PhD Concern

PhD concern is a component that embodies the academic background of the students and their concern about their PhD studies. Within this particular component, six factors had a high load as shown in Table 5.13, these being: non- Arabic speaking country (.764), I will finish my PhD on time (.758), I found the teaching methods different from how I learnt previously (.684), place of previous achievements (.615), I had a firm plan of study in terms of what to do and how long it would take (.609), and English course in the UK (.592).

Students’ academic background, the place of their previous studies, and whether those students had been enrolled in English-speaking universities or not, were concerns for most PhD students. Most of those who experienced English difficulties had gained their Masters’ degrees in Libya or in Arabic-speaking countries, meaning that their English level was very basic, and some of them were even at the beginners’ level of English language learning when they began their PhDs. Being acutely aware of their inabilities in this respect caused them to worry about their chances of success in their research, and about the prospect of not finishing it on time. This outcome was noted by many researchers who argued that language proficiency is the most important determinant of international students’ academic success (Yang and Clum, 1994; Barrat and Huba, 1994).

The difference in educational culture - different teaching methods and learning style – between Libya and the UK were also highlighted as important issues for Libyan students, it being found that 57.8% of respondents strongly agreed that they found the teaching methods and learning style to be completely different from what they were accustomed to. This result was consistent with outcomes found by Roberts (2005), Ryan (2002), De Vita (2001), and Lin (2001), who all

131

pinpointed one of the major problems faced by overseas students as being the mismatch between academic expectations and experiences, and the differing teaching and learning styles that such students encounter in the host HEIs. Clearly, from the results it can be understood that the entire PhD experience was perceived to be a challenge by the students before they embarked upon their registrations, and that they had expected something quite different in the role played by their supervisor.

On this matter Roberts (2005) has argued that postgraduate students in particular find difficulties in the relationship they experience with their supervisors, since their expectations of close monitoring, direction and support, invariably do not materialise given that the whole ethos of Masters’ and Doctoral research demands self-motivation, and is very different from that of overseas students’ home educational culture. In this situation, these students see themselves as being deprived of firm and frequent guidance, and as a consequence they feel lost in the process. This psychological outlook coupled with the inability to communicate in English effectively serves to drive a wedge within the student/supervisor relationship, as the expectations of the supervisor are of a student who can deal critically with arguments in the English language, whilst those of the Libyan PhD student are that the supervisor will basically tell him/her exactly what to do and operate rather like a schoolteacher than a supervisor and guide. Hence, the whole supervisor/student relationship can become a source of stress to the Libyan student.

Another factor that was considered important in the PhD concern component as shown in Table 5.3, was the lack of knowledge about the experience awaiting students in the UK. In this respect, Table 5.3 reports that 42.2% of respondents had no firm plan of study before coming to the UK, and a further 24.2% also said they were unclear, meaning that 66.6% of all PhD students had no real idea about how they would proceed with their studies. This may be because the large majority of them (68.1% + 13.3% = 81.4%) were aware that there would be differences in the approach from that in Libya, and by implication, that the universities where they were registering would have different expectations of

132

them. Clearly, this is an unacceptable situation as it merely serves to destabilise students who essentially come to the UK in a state of ignorance, and it suggests that when many of them do arrive they have no genuine self-motivated PhD plan, but are rather simply sponsored for whatever reason, and left to see what emerges from early discussions with academics in universities. It is not surprising, therefore, that some students do not show great commitment to their research, as it may not have emerged entirely from their own thoughts.

In respect of the factor concerned with finishing the PhD on time, Table 5.3 showed that 75.6% of students did not believe they would finish their study on time as a result of the combined challenges mentioned thus far. This was also confirmed by the officials in the Libyan Embassy who produced statistics to the effect that approximately 98% of all Libyan PhD students required extra time because of the difficulties encountered during their experience, suggesting that a mere 2% managed to finish their PhD studies according to the normal timetable set by their universities. This is obviously a massive drain on the Libyan funders and prevents any real attempt at planning the overseas PhD student budget since virtually all students who apply for funding overshoot their requests as they pass the deadlines for submission and require more financial support.

The last important factor in the PhD concern component was English courses in the UK and their length. Students were definite about the importance of such courses in helping them in their PhD study, as the vast majority had not attended any such tuition in Libya before arriving in the UK to study. However, the length of the courses they were allowed to follow was considered to be insufficient to prepare them for the postgraduate demands of a PhD. That said, students did appear to be satisfied by the support offered by their universities during their PhD journey, through English classes and courses. However, despite such attempts to support PhD students from overseas, universities, as noted by Cownie and Addison (1996), still find that language remains an issue experienced by lecturers, and that despite the fact that they set a minimum standard of English language for internationals students.

133

Officials from the Libyan Embassy confirmed the situation with Libyan PhD students, pointing out that the very low competence in the English language forced students to spend a long time taking English courses, and that some students were even sponsored for one year on full-time English courses in the UK before they embarked upon their PhD because it was found that their possession of the English language was almost non-existent. However, they also reported that this period of time was then deducted from the time they had been allocated for their PhD studies, so from the beginning, some students had no chance whatsoever of finishing a PhD course on time if they were deprived of one of the three years of full-time study stipulated for this. Clearly, this problem could be solved if equivalent courses were delivered in Libya prior to students’ arrival in the UK.