Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Student belonging has emerged as a critical issue in the increasingly diverse landscape of higher education. While research has addressed various aspects of student belonging, there is a lack of studies with in-depth qualitative phases that focus specifically on university students’ barriers to belonging within English as a Foreign Language (EFL) contexts. Therefore, this mixed-methods study aims to identify and analyze university students’ perceptions of these barriers. The study involved 27 Iranian EFL students from diverse universities and degree levels (BA, MA, and PhD). Thematic analysis revealed three major categories of belonging barriers: socioeconomic barriers (financial burden, lack of job prospects, family responsibilities), sociocultural barriers (geographical separation, discrimination, social anxiety), and institutional barriers (rigid regulations, unapproachable professors, negative staff attitudes). In the quantitative phase, a ranking scale was administered to assess the perceived significance of these barriers. The findings highlighted socioeconomic barriers as the most significant, followed by sociocultural and institutional barriers. Addressing these barriers requires a holistic approach that combines economic support, cultural sensitivity, and institutional reforms to foster a more inclusive and supportive educational environment.

Plain Language Summary

I Struggle to Connect Because … : Investigating EFL Students' Perceptions of Belonging Barriers in Higher Education

This mixed-methods study aims to identify and analyze university students' perceptions of these barriers. The study involved 27 Iranian EFL students from diverse universities and degree levels (B.A., M.A., and Ph.D.). Thematic analysis revealed three major categories of belonging barriers: socioeconomic barriers (financial burden, lack of job prospects, family responsibilities), sociocultural barriers (geographical separation, discrimination, social anxiety), and institutional barriers (rigid regulations, unapproachable professors, negative staff attitudes). In the quantitative phase, a ranking scale was administered to assess the perceived significance of these barriers. The findings highlighted socioeconomic barriers as the most significant, followed by sociocultural and institutional barriers.

Keywords

student belonging barriers higher education educational policy and reform educational equity EFL students

Introduction

Belonging within higher education (HE) is a critical component of students’ academic and social experiences. It reflects students’ perceptions of social support, connection, and feeling accepted and valued by their campus community, including faculty, staff, and peers (Maluenda-Albornoz et al., 2022). Research consistently shows that a strong sense of belonging correlates with higher academic success, better retention, improved mental health, and greater satisfaction with the university experience (Ahn & Davis, 2020; Young et al., 2024).

Yet, achieving this sense of belonging is particularly challenging for English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students. Many face feelings of isolation and marginalization due to institutional policies, campus climate, interpersonal dynamics, and identity-based issues (Lee, 2019; Parsaiyan & Karimi, 2023). Language barriers, cultural unfamiliarity, and limited support systems often deepen these challenges, making it harder for EFL students to integrate fully into academic life (Aldossari, 2025; Bennouna et al., 2021).

In Iran, EFL instruction primarily takes place in formal higher education institutions, such as universities and teacher training colleges (Weisi & Ahmadi, 2023). English is taught as a foreign language, and students generally encounter it only in classroom settings. While curricula emphasize grammar and reading, learners frequently struggle with speaking and real-world application (Wang et al., 2024). These academic challenges are compounded by competitive admission pressures, sociocultural expectations, and financial strain, which all further hinder the sense of belonging for Iranian EFL students (Hashemian et al., 2024).

Although prior research has addressed general aspects of student belonging (Dost & Smith, 2023; Elmahdi et al., 2024; Wilson & VanAntwerp, 2021), few studies have examined the unique, context-specific barriers faced by Iranian EFL students. Without such targeted inquiry, it remains difficult to fully understand how linguistic, cultural, and institutional factors shape their academic experiences. This study addresses this gap by exploring the belonging barriers perceived by Iranian EFL students, offering insights into the factors that hinder their academic and social integration in higher education.

Literature Review

Student Retention and the Role of Belonging

Students’ decisions to persist in or leave higher education are shaped by multiple factors, including individual characteristics and institutional processes. Historically, retention was linked to entry characteristics such as family background, academic aptitude, and student engagement (Berger & Lyon, 2005). However, more recent perspectives emphasize broader social and cultural contexts that influence educational trajectories (Ajjawi et al., 2019).

A central element in student retention is a sense of belonging, defined as the feeling of connectedness, acceptance, and support within an academic community (Ahn & Davis, 2020). This sense is positively correlated with academic success, personal development, and overall satisfaction (De Sisto et al., 2021). Despite its importance, many students face barriers that hinder their integration and connection to campus life.

Dimensions of Belonging in Higher Education

Araujo et al. (2014) introduced a three-tiered model of belonging that operates at the program, faculty, and global intercultural levels. Belonging is shaped by interactions among environmental, social, and cognitive factors (Allen et al., 2021). Thomas (2012) extends this view by highlighting the role of academic and career purposes in fostering belonging.

Soria and Stubblefield (2015) found that students who recognize and apply their strengths—particularly through curriculum design—are more likely to experience belonging. Similarly, Burke et al. (2016) emphasized how students’ sense of capability and identity formation evolve within social contexts. While families influence educational aspirations, they are not the sole determinants of academic outcomes.

Barriers to Student Belonging

Barriers to belonging are often multidimensional, emerging from institutional policies, social relationships, and identity-related issues. Institutional factors—such as access to academic support, staff interactions, and feedback—can promote or hinder belonging depending on their design and delivery (Maki, 2023). When poorly structured, these systems may exacerbate exclusion, especially for marginalized learners.

Interpersonal factors are equally significant. Positive peer and faculty relationships foster inclusion, while experiences of neglect, bias, or judgment can lead to alienation (Nieuwoudt & Pedler, 2021). Burke et al. (2016) noted that anxiety due to financial stress, career uncertainty, or imposter syndrome often intensifies feelings of disconnection.

Belonging is also closely tied to personal identity. Characteristics such as race, gender, and socioeconomic status may conflict with dominant institutional norms, leading to feelings of exclusion (Graham et al., 2022). Rahiem (2020) and Burke et al. (2016) argue that family and social expectations—particularly during educational transitions—can inhibit motivation and a sense of belonging.

EFL Education in Iran and Belonging Challenges

Despite extensive global literature on belonging, EFL students in Iran remain underrepresented. Iranian universities often prioritize academic rigor and uphold traditional norms (Moghaddam & Murray, 2024), which can marginalize students dealing with linguistic and cultural barriers. Since English is generally encountered only in classroom contexts, learners lack real-world language exposure (Weisi & Ahmadi, 2023), contributing to linguistic isolation.

