related to the emotional/affective aspects of adaptation [58]. A negative association between loneliness and psychological adaptation has been reported in previous international student samples [59], and there is also evidence for a negative relationship between social isolation and psychological wellbeing among HE students more broadly [60]. It is likely that students who feel lonely or are socially isolated will have fewer meaningful interactions with others, which could in turn negatively impact feelings of wellbeing and satisfaction with life, but also reduce opportunities to acquire the skills and behaviors necessary to adapt socially and culturally [59]. Social distancing and the absence of present-in-person teaching have likely exacerbated this [60], which may also explain the negative association between loneliness and sociocultural adaptation. Students who feel lonely may also find it more challenging to successfully accomplish academic tasks. There is some evidence for a link between loneliness and decreased academic achievement (e.g. [61]) and lower academic adjustment (e.g. [62]).

The data also suggest that students who experienced certain pandemic-related stressors adapted less well than their peers who had not experienced such stressors. Apart from loneliness, anxiety and problems with accommodation/housing had the greatest impact. Students who had experienced these stressors were more likely to report lower academic adaptation as well as lower levels of subjective wellbeing and satisfaction with life. It is likely that students who felt anxious during the pandemic were less able to focus on their studies, possibly resulting in lower academic adaptation. There is some evidence for a link between social anxiety and academic adjustment in HE students [63]. Likewise, anxious students may have been less likely to report high subjective wellbeing and satisfaction with life scores. Anxiety has previously been linked to lower life satisfaction in university students [64]. It also seems plausible that students who experienced problems with accommodation/housing as a result of the pandemic will have been less focused on their academic studies. Given that housing issues are likely to lead to a great deal of stress, it is not surprising that these students experienced lower levels of both academic and psychological adaptation.

The outcome measure most strongly associated with pandemic-related stressors was subjective wellbeing. Students who reported having experienced a fear of contracting Covid-19 or of giving the virus to somebody else were less likely to feel well in themselves. This suggests that concerns related to virus transmission may be associated with subjective wellbeing. This finding aligns with evidence of a link between perceived likelihood of contracting COVID-19 and anxiety, especially among younger age groups [65]. Moreover, students who reported having experienced changes to their normal sleep patterns were more likely to report lower subjective wellbeing, suggesting a link between sleep and international student wellbeing during the pandemic. The importance of sleep quality for good mental health is widely acknowledged [50], and there is evidence of an increase in sleep problems during the pandemic, particularly among young adults [66]. Finally, students who experienced worries about loved ones reported lower subjective wellbeing, suggesting a link between the health of significant others and students’ own mental health (cf. [67]).

International students who had been offered certain types of host university support showed higher levels of adaptation. This further corroborates findings on the importance of university support in alleviating students’ concerns [68]. Support types that helped students with their adaptation included guidance on remote learning and advice on accommodation/housing issues. Students who had received these types of support were more likely to achieve higher academic and psychological adaptation. It seems plausible that students who are well supported in their transition to online learning will adapt to the academic environment more successfully which could in turn lead to greater satisfaction with life.

Other support types that appeared to ease academic adaptation included guidance on Covid-related restrictions and on visa/immigration issues. Both are likely to reduce uncertainty and contribute to peace of mind, thereby allowing students to dedicate their energy to their academic studies. Support with visa/immigration issues seems especially crucial given that the legal status of many international students on temporary visas made them especially vulnerable during the pandemic [69], often making them ineligible for relief programmes introduced by the governments of their host countries [70].

Host university support played an important role for subjective wellbeing. Students who reported having been offered access to online social activities, guidance on visa/immigration issues, and guidance on reporting Covid-related discrimination rated their subjective wellbeing significantly higher than peers who had not been offered these support services. The importance of online opportunities for social mixing cannot be underestimated given the central importance of social ties in the international student experience more generally [33, 34]. The pandemic and its lockdowns have likely left a lasting impact on the international student cohorts of 2019–2020 and 2020–2021, depriving these individuals of opportunities to form meaningful ties with their peers and the wider host community.

5. Conclusion and implications

This study is one of the first to provide systematic empirical evidence on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on international students’ academic, psychological and sociocultural adaptation. The findings can help HE institutions in the UK and beyond in shaping evidence-based emergency response strategies for future public health crises and other societal challenges. An effective response strategy aimed at supporting international students with their adaptation during times of global upheaval should have at its core measures to alleviate loneliness and social isolation. This might include structured social support provision such as online networking opportunities, embedded into the curriculum where possible and building on links with local communities. For example, virtual volunteering opportunities could support international students in forming social ties and offer a sense of purpose during periods of social isolation. Second, any future transition to online learning should be underpinned by clear and timely guidance, including regular e-tutorials on online study skills. Thirdly, dedicated points of contact should be made available to international students experiencing visa or housing problems. Fourth, student wellbeing support should be underpinned by a nuanced approach, providing tailored support pathways for students experiencing a range of issues including loneliness, anxiety, sleep problems, and concerns about loved ones. Finally, effective and accessible reporting mechanisms for international students experiencing discrimination and abuse, whether online or in-person, seems especially vital given the prevalence of Covid-related discrimination against Asian students, or people of Asian heritage more generally, in countries hosting international students. There is ample evidence in the literature that discrimination, or perceptions thereof, can have a detrimental impact on the wellbeing of international students [71].

6. Limitations and future research directions

There are some limitations to consider. Firstly, this was a cross-sectional study and can therefore not provide answers on the longer-term impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on international students’ adaptation. Longitudinal studies could usefully track the trajectory of adaptation over time. Secondly, it is possible that survey respondents may have chosen socially desirable answers and that the prevalence of loneliness, anxiety and other pandemic-related stressors may actually be higher than is reported here. Finally, this study lacked pre-pandemic comparator data, and it is thus difficult to ascertain whether the prevalence of the stressors and their impact on adaptation was a direct result of the pandemic. Finally, this study was purely quantitative and could therefore not capture more nuanced ‘lived’ experiences of adaptation. Future studies could use focus groups or individual interviews to obtain in-depth insights into how students themselves felt that the pandemic had impacted their adaptation.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by funding from the Newcastle University Institute for Social Science.

Conflict of interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Notes/thanks/other declarations

I wish to thank the Newcastle University Institute for Social Science for funding this research, and I wish to express my gratitude to Yao Wang for her help in distributing the survey.