Further, the competitive nature of higher education and economic constraints in Iran create additional stress for EFL students (Hashemian et al., 2024). These conditions make it harder for them to engage socially and academically, highlighting the importance of investigating belonging within Iran’s unique educational framework.

Identity Crisis in Liberal Arts and EFL Education

A growing body of literature also explores the identity crisis among liberal arts and EFL students. Globally, students in these fields often question the practical relevance of their studies (Ming et al., 2023). In Iran, EFL degrees are commonly perceived as having limited job prospects (Moiinvaziri & Razmjoo, 2016), which can undermine students’ motivation and institutional attachment.

This crisis in academic and professional identity leaves EFL learners especially vulnerable to self-doubt and marginalization. Addressing these challenges through career guidance, curricular relevance, and societal awareness is critical to enhancing belonging among liberal arts students.

Belonging in EFL Contexts

Numerous studies affirm the importance of social connectedness for EFL learners. Inclusive academic environments—whether online or in-person—are essential for fostering belonging and engagement (Elmahdi et al., 2024; Halbach & Iwaniec, 2020). Collaborative learning activities, such as group projects and peer-led discussions, help reduce feelings of isolation and strengthen peer relationships (Seifert & Bar-Tal, 2022).

Additionally, strong peer networks promote resilience and motivation. Zengilowski et al. (2023) and Cui and Yang (2022) show that EFL students who feel supported by their peers are more likely to persist and thrive. In particular, Cui and Yang’s longitudinal study highlights how peer interactions enhance emotional well-being and sustained commitment to language learning.

Related Studies on EFL Student Belonging

Several empirical studies offer relevant insights into belonging among EFL learners, both in Iran and internationally. Parsaiyan and Karimi (2023), focusing on Iranian female English majors, identified four key components of belonging: social relationships, self-concept, curriculum relevance, and societal perceptions. They likened these factors to an orchestra—working in harmony to shape students’ academic experience.

In China, Yuan (2024) found that teacher immediacy—behaviors that reduce social and emotional distance—significantly enhances student engagement and belonging. The study suggests that instructor approachability and responsiveness are critical for supporting EFL learners, particularly in unfamiliar academic environments.

Critical Synthesis and Research Gaps

Although the literature highlights various practices that support student belonging, some findings remain contradictory. For instance, Seifert and Bar-Tal (2022) emphasize the value of online collaboration, while Yuan (2024) cautions that teacher immediacy alone may not be sufficient for sustained engagement. These inconsistencies suggest that the effectiveness of support practices depends on how well they align with students’ broader identities and contexts.

Moreover, Iranian research (e.g., Parsaiyan & Karimi, 2023) tends to emphasize sociocultural and identity dimensions, while international studies focus more on technology, pedagogy, and peer interaction. These differences point to the need for context-sensitive approaches that account for cultural and institutional nuances.

Theoretical perspectives also shed light on how belonging operates in higher education. Tinto (2012) argued that student persistence depends on successful academic and social integration, meaning that structural or interpersonal barriers can increase the risk of attrition. Similarly, Bourdieu (1986) emphasized the role of social and cultural capital in shaping students’ opportunities for participation, suggesting that those with limited access to these forms of capital may experience exclusion or marginalization. Together, these perspectives highlight that belonging is shaped not only by students’ emotions but also by their access to institutional resources, peer networks, and supportive policies.

Purpose of the Study

Despite growing interest in EFL student belonging, few studies adopt a qualitative, context-rich approach in Iran. Much of the existing research relies on large-scale quantitative instruments (Devisakti & Ramayah, 2021; Yuan, 2024) or narrowly focused interviews (Seifert & Bar-Tal, 2022). Furthermore, many studies focus on undergraduates in Tehran, excluding broader demographic and institutional diversity (Parsaiyan & Karimi, 2023).

To address these gaps, the current study explores the barriers to belonging experienced by Iranian EFL students using diverse qualitative tools and a participant-informed ranking process. It is guided by the following research questions:

What are the barriers to students belonging in higher education in the Iranian EFL context?

What is the relative significance of the identified barriers to EFL students belonging in higher education?

Method

Research Design

This study adopted a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design, which is well-suited for exploring complex educational issues by integrating qualitative depth with quantitative measurement (Huang & Shiyanbola, 2021). Mixed-methods designs are particularly valuable in education research, as they allow for the analysis of multifaceted phenomena from diverse perspectives (McCrudden & Marchand, 2020).

The qualitative phase included three tools: online focus group discussions, written narrative accounts, and an open-ended questionnaire. Focus group discussions encouraged group interaction and collective reflection on barriers to EFL student belonging. Next, participants completed written narrative accounts to share detailed personal stories. This was followed by an open-ended questionnaire, which allowed for further elaboration of individual experiences. Open-ended formats support reflective thinking and are effective for capturing nuanced insights (Braun et al., 2020; Xue & Singh, 2025).

For the quantitative phase, participants completed a ranking scale, ordering the identified barriers based on their perceived importance. Ranking methodologies help quantify qualitative themes and prioritize them based on collective significance (Maleki, 2025b; Rodenburg et al., 2021).

Participants and Settings

The research involved a total of 27 Iranian EFL learners—14 females and 13 males—recruited from five distinct higher education institutions across Iran. Participants were either current university students or had recently completed their academic programs. Participants were selected using purposeful sampling, ensuring deliberate and intentional selection criteria. The selection criteria included: (1) being an Iranian EFL student enrolled in or recently graduated from a higher education institution, (2) willingness to participate and share personal experiences, and (3) availability to engage in focus group discussions, complete narrative accounts, and respond to the open-ended questionnaire.

Additionally, a snowball sampling technique was implemented, wherein initial participants were asked to recommend other individuals who met the study’s eligibility criteria. Table 1 outlines the participants’ demographic characteristics, including their academic discipline, educational level, age, and duration of study in higher education. To protect participant anonymity and ensure ethical compliance, the names of the specific universities have been withheld.

Table 1.

Demographic Information of the Study Participants.

Demographic Item(s)	Classification(s)	N
Field of study	EFL	27
Number of HE universities		5
Gender	Female	14
Gender	Male	13
Degree	BA	12
	MA	9
	PhD	6
Age	18–25	13
	25–32	9
	32–40	5
Mean age (SD)		26.7 (5.2)
Years of studying in HE	0–4	13
	4–8	8
	8–12	4
	More than 12	2

To complement the tabular summary, Figure 1 provides a visual profile of the participants’ demographic characteristics. This visualization enhances the interpretability of the sample composition and allows for a clearer understanding of the participants’ background.

Figure 1.

Participant profile chart.

Instrumentation

Qualitative Measures

Focus Group Discussions

During the preliminary phase of the research, online focus group discussions were held via Google Meet. Each session lasted around 85 min, providing ample time for comprehensive exploration of the research topic. Participants were assigned to one of three focus groups using a randomized allocation procedure to ensure balanced representation. Each participant was assigned a unique identifier and grouped based on randomly generated numbers, ensuring equitable distribution across the groups (Maleki, 2025a). The focus group discussions were conducted using a semi-structured interview protocol, which included open-ended questions and guiding prompts to facilitate rich and reflective dialogue. These guiding questions are presented and detailed in Supplemental Appendix 1.

Written Narrative Accounts

During the second qualitative phase of the study, written narrative accounts were utilized to explore participants’ perspectives in depth, allowing for the documentation of personal stories and lived experiences (Maleki, 2025a). This approach facilitated the examination of individual viewpoints while also revealing common themes that emerged across the narratives. Written narratives afforded participants a platform for profound reflection on the barriers influencing their sense of belonging in the higher education context. Additionally, this approach provided a platform for participants to openly discuss barriers to their sense of belonging that they may have hesitated to share in focus group discussions. The detailed content of the email distributed to participants is provided in Supplemental Appendix 2.

Open-ended Questionnaire

The open-ended questionnaire was further designed to explore the various barriers affecting students’ belonging in higher education (see Supplemental Appendix 3). Participants were prompted to identify issues pertaining to institutional policies, campus climate, academic environment, social integration, language and communication, cultural differences, support services, personal identity, and any other factors influencing their sense of belonging.

Quantitative Measure

In the quantitative phase of the study, a ranking scale was specifically developed and employed as the main instrument for data collection. This scale aimed to evaluate and rank the perceived importance of the identified obstacles influencing Iranian EFL students’ sense of belonging within university settings. Participants were instructed to rank the identified barriers according to their perceived level of importance. To minimize potential bias, the categories within the ranking scale were displayed in a randomized order (Maleki & Mirfendereski, 2025). Participants were allowed to choose between completing the scale in either a paper-based or online format, depending on their personal preference. The full layout of the scale is provided in Supplemental Appendix 4.

Validity and Reliability

To ensure validity, the study employed triangulation by collecting data from three qualitative sources: focus group discussions, written narrative accounts, and open-ended questionnaires. This approach allowed for the cross-verification of themes and reduced context-specific bias. Additionally, member checking was conducted, whereby participants reviewed the identified themes to confirm their accuracy and representation of their experiences.

For reliability, two independent researchers coded a subset of the qualitative data to ensure consistency. The inter-rater reliability was evaluated using Cohen’s Kappa (κ = .84), indicating substantial agreement in categorizing themes related to institutional, socioeconomic, and sociocultural barriers. The researchers received training on thematic analysis to reduce subjectivity, and discrepancies were resolved through discussion.

Regarding the ranking scale, a pilot test was conducted with a small group of non-participant EFL students to assess its clarity and usability. Minor adjustments were made based on their feedback, improving the instrument’s reliability. To further ensure consistency, the ranking scale categories were presented in a randomized order to mitigate response bias.

Procedure

For this study, a mixed-methods design was employed, integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches. The research included 27 Iranian EFL students currently enrolled or recently graduated from universities. Qualitative data collection methods encompassed online focus group discussions, written narrative accounts, and an open-ended questionnaire, aiming to triangulate data for comprehensive insights.

To maintain objectivity, participants were randomly assigned to three separate focus groups, with Google Meet serving as the primary platform for conducting the discussions. Subsequently, participants were emailed written narrative prompts designed to elicit detailed personal accounts and reflections on the barriers they encountered related to student belonging in higher education. Next, an open-ended questionnaire invited participants to identify the barriers they experienced to feeling a sense of belonging.

During the quantitative phase, an online ranking scale was developed to evaluate and order the perceived significance of various barriers impacting Iranian EFL students’ sense of belonging in higher education institutions. Participants were asked to rank these barriers based on their personal perceptions of importance.

Data Analysis

To analyze the qualitative data, the researchers utilized a content analysis approach. This method involved a systematic examination of the data to uncover recurring themes, patterns, and categories. Through this process, the study identified significant barriers influencing Iranian EFL students’ sense of belonging within universities. Themes and findings were considered significant if they were mentioned by 60% or more of the participants, helping to determine the most prominent issues impacting student belonging. This threshold was chosen based on previous research that recommends setting a balanced criterion when identifying core themes in qualitative studies (Guest et al., 2020). A threshold of 60% ensures that the identified themes reflect patterns that are not only recurrent but also represent a majority consensus among participants. This approach captures common experiences while avoiding overemphasis on rare or isolated responses. By using this criterion, the study aimed to prioritize themes that were widely shared while minimizing the impact of outliers or isolated perspectives. To further prioritize the identified categories, a ranking scale was employed to gather participants’ opinions and quantitatively assess the perceived significance of each barrier and category.

To ensure the trustworthiness of the study, the researcher actively engaged in reflexivity throughout the research process. As an EFL educator, the researcher acknowledges that personal experiences and perspectives could influence the interpretation of the data. To address potential biases, the researcher maintained a reflective journal to critically examine personal assumptions and their impact on data collection and analysis. Additionally, the researcher was mindful of power dynamics during focus group discussions to ensure that participants felt comfortable expressing diverse perspectives.

To mitigate biases, the study employed several strategies, including peer debriefing and member checking. Peer debriefing involved discussing preliminary findings with colleagues to challenge interpretations and refine themes. Member checking was conducted by sharing emergent themes with selected participants to verify accuracy and credibility. Furthermore, triangulation was employed by integrating data from focus groups, narrative accounts, and open-ended questionnaires, allowing for cross-validation of themes.

Thematic Analysis Process

The qualitative data were examined using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-step thematic analysis framework, which enabled the systematic identification, analysis, and interpretation of patterns within the data. The process began with data familiarization, involving repeated readings of transcripts, written narratives, and questionnaire responses to gain a thorough understanding of participants’ perspectives. Following this, the researchers engaged in systematic coding, assigning labels to meaningful data segments to capture key concepts related to barriers to belonging. The initial codes were subsequently grouped into potential themes, which underwent a thorough review and refinement process to maintain internal consistency and clear differentiation between themes. This iterative process led to the identification of three primary themes: institutional, socioeconomic, and sociocultural barriers. Each main theme encompassed several sub-themes, including rigid regulations and financial burdens. To enhance clarity and transparency, these themes were systematically analyzed and supported with representative excerpts from the data.

Results

Barriers to EFL Student Belonging (RQ1)

This study identified three primary categories of barriers to EFL students belonging in the Iranian higher education context: institutional, socioeconomic, and sociocultural barriers. These categories were derived from thematic analysis of qualitative data collected through focus group discussions, written narrative accounts, and open-ended questionnaires.

Institutional Barriers

Under this theme, three sub-themes were identified: rigid university regulations, lack of approachable professors, and staff negative attitude. Some students mentioned that they could not fully enjoy the university setting because the institutions imposed unnecessary limits and rules. Many students reported that institutional rules limited their sense of autonomy and personal freedom. For example, Learner(L)24 shared: “We have specific entry and exit times, and we cannot enter or leave the university after 10 PM” (L24, Focus Group Discussions). Such rigid schedules were seen as inhibiting spontaneous social interactions, particularly for those who needed to stay late for academic activities or social events. Additionally, female students often felt that dress codes disproportionately targeted them. As L19 stated: “As a girl, I must adhere to very specific dress codes, and I can’t wear just any clothes or choose any color for my attire” (L19, Written Narrative Account).

Another factor discussed by some students was the lack of approachable professors in higher education. Students felt that many professors maintained an overly formal distance, making it hard to seek academic guidance. As L12 described: “I never saw my professors have any sense of closeness or camaraderie with us. They always seemed to have a condescending attitude toward us. Even emails or messages often go unanswered” (L12, Focus Group Discussions). This perceived lack of accessibility not only limited students’ academic support but also diminished their sense of being valued within the academic community.

The last reason in this category was the staff’s negative attitude toward students. Some students, such as L13, shared that they were unable to form a positive relationship with the university because the staff did not treat them respectfully: “At university, I find it challenging to enjoy my studies due to the lack of respectful treatment from staff and administrators. Their condescending attitude makes students feel unimportant and burdensome, creating a negative learning environment” (L13, Focus Group Discussions). In support of this view, some students recounted instances where staff members treated them dismissively, making them feel unwelcome. For instance, L7 noted: “The staff intentionally delay providing official help, like issuing transcripts, whenever we seek assistance” (L7, Open-ended Questionnaire). However, some participants noted that not all staff members displayed such attitudes, indicating that students’ interactions with administrative personnel varied significantly. This variance suggests that while negative experiences are prominent, they may not be universally felt, pointing to potential inconsistencies in staff training and professionalism.

Socioeconomic Barriers

Another major category was related to socioeconomic barriers, which, after analysis of discussions, fell into three sub-themes: financial burden, lack of future job prospects, and family responsibilities. Many participants stated that the cost of tuition and living expenses significantly impacted their well-being. L21 noted: “Tuition fees, book costs, dorm fees, and library memberships add up, leaving me constantly worried” (L21, Written Narrative Account). This financial anxiety often diverted their focus away from academics, resulting in reduced participation in campus life. L8 expressed this concern: “I find it challenging to fully immerse myself in my studies and campus life. Instead of focusing on academic and social opportunities, I am preoccupied with financial stress” (L8, Written Narrative Account).

Also, the students believed that their lack of motivation for studying at university stemmed from their low expectations of finding a job after graduation. As L4 mentioned: “I cannot think about living and studying at the university with interest because I have no hope for a good future job” (L4, Open-ended Questionnaire). In line with this view, L11 clarified the issue with an instance: “For example, I have seen many students who have graduated from my field at my university with high GPAs, and now they are unemployed and have not found jobs” (L11, Written Narrative Account).

The last sub-theme in this category was family responsibilities. Some students also reported that family responsibilities hindered their academic engagement. As L25 explained: “Since losing my father, I have been responsible for my family, leaving me mentally preoccupied and unable to connect deeply with my studies” (L25, Written Narrative Account). Yet, few learners noted that taking on family responsibilities enhanced their sense of purpose, making their educational journey more meaningful despite the challenges. This demonstrates that family obligations may both hinder and motivate academic persistence, depending on individual perspectives.

Sociocultural Barriers

The final overarching category that emerged from the analysis pertained to sociocultural barriers. Three sub-themes within this category were geographical and emotional separation, racial and city-based discrimination, and social and interactional anxiety. Many students felt isolated when studying far from home. L18 shared: “Being away from my hometown and family makes it hard to feel connected to the university community” (L18, Focus Group Discussions).

Also, students opined that this sense of disconnection when they experienced racial and city-based discrimination within the university context, particularly in dormitories. As L25 remarked: “At university, I encounter racial and city-based discrimination, especially in dormitories, where local students form tight groups” (L25, Focus Group Discussions). Aligning with this view, L10 stated that she felt like an outsider and struggled to communicate effectively with others: “As someone from another city, I often feel like an outsider. Local students tend to gravitate toward their peers from the same city, leaving me with a sense of exclusion” (L10, Focus Group Discussions). Such exclusionary dynamics can perpetuate feelings of being an outsider, hindering students’ ability to integrate socially.

Finally, some students stated that they did not feel a sense of belonging at their universities because they experienced social anxiety when placed among other students and had to interact with them. L27 reflected: “Social anxiety overwhelms me during interactions. The university environment requires constant communication, which I struggle with. I am an introvert and do not enjoy interacting with others much” (L27, Written Narrative Account). This can highlight the need for creating safe and inclusive spaces that encourage participation without overwhelming socially anxious students.

Significance of Identified Barriers (RQ2)

To quantify the perceived importance of these barriers, an online ranking scale was administered. This scale was completed by the 27 students who also participated in the qualitative phases of the study. According to Table 2, the top barrier to student belonging was the socioeconomic barrier, selected by 44.44% of participants. The sociocultural barrier ranked second at 33.33%, followed by the institutional barrier, which was chosen by 22.22% of participants.

Table 2.

Results of the Ranking Scale.

Category	Number of Students	Percentage
Socioeconomic barrier (first major category)	12	44.44
Lack of future job	6	22.22
Prospects financial burden	4	14.81
Family responsibilities	2	7.40
Sociocultural barrier (second major category)	9	33.33
Racial and city-based	4	14.81
Discrimination
Geographical and emotional	3	11.11
Separation
Social and interactional	2	7.40
Anxiety
Institutional barrier (third major category)	6	22.22
Rigid University	3	11.11
Regulations
Staff negative attitude	2	7.40
Lack of approachable	1	3.70
Professors

To enhance the robustness of the findings, inferential statistical analyses were conducted alongside descriptive statistics. A Friedman test, a non-parametric test suitable for ranked data, was performed to determine whether there were statistically significant differences in participants’ rankings of the three main categories (socioeconomic, sociocultural, and institutional barriers). The results revealed a significant difference in rankings (χ2(2) = 16.48, p < .001), with a Kendall’s (W = 0.305), indicating a moderate level of agreement among participants in ranking the barriers. This confirms that socioeconomic barriers were ranked as the most significant, followed by sociocultural and institutional barriers. To further explore these differences, post-hoc pairwise comparisons were conducted using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test with a Bonferroni correction applied (adjusted α = .0167). The comparisons indicated that socioeconomic barriers were ranked significantly higher than both sociocultural barriers (Z = −3.21, p = .001, r = .618) and institutional barriers (Z = −3.89, p < .001, r = .749). However, the difference between sociocultural and institutional barriers was not statistically significant (Z = −1.76, p = .078, r = .339). A summary of these post-hoc test results is presented in Table 3.

Table 3.

Post-Hoc Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test Results for Pairwise Comparisons of Belonging Barriers.

Comparison	Z-value	p-value	Effect size (r)
Socioeconomic vs. sociocultural barriers	−3.21	.001	0.618
Socioeconomic vs. institutional barriers	−3.89	<.001	0.749
Sociocultural vs. institutional barriers	−1.76	.078	0.339

Integration of Qualitative and Quantitative Findings

The convergence of qualitative and quantitative findings underscores the primacy of socioeconomic challenges as perceived by EFL students. While qualitative data revealed diverse personal experiences, quantitative analysis highlighted a consensus on the significance of economic factors. The qualitative insights also elucidated why students rank financial and career concerns higher: these issues directly impact both academic involvement and future aspirations. Figure 2 presents an integrated summary of the qualitative and quantitative results from the study. It organizes the sub-themes within each primary theme and displays the ranking of each overarching theme according to participants’ responses, offering a clear and structured overview of the findings.

Figure 2.

Summary of the findings.

Discussion

This study aimed to explore the barriers affecting Iranian EFL students’ sense of belonging in higher education. The findings revealed three broad categories of barriers: socioeconomic, sociocultural, and institutional. These barriers highlight the complex and multifaceted nature of belonging challenges faced by EFL students. Addressing these barriers requires a holistic approach that includes economic support, cultural sensitivity, and institutional reforms to foster a more inclusive educational environment.

An important consideration is the interplay between the three barrier categories. Socioeconomic challenges, for instance, can exacerbate sociocultural and institutional issues. Financial stress not only affects students’ participation in academic and social activities but can also heighten feelings of isolation, especially for those far from their hometowns. Similarly, institutional barriers, such as rigid policies, may disproportionately impact students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds or those who feel culturally marginalized. This interconnectedness suggests that addressing one category in isolation may be insufficient. Instead, universities should adopt an integrated strategy that considers how socioeconomic, sociocultural, and institutional factors influence each other, creating a more comprehensive approach to enhancing student belonging (Allen et al., 2021; Graham et al., 2022).

Quantitative analysis revealed that socioeconomic barriers were perceived as the most significant challenge. This aligns with qualitative findings where financial constraints and uncertain job prospects emerged as major concerns. This finding also echoes Berger and Lyon’s (2005) emphasis on the critical role of financial and social integration in student retention, as well as Ajjawi et al.’s (2019) argument that students’ educational trajectories are shaped by structural and contextual forces beyond individual aptitude. It also resonates with Tinto’s (2012) Student Integration Model, which posits that financial strain can disrupt both academic and social integration, leading to attrition. The predominance of these barriers indicates that students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds often experience financial stress, which can hinder their integration into the academic community. Notably, the lack of future job prospects was identified as the most pressing issue within this category. This highlights the critical role of career outlook in shaping students’ sense of belonging, as the fear of unemployment can overshadow academic engagement (Belle et al., 2021). Empirical studies in other contexts similarly demonstrate that students’ perceptions of post-graduation opportunities strongly predict their sense of commitment to higher education institutions (Terblanche et al., 2020), reinforcing the centrality of career readiness to the belonging construct. This finding is consistent with previous research suggesting that financial insecurity can lead to social withdrawal and lower academic commitment (Berger & Lyon, 2005; Maki, 2023). Higher education institutions should therefore prioritize career readiness by offering robust support services, including career counseling, internships, and industry partnerships to enhance employability.

The financial burden, another significant challenge within socioeconomic barriers, also adversely affects students’ campus engagement. This finding is consistent with Bettencourt (2021), who emphasized that economic hardships can reduce students’ participation in academic and social activities. Similarly, Ahn and Davis (2020) argue that students who struggle financially may also experience a diminished sense of belonging, as they are less likely to participate in community-building activities. This supports the argument that belonging is not merely a psychological construct but also a material one, contingent on students’ ability to access campus life (Baglow & Gair, 2018). Financial support initiatives, such as scholarships and flexible payment plans, can help alleviate this burden. Additionally, universities could offer financial literacy workshops to empower students to manage their finances more effectively.

Family responsibilities, while less prominent compared to other socioeconomic factors, still affect students’ ability to fully immerse themselves in campus life. Balancing familial duties with academic demands can result in stress and reduced participation (Khojanashvili et al., 2024). This aligns with the findings by Rahiem (2020), who noted that familial obligations can detract from students’ focus on academic goals. Dotterer et al. (2020) similarly found that student-parents and family caregivers face dual role strain, impacting their sense of institutional support and increasing their risk of disengagement. Flexible learning options, including online courses and part-time study programs, can help students manage these responsibilities. Providing childcare services and creating support networks for student-parents are also practical steps to enhance belonging.

Sociocultural barriers ranked second in significance, with racial and city-based discrimination reported as the most critical issue within this category. Discrimination in dormitories and social spaces can lead to feelings of exclusion and emotional distress (Okolie & Manyeruke, 2024). This finding echoes Hussain and Jones (2021), who highlight that students experiencing discrimination often report lower belonging scores, decreased self-efficacy, and weaker academic persistence. This issue is particularly relevant in contexts where cultural and linguistic diversity challenge social cohesion, as noted by Halbach and Iwaniec (2020). The results also align with Parsaiyan and Karimi’s (2023) findings that societal perceptions and peer relationships are central components of Iranian EFL students’ sense of belonging, suggesting that negative social climates can undermine students’ academic identity. Addressing this requires universities to implement diversity and inclusion policies, foster intercultural dialogue, and ensure that all students feel safe and respected. Anti-discrimination training and creating support networks for marginalized students can significantly improve the campus climate.

Geographical and emotional separation was the next prominent sociocultural barrier. Students studying far from home reported feelings of isolation and homesickness, which can hinder their adjustment to the university environment (Worsley et al., 2021). This challenge is consistent with findings from Elmahdi et al. (2024), who noted that geographical distance from family can weaken emotional resilience among students. According to the belonging literature, this spatial distance can be understood through the lens of social capital theory, as students’ ability to draw on support networks is reduced when they are physically removed from them (Bourdieu, 1986). Universities should enhance support systems for non-local students through mentorship programs, family engagement events, and accessible mental health services.

Social and interactional anxiety, though rated as the least significant sociocultural barrier, still affects some students’ campus involvement. Issues such as language proficiency and fear of judgment can hinder participation in academic and social settings (Li et al., 2023). This is also highlighted by Seifert and Bar-Tal (2022), who argued that fostering social connections can reduce anxiety and promote student engagement. This aligns with Archbell and Coplan (2021), who contend that socially anxious students often under-participate in classroom dialogue, which can perpetuate cycles of disengagement unless targeted interventions are offered. The finding also reflects Mouhoubi-Messadh and Khaldi’s (2022) observation that language-related anxiety is a persistent barrier in foreign language education, further inhibiting students’ integration. Offering language workshops and peer support programs can help students build confidence in social interactions.

Institutional barriers were perceived as the least significant category, with rigid university regulations identified as the most problematic. Strict rules regarding campus entry, exit, and dress codes can make students feel constrained, particularly when regulations appear culturally insensitive (Vaccaro & Newman, 2023). Thomas (2012) also argues that such institutional practices can communicate a lack of trust in students’ autonomy, thereby undermining their sense of belonging. Revising policies to be more flexible and inclusive, while involving students in the policymaking process, could enhance belonging.

Staff negative attitude was reported as the second most significant institutional barrier, as perceived disrespect can alienate students (Parsaiyan & Karimi, 2023). In line with findings by Nieuwoudt and Pedler (2021), negative interactions with staff can undermine students’ sense of value and community. This is consistent with Soria and Stubblefield’s (2015) observation that staff-student interactions are central to students’ institutional attachment, meaning that administrative culture is as crucial as academic instruction in shaping belonging. Universities should invest in staff training to improve professional conduct and empathy, fostering a more welcoming environment. Establishing efficient support services with clear guidelines can also mitigate frustrations related to administrative interactions.

The lack of approachable professors emerged as the least significant institutional barrier. While some students perceived professors as unapproachable, others found them supportive during formal consultations. This highlights the importance of balancing professional boundaries with approachability (Yan, 2021). Universities should encourage faculty to establish clear communication channels, such as regular office hours and prompt responses to student inquiries, to bridge this gap.

Overall, the integration of these findings with existing theoretical models underscores that belonging is a multidimensional construct influenced by structural, relational, and psychological factors (Allen et al., 2021). By positioning the results within these frameworks, this study extends the literature by highlighting how the Iranian EFL context intensifies certain barriers—particularly socioeconomic ones—relative to global findings. This contextual insight adds to the growing evidence that belonging interventions must be culturally and institutionally tailored rather than one-size-fits-all (Dost & Smith, 2023). This study demonstrates that addressing barriers to belonging among Iranian EFL students requires a nuanced approach that accounts for socioeconomic, sociocultural, and institutional dimensions. As emphasized by Zengilowski et al. (2023), promoting a supportive and inclusive academic environment is essential for fostering student engagement and retention. Interventions should focus on improving financial support, promoting inclusive campus cultures, and fostering more accessible and empathetic institutional practices. By addressing these areas, universities can create a more supportive environment that enhances students’ academic engagement and overall well-being.

Conclusion

This mixed-methods study examined EFL students’ perceptions of barriers to their sense of belonging in the Iranian higher education context. The findings identified three primary categories of barriers: socioeconomic, sociocultural, and institutional, each with specific sub-themes. Students ranked these categories based on their perceived significance, with socioeconomic barriers being the most significant, followed by sociocultural and institutional barriers. These insights reveal the critical role that economic stability, social inclusion, and flexible institutional practices play in fostering a sense of belonging among EFL students.

The study’s findings have significant implications for policy and practice in higher education. Addressing socioeconomic barriers requires universities to implement comprehensive support systems that include financial aid packages, career guidance, and employment-oriented programs. Specifically, targeted scholarships for EFL students from low-income backgrounds and initiatives to improve job readiness can enhance their academic and social integration. Additionally, universities should offer financial literacy programs to help students manage their expenses more effectively.

To mitigate sociocultural barriers, universities should prioritize diversity and inclusion initiatives. Creating culturally responsive campus environments, offering intercultural training for staff, and facilitating peer mentoring between local and international students can foster a sense of community. Addressing social and interactional anxiety through workshops on communication skills and providing safe spaces for social interaction can also help students feel more connected.

Regarding institutional barriers, it is essential to develop flexible policies that accommodate the diverse needs of EFL students. Revising strict regulations related to dress codes, campus accessibility, and communication norms can create a more welcoming environment. Training staff to adopt a supportive and approachable attitude can reduce feelings of alienation. Moreover, involving students in policy formulation can ensure that institutional changes align with their lived experiences.

This study contributes to the theoretical understanding of belonging by confirming that barriers are multidimensional and mutually reinforcing, echoing Tinto’s (2012) integration model and social capital perspectives (Bourdieu, 1986). By showing how socioeconomic pressures amplify sociocultural exclusion and institutional rigidity, the findings highlight that belonging cannot be addressed by isolated interventions but requires a systems-level response. This insight extends existing literature (Dost & Smith, 2023) by demonstrating that belonging interventions in EFL contexts must be culturally responsive and sensitive to local economic realities.

Future research should focus on developing and evaluating intervention programs that specifically target the identified barriers. For instance, experimental studies could assess the impact of financial aid schemes on EFL student belonging. Similarly, longitudinal research might explore how changes in institutional policies affect students’ sense of inclusion over time. Additionally, cross-cultural studies can provide comparative insights into how EFL students from different countries experience belonging challenges, highlighting both commonalities and context-specific issues. Researchers might also consider testing theoretical models of belonging—such as Tinto’s (2012) model or sense-of-community frameworks—within EFL populations to examine their applicability across cultural contexts. Exploring digital interventions, such as online mentoring and virtual support groups, could also offer innovative solutions to enhance belonging in online and hybrid learning environments.

This study, while providing valuable insights, has certain limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the relatively small sample size (27 EFL students) may limit the generalizability of the findings. Second, the study’s focus on a single-country context (Iran) restricts the transferability of the results to other higher education environments. Third, the cross-sectional nature of the study does not allow for capturing changes in students’ sense of belonging over time. Conducting longitudinal studies could help address this limitation and provide deeper insights into the evolution of belonging barriers. Future research could also include comparative studies involving EFL students from different cultural and educational settings to enhance the broader applicability of the findings.

Overall, this study reinforces the growing consensus that student belonging is a critical determinant of academic success and well-being. By situating the findings within theoretical and empirical literature, it offers a nuanced, context-rich understanding of how belonging operates for Iranian EFL students. This research calls for higher education institutions to adopt an integrated, equity-driven approach that addresses financial constraints, fosters inclusive campus cultures, and rethinks institutional policies—thereby creating environments where all students can thrive.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-sgo-10.1177_21582440251406415 – Supplemental material for “I Struggle to Connect Because …”: Investigating EFL Students’ Perceptions of Belonging Barriers in Higher Education

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-sgo-10.1177_21582440251406415 for “I Struggle to Connect Because …”: Investigating EFL Students’ Perceptions of Belonging Barriers in Higher Education by Alireza Maleki in SAGE Open

Footnotes

Abbreviations

EFL: English as a Foreign Language

HE: Higher Education

ORCID iD

Alireza Maleki

Ethical Considerations

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was reviewed and approved by the institutional review board (IRB) at Kashmar Institute of Higher Education, Iran (DATE: 2024.06.01). This university does not have a dedicated ethics committee.

Consent to Participate

Participants gave written informed consent for review and signature before starting the data collection.

Author Contributions

AM posed the main idea for this research and was also responsible for data gathering process. He was also responsible for analyzing the data and writing and revising the manuscript.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable. As a consent form was used, the recorded files can be shared under certain circumstances.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Ahn

M. Y.

Davis

H. H.

(2020). Students’ sense of belonging and their socio-economic status in higher education: A quantitative approach. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(1), 136–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1778664

Ajjawi

Dracup

Zacharias

Bennett

Boud

(2019). Persisting students’ explanations of and emotional responses to academic failure. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(2), 185–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1664999

Aldossari

A. S.

(2025). Sense of belonging: International students’ experience of intercultural and cultural inclusion in Saudi universities. Language and Intercultural Communication, 25, 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/14708477.2023.2257193

Allen

K. A.

Kern

M. L.

Rozek

C. S.

McInerney

D. M.

Slavich

G. M.

(2021). Belonging: A review of conceptual issues, an integrative framework, and directions for future research. Australian Journal of Psychology, 73(1), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530.2021.1883409

Araujo

Carlin

Clarke

Morieson

Lukas

Wilson

(2014). Belonging in the first year: A creative discipline cohort case study. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.5204/intjfyhe.v5i2.240

Archbell

K. A.

Coplan

R. J.

(2021). Too anxious to talk: Social anxiety, academic communication, and students’ experiences in higher education. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 30(4), 273–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/10634266211060079

Baglow

Gair

(2018). Australian social work students: Balancing tertiary studies, paid work and poverty. Journal of Social Work, 19(2), 276–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468017318760776

Belle

M. A.

Antwi

C. O.

Ntim

S. Y.

Affum-Osei

Ren

(2021). Am I gonna get a job? Graduating students’ psychological capital, coping styles, and employment anxiety. Journal of Career Development, 49(5), 1122–1136. https://doi.org/10.1177/08948453211020124

Bennouna

Brumbaum

McLay

M. M.

Allaf

Wessells

Stark

(2021). The role of culturally responsive social and emotional learning in supporting refugee inclusion and belonging: A thematic analysis of service provider perspectives. PLoS ONE, 16(8), e0256743. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256743

10.

Berger

J. B.

Lyon

(2005). Past to present. In Seidman

(Ed.), College student retention: Formula for student success (pp. 1–29). American Council on Education and Praeger Publishers.

11.

Bettencourt

G. M.

(2021). “I belong because it wasn’t made for me”: Understanding working-class students’ sense of belonging on campus. Journal of Higher Education, 92(5), 760–783. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2021.1872288

12.

Bourdieu

(1986). The forms of capital. In Richardson

(Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood Press.

13.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

14.

Braun

Clarke

Boulton

Davey

McEvoy

(2020). The online survey as a qualitative research tool. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 24(6), 641–654. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2020.1805550

15.

Burke

Bennett

Burgess

Gray

Southgate

(2016). Capability, belonging and equity in Higher Education: Developing inclusive approach. Centre of Excellence for Equity in Higher Education, University of Newcastle, Australia.

16.

Cui

Yang

(2022). Social relationships and grit in English as a foreign language learning among high school students: A three-wave longitudinal study. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 1038878. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1038878

17.

De Sisto

Huq

Dickinson

(2021). Sense of belonging in second-year undergraduate students: The value of extracurricular activities. Higher Education Research & Development, 41(5), 1727–1742. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1902951

18.

Devisakti

Ramayah

(2021). Sense of belonging and grit in e-learning portal usage in higher education. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(8), 4850–4864. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1983611

19.

Dost

Smith

L. M.

(2023). Understanding higher education students’ sense of belonging: A qualitative meta-ethnographic analysis. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 47(6), 822–849. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877x.2023.2191176

20.

Dotterer

A. M.

Juhasz

A. C.

Murphy

K. N.

Park

Boyce

L. K.

(2020). Stress and family relationships among college student parents: A mixed methods study. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(3), 888–911. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407520975198

21.

Elmahdi

O. E. H.

AbdAlgane

Othman

K. A. J.

(2024). Promoting inclusion and motivation in EFL learning: Strategies for success. Teaching English Language, 18(1), 127–158. https://doi.org/10.22132/tel.2024.429625.1542

22.

Graham

Kogachi

Morales-Chicas

(2022). Do I fit in: Race/ethnicity and feelings of belonging in school. Educational Psychology Review, 34(4), 2015–2042. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-022-09709-x

23.

Guest

Namey

Chen

(2020). A simple method to assess and report thematic saturation in qualitative research. PLoS ONE, 15(5), e0232076. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232076

24.

Halbach

Iwaniec

(2020). Responsible, competent and with a sense of belonging: An explanation for the purported levelling effect of CLIL. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25(5), 1609–1623. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1786496

25.

Hashemian

Vincheh

M. H.

Rad

S. E. M.

(2024). Challenges of employing the underlying tenets of English as an international language in Iran. Education Research International, 2024, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/6896027

26.

Huang

Shiyanbola

O. O.

(2021). Investigation of barriers and facilitators to medication adherence in patients with Type 2 diabetes across different health literacy levels: An explanatory sequential mixed Methods study. Frontiers in Pharmacology, 12, Article 745749. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2021.745749

27.

Hussain

Jones

J. M.

(2021). Discrimination, diversity, and sense of belonging: Experiences of students of color. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 14(1), 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000117

28.

Khojanashvili

Tsereteli

Labadze

(2024). Understanding the impact of social and academic factors on sense of belonging in higher education: A study from the Georgian educational landscape. Journal of Eurasian Studies, 16(1), 139–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/18793665241261728

29.

Lee

E. L.

(2019). The segregation of foreigners in US mainstream classrooms. Sustainability, 11(11), 3157. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113157

30.

Jia

Wang

Zhang

Chen

(2023). Relationships among inferiority feelings, fear of negative evaluation, and social anxiety in Chinese junior high school students. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 1015477. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1015477

31.

Maki

P. L.

(2023). Assessing for learning: Building a sustainable commitment across the institution. Routledge.

32.

Maleki

(2025a). Mindset matters more than you think: Investigating psychological reasons behind online exam cheating behaviors among EFL learners in higher education. Journal of Academic Ethics, 23, 405–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09591-y

33.

Maleki

(2025b). Towards a more equitable education: A lens into EFL teachers’ pedagogical barriers in online assessments. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 44, 186–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2024.2438127

34.

Maleki

Mirfendereski

(2025). “I Had No Other Choice but to Resign”: An in-depth investigation into the reasons behind EFL teachers’ attrition in language institutes. Discover Education, 4(1), 69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00464-z

35.

Maluenda-Albornoz

Berríos-Riquelme

Infante-Villagrán

Lobos-Peña

(2022). Perceived social support and engagement in first-year students: The mediating role of belonging during COVID-19. Sustainability, 15(1), 597. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010597

36.

McCrudden

M. T.

Marchand

(2020). Multilevel mixed methods research and educational psychology. Educational Psychologist, 55(4), 197–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1793156

37.

Ming

MacLeod

Van Der Veen

(2023). Construction and enactment of interdisciplinarity: A grounded theory case study in Liberal Arts and Sciences education. Learning Culture and Social Interaction, 40, Article 100716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2023.100716

38.

Moghaddam

M. M.

Murray

(2024). Beyond pleasantries: University teachers’ responses to students’ favor-asking in asynchronous online communication. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688241306165

39.

Moiinvaziri

Razmjoo

S. A.

(2016). Teachers-to-be voices: A grounded theory approach towards challenges facing Iranian EFL MA candidates. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 54–74. https://doi.org/10.22055/rals.2016.11777

40.

Mouhoubi-Messadh

Khaldi

(2022). Dealing with foreign language speaking anxiety: What every language teacher should know. Training, Language and Culture, 6(1), 20–32. https://doi.org/10.22363/2521-442x-2022-6-1-20-32

41.

Nieuwoudt

J. E.

Pedler

M. L.

(2021). Student retention in higher education: Why students choose to remain at university. Journal of College Student Retention, 25(2), 326–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025120985228

42.

Okolie

S. O.

Manyeruke

(2024). The impact of discrimination on the psychological wellbeing and ethnic identity of international students in North Cyprus. Environment Social Psychology, 9(5), 2247. https://doi.org/10.54517/esp.v9i5.2247

43.

Parsaiyan

S. F.

Karimi

(2023). English-major students’ construction of academic sense of belonging: A metaphoric exploration. International Journal of Educational Research, 122, Article 102236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2023.102236

44.

Rahiem

M. D.

(2020). Remaining motivated despite the limitations: University students’ learning propensity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Children and Youth Services Review, 120, Article 105802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105802

45.

Rodenburg

Rizwan

Liu

Hughes

J. C.

(2021). Enhancing the Positive Impact Rating: A new business school rating in support of a sustainable future. Sustainability, 13(12), 6519. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126519

46.

Seifert

Bar-Tal

(2022). Student-teachers’ sense of belonging in collaborative online learning. Education and Information Technologies, 28(7), 7797–7826. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11498-3

47.

Soria

Stubblefield

(2015). Knowing me, knowing you: Building strengths awareness, belonging and persistence in higher education. Journal of College, Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 17(3), 351-372. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025115575914

48.

Terblanche

Fakir

Chinyamurindi

Mishi

(2020). Impact of self-esteem and student-and-lecturer interaction on academic performance in a chartered accounting programme. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 45(4), 464–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877x.2020.1781801

49.

Thomas

(2012). Building student engagement and belonging in Higher Education at a time of change: Final report from the What Works? Student Retention and Success Programme. HEFCE.

50.

Tinto

(2012). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. University of Chicago Press.

51.

Vaccaro

Newman

(2023). Theoretical foundations for sense of belonging in college. In Bentrim

Henning

G. W.

(Eds.), The impact of a sense of belonging in college (pp. 3–20). Routledge.

52.

Wang

Derakhshan

Ghiasvand

Esfandyari

(2024). Exploring Chinese and Iranian EAP students’ oral communication apprehension in English: A cross-cultural mixed-methods study. System, 125, Article 103437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103437

53.

Weisi

Ahmadi

(2023). Conceptualizing student voice in teacher-student curriculum partnerships within Iran’s higher education. Higher Education, 87(3), 795–812. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01036-6

54.

Wilson

VanAntwerp

(2021). Left out: A review of women’s struggle to develop a sense of belonging in engineering. Sage Open, 11(3), 21582440211040791. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244021104079

55.

Worsley

J. D.

Harrison

Corcoran

(2021). Bridging the gap: Exploring the unique transition from home, school or college into university. Frontiers in Public Health, 9, Article 634285. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.634285

56.

Xue

Singh

M. K. M.

(2025). Unveiling the academic, sociocultural, and psychological adaptation challenges of Chinese international students in Malaysia: A systematic review. Journal of International Students, 15(2), 69–86. https://doi.org/10.32674/37286t88

57.

Yan

(2021). Chinese EFL students’ perceptions of classroom justice: The impact of teachers’ caring and immediacy. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 767008. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.767008

58.

Young

J. D.

Demirdöğen

Lewis

S. E.

(2024). Students’ sense of belonging in introductory chemistry: Identifying four dimensions of belonging via grounded theory. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 22, 1515–1535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-023-10433-3

59.

Yuan

(2024). EFL teacher-student interaction, teacher immediacy, and Students’ academic engagement in the Chinese higher learning context. Acta Psychologica, 244, Article 104185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104185

60.

Zengilowski

Lee

Gaines

R. E.

Park

Choi

Schallert

D. L.

(2023). The collective classroom “we”: The role of students’ sense of belonging on their affective, cognitive, and discourse experiences of online and face-to-face discussions. Linguistics and Education, 73, Article 101142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2022.101142

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB