See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330937726

ASSESSING INSTITUTIONAL EFFORTS TO CULTURALLY INTEGRATE

INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS

Thesis · August 2017

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29405.46565

CITATION READS
1 1,711

1 author:

Ken Guan
Indiana University Bloomington
1 PUBLICATION 1 CITATION

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ken Guan on 07 February 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ASSESSING INSTITUTIONAL EFFORTS TO CULTURALLY INTEGRATE

INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS

Jian “Ken” Guan

Submitted to the faculty of the School of Education

in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree
Doctor of Education
in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies
Indiana University
August 2017
 Accepted by the School of Education Faculty, Indiana University, in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education

Doctoral Committee

______________________________________
Victor Borden, PhD, Chairperson

______________________________________
Samuel Museus, PhD

______________________________________
Christopher Viers, PhD

Date of Defense (June 28, 2017)

ii
 © 2017
Jian “Ken” Guan

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thank you to the following people:

Vic Borden: I have benefited from what you called “an apprenticeship.” You have taught me that
research is not rocket science, you guided me to be an essentialist, and you inspired me to shrug
off the hardships.
Chris Viers: for your mentorship, care, and thoughtfulness during this process.
Sam Museus: for always making your schedule work for me. Your feedback after the defense
made this dissertation even more refined.
My parents: for everything. It has been 19 years since I left home.
BreAnna Guan: for our loving children and for all the love you have shared with me and
bestowed on them. You have been my closest friend.
Sam and Lily: for bringing me joy.
Aunty Lily and Uncle Steamy: for raising me in Hawaii.
Keith and Ann Miser: for believing in me. Because of you, I went to Indiana University to get
my EdD.
Ron Thompson: for your continuing spiritual support and our fireside talks.
Don and Sophie Kusch: for your prayers.
Denny Roberts: for your encouragement and feedback.
Don Hossler: for introducing me the word “internationalization.”
Tom Nelson Laird: for your help in the process of crafting this dissertation topic.
Bob Gonyea: for providing me with the NSSE data, contributing your thoughts, and watching me
making progress through the email notifications for document updates.
Tim Stockton: for your mentorship and for being a role model.
Erna Rosenfeld: we miss you.
Dave Mallon: for your insights, support, and friendship.
The leaders of the selected institutions: for providing data verification by phone.
Sara Henry: for your editing work and for making the formatting almost perfect.
All my teachers, supervisors, colleagues, extended families, and friends: for cheering me on.

We did it!

iv
 Jian “Ken” Guan

ASSESSING INSTITUTIONAL EFFORTS TO CULTURALLY INTEGRATE

INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS

The purpose of this research is to find evidence regarding the success of efforts higher education

institutions have made to integrate international students generally, and specifically those efforts

that foster engagement with domestic students. Institutions were selected for review based on a

value-added regression analysis on higher education institutions’ average level of perceived

campus support among international undergraduate students using as predictors exogenous

factors beyond the institution’s direct control. A set of 12 outlier institutions (six negative and six

positive), were identified based on the difference between predicted and actual values of the

Supporting Campus Environment indicator from the National Survey for Student Engagement. A

blind assessment of campus web pages was then conducted to assess the robustness of

international student support programs. A stronger association was discovered between the

value-added measure (regression residual) and the web scan ratings (r = .35) than between the

predicted level of perceived support and the web scan ratings (r = -.11). This analysis

demonstrates that the value-added approach for assessing institutional effectiveness provides a

somewhat valid measure of effectiveness, although there was sufficient divergence between the

value-added measure, and the qualitative assessment of international student services to warrant

further research and careful consideration of using this method to assess institutional

effectiveness.

v
 ______________________________________
Victor Borden, PhD, Chairperson

______________________________________
Samuel Museus, PhD

______________________________________
Christopher Viers, PhD

vi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................................... iv
ABSTRACT............................................................................................................................ v
LIST OF APPENDICES ......................................................................................................... x
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................. xi
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................ xii
CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
Problem Statement ........................................................................................................... 1
The Integration Experience of International Students ...................................................... 3
Purpose.............................................................................................................................. 5
CHAPTER 2—LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................. 6
International Student Adjustment .................................................................................... 6
Shifting the Focus to the International Student College Experience ................................ 8
International Student Engagement .................................................................................... 13
Campus Climate for International Students ...................................................................... 17
Literature on Best Practices .............................................................................................. 21
Best Practices in the United States.............................................................................. 21
Best Practices Worldwide ........................................................................................... 23
Theoretical Frameworks ................................................................................................... 26
Tinto’s Student Integration Theory............................................................................. 27
Astin’s Student Involvement Theory .......................................................................... 30
Kuh’s Student Engagement Concept .......................................................................... 32
Shortcomings of the Three Theories ........................................................................... 33
Museus’ Culturally Engaging Campus Environment Model ............................................ 34
Applying CECE to the International Student Experience........................................... 35
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 36
Research Purpose and Research Questions....................................................................... 38
CHAPTER 3—METHODS .................................................................................................... 39
Stage 1: Value-Added Regression Approach ................................................................... 39
Instrumentation ........................................................................................................... 42

vii
 Engagement Indicators................................................................................................ 42
Predictor Variables...................................................................................................... 43
Multiple Ordinary Linear Squares Regression Model ................................................ 46
Stage 2: A Single-Blind Web Scan Analysis .................................................................... 47
Data Collection Strategy ............................................................................................. 50
Key Term Search ........................................................................................................ 51
Data Sorting Strategy .................................................................................................. 52
Institutional Comparison................................................................................................... 53
CHAPTER 4—FINDINGS..................................................................................................... 54
Overall Sample of Institutions .......................................................................................... 54
Sample Characteristics ...................................................................................................... 55
Target Outcome Measure .................................................................................................. 58
Refining the Regression Model .................................................................................. 59
Selecting Outlier Universities ........................................................................................... 62
Web Scan Method ............................................................................................................. 64
Step 1: Searching With One Generic Key Word ........................................................ 64
Step 2: Searching With a Different Set of Key Words .............................................. 66
Step 3: Refining the Web Scan Framework ................................................................ 66
Step 4: Refining Rating Categories ............................................................................ 67
Step 5: Defining a Rating Scale .................................................................................. 67
Step 6: Calling Institutions ......................................................................................... 69
Step 7: Rating and Comparing Institutional/Dimensional Results ............................. 70
Overall Result ................................................................................................................... 70
What Did They All Do? ............................................................................................. 70
What Did They All Not Do? ...................................................................................... 72
Other Findings ........................................................................................................... 72
Concordance: Regression Findings vs. the Web Scan Findings ...................................... 73
CHAPTER 5—DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS ......................................................... 75
Interpretation of Overall Results ....................................................................................... 75
Group Performance by Dimension ............................................................................. 76
Summary ..................................................................................................................... 85
viii
 Contribution to the Literature and to Practice................................................................... 87
Rationale for Misalignment .............................................................................................. 89
Exogenous Factors ...................................................................................................... 89
Endogenous Factors .................................................................................................... 90
Limitations and Implications ............................................................................................ 92
Sample Size................................................................................................................. 93
Web Scan Analysis ..................................................................................................... 93
Framework .................................................................................................................. 95
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 95
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 97
CURRICULUM VITAE

ix
 LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A. Original Web Scan Rubric Based on the CECE Model .................................... 116
Appendix B. Finalized Web Scan Rubric ............................................................................... 117
Appendix C. Description of the Rubric Categories ................................................................ 120
Appendix D. Institution Profiles ............................................................................................. 123

x
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. NSSE Supportive Campus Environment Indicator................................................... 43

Table 2. Description of Predictors Included in Value-Added Regression Model .................. 48
Table 3. Frequency Distribution on Original Variables: Sample Characteristics vs.
4-Year Degree-Granting Institutions in the United States ................................................ 55
Table 4. Average Percentage of International Students in Top Third of Supporting
Environment Score............................................................................................................ 60
Table 5. Final Variables Used in Regression to Predict Top Third Outcome ........................ 61
Table 6. Regression Coefficients for Initial, Full Variable Prediction Model ........................ 62
Table 7. Coefficient Table for Final Model ............................................................................ 63
Table 8. The 12 Selected Outlier Characteristics Distribution ............................................... 65
Table 9. CECE Indicators and Emerged Web Scan Themes .................................................. 68
Table 10. Rating Scale ............................................................................................................ 68
Table 11. Institutional Scores for Each Dimension and Overall Scores ................................. 71
Table 12. International Student Services Unit Distribution .................................................... 72
Table 13. Regression and Web Scan Results Comparison ..................................................... 74
Table 14. Ratings of the 12 Outlier Institutions Across the Web Scan Dimensions of
Performance ...................................................................................................................... 77
Table 15. The Values of the Exogenous Predictors for the Four Misaligned Institutions ...... 90
Table 16. Web Scan Findings for the Four Misaligned Institutions ....................................... 92

xi
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Tinto’s theory of student integration ....................................................................... 28

Figure 2. Graphical depiction of outlier selection .................................................................. 63
Figure 3. International student services unit comparison ....................................................... 73

xii
 CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTION

One of several ways that college student demographics are changing in the United States

is the growing presence of international students on college campuses. The overall number of

international students enrolled in U.S. higher education institutions grew by 103% between 2000

and 2016, from 514,723 to 1,043,839 (Open Doors, 2016). By 2020, the international student

enrollment in the United States is projected to reach two million (Douglass & Edelstein, 2009).

In particular, the leading U.S. host institutions have more than doubled their international student

enrollment over the past 15 years (Open Doors, 2014). A substantial portion of the recent

increase is accounted for by the rise of international students at the undergraduate level (Open

Doors, 2016). For the first time in 2011, the number of enrolled undergraduate international

students surpassed the number of enrolled international graduate students (Open Doors, 2012).

At a time when U.S. public institutions are seeking alternative revenues to compensate for state

budget cuts caused by the global recession (Johnson, Oliff, & Williams, 2011), the increasing

number of undergraduate international students is helping to fill the funding gap.

Problem Statement

International students who are well integrated into campus culture are more likely to

participate in the classroom, thus enriching their own and domestic students’ educational

experience and advancing international perspectives (Andrade, 2006; Gareis, 2012). Enhancing

international student integration also improves student retention (Özturgut, 2013). Encouraging

international students to expand their social network beyond students from their countries of

origin can also help to limit the negative effects of acculturative stress (Sullivan & Kashubeck-

West, 2015; Yan & Berliner, 2011). A number of researchers and practitioners have observed

and expressed concern that international students and domestic students appear to be moving in

1
parallel tracks with limited overlap in curricular and co-curricular activities (Brustein, 2009;

Özturgut, 2013; Redden, 2014; Young, Eland, Isensee, Yefanova, & Yu, 2014). Glass and

Westmont-Campbell (2013) reported that U.S. students generally view their campus environment

as supportive of diversity and internationalism, but they contradictorily rated their actual

interaction with peers from different cultural backgrounds as “rare,” and their desire for exposure

to students with cultural backgrounds different from their own as “neutral” (Glass, Buus, &

Braskamp, 2013). Such phenomenon illustrate that the image of internationalized campuses

portrayed on college websites is often inconsistent with the reality of the domestic and

international student experience.

Numerous reports and studies have noted that many international students do not

integrate well into American campuses. Gareis (2012) found that 40% of the international

students surveyed reported having no close American friends. Zhao, Kuh, and Carini (2005)

reported that both first-year and senior international students at a national level are less socially

engaged on campus and are less satisfied with their overall college experience than their peers

born and raised in the United States. In prestigious flagship public universities (Association of

American Universities [AAU] members), international students are reported to be less satisfied

with their overall social experience, less sure about the value of their U.S. education, and less

likely to choose the same university if given the chance again compared to their domestic peers

(Zhao & Douglass, 2012). If this gap continues to persist, U.S. institutions will likely suffer

losses in international student enrollments and in the benefits that accrue from international

student participation in U.S. institutions (Choudaha & Schulmann, 2014).

The losses could be in direct tangible ways or in ways that are indirect and less tangible.

The direct tangible benefit loss includes income and graduation rates (Johnson et al., 2011).

2
International students have been reported to inflate graduation rates in countries with a high

proportion of international students, such as Australia, New Zealand, and the UK (University

World News, 2013). The experience of international students today may have a significant effect

on the attractiveness of the institution for top student talent and tuition income tomorrow, both

internationally and domestically (Zhao & Douglass, 2012). Indirectly, U.S. institutions would

lose opportunities for expanded cultural enrichment. American students, faculty members, and

administrators would miss out on the opportunity to take advantage of the different cultural

backgrounds, perspectives, and values that international students bring to campus to expand

domestic students’ understanding of who they are and how they think of and relate to others

(Redden, 2013).

The Integration Experience of International Students

University administrators, faculty, and staff do not always recognize the unique needs of

international students. International students have been traditionally a small population (about

5% of total national enrollment; Open Doors, 2016) compared to American underserved groups,

which usually garner more attention related to needed academic and social supports

(Mamiseishvili, 2012). In addition, international students’ average grades and graduation rates

have been generally higher compared to domestic students (University World News, 2013). As a

result, enhancing practices that promote intentional campus experiences and developmental

programs has been a low priority (Lee & Rice, 2007).

Historically, international students’ cultural and pre-departure backgrounds were less of a

concern to U.S. college administrators than their academic performance and involvement in

college during the first year, especially for international students. Students have been treated as

recipients of campus culture rather than active learning agents who interact with the institution

3
(Stage & Hossler, 2000). A gap exists between administrators’ perceptions of international

student departure and the reasons reported by students who have transferred away from their first

enrollment institution (Choudaha & Schumann, 2014).

Resources and services provided for international integration have also been described as

inadequate to the task of serving them. International student services staff are generally

considered to be specialized in international student development. Unfortunately, they are often

overwhelmed with immigration issues, visa procedures, and tracking student legal visa status to

the detriment of the service aspect of improving the international student college experience

(Andrade, 2006; Di Maria, 2012; Redden, 2013). Although interested, general student affairs

staff are not as involved in supporting international students as are their colleagues in

international student services, and they have less specialized training in this area (Di Maria,

2012).

Because of these deficiencies, policies and practices related to integrating and supporting

international students on U.S. campuses are worth increased attention from senior leaders at U.S.

universities and from higher education research scholars. This is especially important as U.S.

institutions increasingly rely on international enrollments to meet budget targets, particularly at

public institutions where tuition is typically three times higher for international students than for

in-state resident students (Redden, 2013; Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004). With global competition

for international students ever increasing (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

Development [OECD], 2014) and students becoming more sophisticated in choosing their

destinations, it is urgent that U.S. university leadership examine and improve the international

student experience to sustain enrollments, improve international student persistence, and promote

authentic global engagement for all students (Lee & Rice, 2007).

4
 Purpose

The purpose of this study is to advance our understanding of what distinguishes

universities that have the best results in terms of integration from institutions with poorer results

related to the organizational arrangements and programmatic strategies for international student

integration within their mission-related contexts. The next section will briefly summarize the

research literature regarding related studies and theoretical and conceptual frameworks that serve

to inform the current study.

5
 CHAPTER 2—LITERATURE REVIEW

The purpose of the study is to investigate the characteristics of institutions at which

international students have the highest levels of integration and what initiatives and services

those universities offer to support international student integration. The following section

provides a brief history of the research literature on international student integration, identifies

trends in the research, and reviews the current state of knowledge on this topic. This is followed

by a discussion of the limited literature on existing university practices. The final section of this

review presents salient theoretical frameworks that have been utilized in this literature,

culminating with a presentation of the theoretical framework that underlies the current study.

International Student Adjustment

International students began attending U.S. postsecondary institutions in significant

number in the late 19th century. However, rigorous research about this phenomenon started

about 50 years later—after World War II—when international exchange programs gained

momentum in the 1950s. Notably, Gukich (1948) conducted a study of the personal adjustment

of 13 graduate international students who were enrolled in the School of Education at Ohio State

University. She informally interviewed these 13 graduate students and learned that most of their

adjustment problems were associated with language difficulties, cultural adjustment, and the

inability or unwillingness of U.S. students to relate to them. She recommended improving the

institution’s orientation program and establishing more relevant sociocultural relationships

between domestic and international students.

MacKay (1954) studied Indiana University’s role in intercultural education through

historical narrative. She noted that the institution needed to improve counseling and increase the

opportunity for non-English speaking international students to learn English and the U.S. culture

6
by selective placement in academic and living arrangements, as well as establish a more relevant

orientation program for newly enrolled international students.

Arjona (1956) compared the adjustment problems of international graduate students with

those of domestic students who were enrolled during the 1954-1955 academic year at Indiana

University. The adjustment problems were analyzed from four perspectives: personal, emotional,

social, and academic. The study revealed that the 50 randomly selected non-English speaking

international students were experiencing considerably more problems than their U.S. peers. The

author recommended providing organized orientation programs for international students, more

opportunities for interaction between domestic and international students, and improved

information regarding available campus services and facilities for international students.

Early research on this topic often focused merely on the description and analysis of the

students’ psychological experiences (Pyle, 1986; Ward et al., 2008). A substantial focus of these

studies was on adjustment issues (Church, 1982), such as mastery of language (Hagey & Hagey,

1972), health concerns (Miller & Harwell, 1983), and support for academic and social needs

(Hamilton, 1979; Wan, Chapman, & Biggs, 1992). Although Church’s (1982) aim was to

summarize predictors of international student adjustment, he noticed that flaws existed as to the

utilized methods, specifically that the underpinning concepts and theories were underdeveloped,

and that existing studies lack longitudinal design and inadequate use of control groups.

Starting in the 1980s, research began to shift toward a social adjustment perspective,

examining issues such as acculturative associated stress and the coping strategies used by

international students (Berry, 1980; Furnham & Bochner, 1986). Therefore, researchers’

perspective changed from a clinical view (psychological adjustment) to a developmental

perspective (social adjustment). With a minor change, the research on international students in

7
the U.S. through the turn of the 21st century focused on the challenges these students faced in

their adjustment to foreign universities and culture (Barratt & Huba, 1994; Chen, 1993; Chiu,

1995; Kaczmarek et al., 1994; Kagan & Cohen, 1990; Poyrazli et al., 2001; Rajapaska &

Dundes, 2003), their coping styles and strategies (Cross, 1995; Hayes & Lin, 1994; Mallinckrodt

& Leong, 1992; Misra et al., 2003), and how to reduce adjustment related stress and enhance the

positive aspects of the international experience (Ward et al., 2008).

Between 1982 and 2010, the growing literature on international student adjustment

predictors remained unsynthesized and unintegrated (Church, 1982). Studies conducted by

Zhang and Goodson (2010) and De Araujo (2011) filled this gap. Zhang and Goodson (2010)

conducted a systematic review of 64 peer-reviewed journal articles between 1990 and 2009. De

Araujo (2011) conducted a systematic review of 11 peer-reviewed journal articles. Through

systematically examining predictors of psychosocial adjustment of international undergraduate

and graduate students in the United States, the two studies suggested that the following four

categories of factors are the most frequently reported stressors and most significant predictors:

(a) student preparation (English language proficiency, length of residence in the United States);

(b) psychological factors (stress, self-efficacy, personality, homesickness); (c) socialization

factors (acculturation, interactions with Americans, perceived discrimination or prejudice); and

(d) demographics (gender, country of origin).

Shifting the Focus to the International Student College Experience

One of the many major shifts in U.S. higher education in the 21st century was the

increased demand for accountability and evidence of learning outcomes. Institutions faced these

demands while also facing cuts in state financial support (Mallory & Clemont, 2009). As

institutions increased their recruitment of international undergraduate students, issues arose

8
related to their persistence to stay in college. There has been limited research on international

student persistence (Andrade, 2009; Andrade & Evans, 2009; Kwai, 2010; Mamiseishvili, 2012),

especially on their perception of the services offered to retain them (Hanover Research, 2013). In

addition, there is limited national data on international student retention rates for researchers to

analyze (Evans, Carlin, & Potts, 2009), and the only data pertain to institutional-level

enrollments and graduation rates, but not at the degree program (major) level. This, in turn,

provides limited insights on the factors that most influence international student persistence, and

that subsequently leads to limited guidance for policymaking 1.

Researchers have observed the emergence of neo-racism (a form of discrimination based

on cultural differences or national origins regardless of race; Lee, 2015) among domestic

students, which could lead to cultural clashes (Fischer, 2011, 2012b; Glass et al., 2013; Harrison,

2012; Lee & Opio, 2011; Lee & Rice, 2007). Not only are international students often friendless

(Gareis, 2012; Glass, 2012), numerous derogatory incidents have appeared on campuses, such as

Kansas State University (Fischer, 2012b), University of Nebraska-Lincoln (Redden, 2012), Ohio

State University (Tilsley, 2012), Michigan State University (Moran, 2012), and the University of

Iowa (Drash, 2015; Lee, 2013). Derogatory words toward international students were published

in various formats, such as a university newspaper, off-site university social media, and spray-

painting on a student car, including phrases like "Go back home" and “Enemy.” Concurrently,

the research focus has shifted from retaining students to integrating and interacting students

1
IPEDS graduation rates are reported by Race/Ethnicity, and the Non-Resident Alien ethnic group is
where all temporary international students appear (i.e., those who are not permanent residents or have
become U.S. citizens).
9
interculturally (Fischer, 2012a).

Several researchers have called for studies examining the student's college experience

from an institutional perspective (Douglass & Edelstein, 2009; Harper & Quaye, 2009; Kuh et

al., 2007; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Zhao et al., 2005). This has resulted in an emerging area

of research that views international integration within the context of specific institutions (Glass

et al., 2013). Institutions are increasingly viewed as holding the responsibility to design, create,

and arrange campus environments to foster campus diversity and internationalization (Strange &

Banning, 2001). As such, researchers and higher education leaders are calling for more research

on how to create a campus environment that prepares domestic students for their new classmates

(Fischer, 2012a; Glass & Westmont-Campbell, 2014) and supports the integration of

international students and domestic students (Bevis & Lucas, 2007; Edelstein, 2009; Zhao et al.,

2005), which also requires a greater effort and not just an increase in diversity (Fischer, 2012a).

The International Student Barometer as an instrument is designed for such purpose and 1,400

institutions have used it in the United States and 31 other countries, with feedback from over 2.9

million students worldwide (I-Graduate International Insight, 2017).

It appears that frequency of intercultural interaction on and off campus is low unless

intentionally fostered (Redden, 2014). It has been reported that U.S. students and international

students, in general, lack interest in cross-cultural engagement (Glass et al., 2013; Yan &

Berliner, 2011). In a study conducted by Glass et al. (2013) on U.S. college students’ global

perspective, most domestic students reported that their interactions with international students

are anxiety causing. Factors such as language barriers, disinterest in other cultures, and fear of

causing offense lead U.S. students to consciously or subconsciously avoid interaction with

international students (Harrison, 2012).

10
 Not only do U.S. students show hesitation and disinterest, the same holds true for

international students. International students’ lack of understanding, heavy reliance on co-

national peers, and failure to attempt to understand the campus from a cultural perspective makes

it extremely difficult to establish feelings of belonging and inclusion. Most international students

need support or encouragement to better adapt to the environment (Andrade, 2009; Yan &

Berliner, 2011).

Still, a vast majority of international students ultimately want to be integrated into their

campus and form friendships outside their nationalities. Abe, Talbot, and Geelhoed (1998) found

that talking and interacting with host students was highly correlated with international students’

perceptions of their adjustment to American life and that spending more leisure time with

Americans was significantly correlated with the adaptation of international students. Many

friendships on U.S. campuses are observed forming between students who are living together or

participating in the same activities. As such, encouraging the full integration and participation of

international students on campus is important for the success of all students.

It has been argued that individual students should not be blamed for poor intercultural

interaction behavior. Kwai (2010) pointed out that no matter how prepared international students

are academically, how proficient they are in English, or how familiar they are with U.S. cultural

norms, they still face unique challenges to succeed in a foreign environment away from friends,

family, and familiar surroundings. Hence, as a significant number of studies have suggested,

international student integration requires institutional effort to create an engaging environment

that is easier for both international and U.S. students to adapt (Andrade, 2006; Choudaha &

Schumann, 2014; Di Maria, 2012; Gareis, 2012; Glass et al., 2013; Kwai, 2010; Lee & Opio,

2011; Mamiseishvili, 2012).

11
 In sum, the international student integration research was first approached in the literature

by examining psychological adjustment symptoms and then progressed to reducing stress and

developing coping strategies for social adjustment. Later, the focus switched to recruiting and

retention efforts, and more recently, to international student integration as an institutional

responsibility to create an environment conducive to student integration. One particular

shortcoming of the literature is the insufficient number of college impact studies conducted to

inform policies and practices. Although researchers have been able to identify the acculturative

stressors, a substantial number of studies provide only abstract concepts rather than concrete

suggestions to help practitioners support international students with their transitions (Choudaha

& Schumann, 2014; Di Maria, 2012). Another critique is that the models used for studying

international students have only been tested on migrant and refugee populations, which arguably

mischaracterize the acculturation experience of international students (Kwai, 2010). The current

study adds to the body of literature on international student integration and engagement by

addressing institutional practices that foster a culturally engaging campus environment for

domestic and international students.

In the following sections, the limited body of evidence that sheds lights on understanding

international student experience from a reciprocal institution-student perspective is discussed.

First, the empirical studies that inform what we know about international student engagement,

integration and involvement are explored. Then, the existing programs and practices that have

been labeled “best practices” through various studies done by institutions, government entities,

and research organizations are reviewed. Finally, the most commonly used theoretical

frameworks in this field of research are discussed and the theoretical framework for the proposed

study is explained.

12
 International Student Engagement

There are a limited number of studies about the impact of college on international student

engagement; however, interest in international student engagement has become more popular as

have the interests in student engagement for all students. The review in this section reflects how

terms like integration, involvement, and engagement have been used both precisely and also

somewhat loosely and interchangeably over time. Although used somewhat loosely at this point,

more precise distinctions are drawn later in the chapter.

One of the most highly cited studies on international student engagement was conducted

by Zhao et al. (2005). The researchers used data from a large national survey to examine the

extent of international student engagement compared with American peers. Areas of comparison

included student learning, personal development, and satisfaction with college. The study used

data collected through the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE, 2017), which has

been used by over 1,600 institutions since 2000. The study employed NSSE data gathered in

2001 from 317 four-year institutions, with a total of 175,000 randomly selected first-year and

senior students combined. Zhao et al. (2005) found that both first-year and senior international

students were less satisfied with their overall college experience compared to their domestic

peers. In particular, engagement levels were observed to be different among racial groups within

international students. Asian international students overall were less engaged and less satisfied

with the quality of the campus environment compared to international students who are White

and Black. Yet, Asian international students are the majority population among international

students.

Andrade (2006) aimed to understand the relationship between international student

experience and persistence and academic achievement at one private, religiously affiliated

13
university. The author conducted ethnographic interviews and focus groups with 17 senior status

international students from Asia and the South Pacific enrolled in a Mormon university. Andrade

(2006) found the key factors contributing to international students’ academic success and

persistence were not only related to the students’ activities and efforts, but also to institutional

efforts reported by international students as contributing to their ability to persist. Institutional

engagement efforts included involvement in spiritual life, engagement in courses, and

involvement in extracurricular activities.

Otsu (2008) conducted a study that established a positive correlation between

undergraduate and graduate international students’ overall satisfaction with the campus and their

satisfaction with various aspects of campus support and interpersonal relationships. She found

that international undergraduates were more involved in their academic experiences than

international graduates. International undergraduates also had a greater amount of campus

involvement and more interpersonal relationships on campus and were more satisfied with their

campus experience than international graduates.

Kwai (2010) examined factors influencing international student retention from Fall 2006

to Fall 2007. In this quantitative study, the author surveyed 454 international undergraduate

students at two public 4-year university systems. The study was guided by a combination of

retention models developed by Tinto (1975) and Astin (1970), with revisions made by Tierney

(1992) and Pascarella and Terenzini (1980). The findings of this study suggest that there was no

single factor or model to predict the persistence of international undergraduate students in the

United States; however, spring semester GPA, credit hours attempted, and on-campus

employment all had a positive effect on retention into the second year of international

undergraduates, as they did for domestic students.

14
 In a doctoral dissertation study, Phillips (2013) examined international student

engagement and success by race using the 2007 NSSE data. This study further supported Zhao et

al.’s (2005) finding that international student engagement varied not only by race, but also by

gender and institutional type. According to Phillips (2013), Black and Latino international

students exhibited a higher level of engagement compared to Asian international students. Male

international students engaged in enriching educational experiences at a higher level compared to

female international students.

Based on a nationwide survey completed by 454 international students, Gareis (2012)

examined how host region affected international students’ friendship experiences in New York

City, non-metropolitan parts of the Northeast, and non-metropolitan parts of the South. She

found that students were more pleased with the number and quality of their friendships with

Americans in the South than the Northeast and more satisfied in non-metropolitan smaller

college towns than in metropolitan environments. She concluded that the regional differences

might be attributed to Southern hospitality. It also could be that international students at those

institutions have fewer on- and off-campus networks of people from their own country or region

to turn to, and thus are more likely to make American friends (Gareis, 2012).

Glass, Gómez, and Urzúa (2014) uncovered differences by region of origin in

international student recreation participation, intercultural friendship, and adaptation to U.S.

colleges. Using measures from the Ethnicity and Public Recreation Participation (EPRP) model

and the Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire (SACQ), the authors analyzed data from a

national sample of 298 respondents. In particular, their findings showed that non-European

international students participated less in recreation and leisure activities compared to European

students, with Eastern and Southeastern Asian in particular showing the lowest levels of

15
participation among non-European students. In addition, non-European international students

tended to form friendships with their co-national peers and establish fewer friends among

domestic peers. On the basis of these findings, the authors made several recommendations to

enhance international students’ social and academic adaptation to college, including (a)

institutional researchers should add a country of origin item to existing campus climate

instruments such as the Diverse Learning Environments survey (Higher Education Research

Institute [HERI], 2012); (b) faculty, administrators, and student leaders should consider whether

closing the host national-international student friendship gap is a necessity, luxury, or an ideal;

and (c) faculty and administrators should redesign curricular and recreational opportunities to

enrich the quality of the academic environment for all students—both host national and

international students—and help international students to better adapt to their host institutions.

Zhao and Douglass (2012) examined international student engagement across the highly

selective AAU institutions, an association of 62 leading research-intensive universities in the

United States and Canada. The authors used data from the 2010 Student Experience in the

Research University (SERU) survey. This survey was administered at 15 of the 62 AAU member

campuses, including nine University of California campuses and six other public research

universities: Rutgers University, the University of Pittsburgh, the University of Michigan, the

University of Minnesota, the University of Oregon, and the University of Texas. The authors

included international student “density” in their study, which is the proportion of international

undergraduate students on each of the campuses. They found that an increasing density had a

positive impact on academic aspects of the educational experience for both U.S. and

international students. A higher density of international students was also associated with a

greater sense of belonging (but still lower than domestic students), increased engagement in their

16
studies, better use of time, and a more positive overall experience. However, international

student density was negatively associated with international students’ overall social experience

and their perceptions of the value of their U.S. education. The respondents enrolling in higher

density institutions were also less likely to indicate that they would re-choose the current

university if they had the chance to decide again.

Melnick, Kaur, and Yu (2011) investigated the relationship between international student

social integration and their academic outcomes. The researchers administered a survey regarding

the factors affecting social integration to 84 students in two cohorts within a graduate degree-

seeking program. The authors suggested that social adjustment eventually affects academic

outcomes. In particular, students’ prior exposure to international living and/or schooling is an

important predictor of student well-being and academic performance in an international program.

Those who previously faced social and cultural challenges appeared to adapt better in the study

program. In addition, those who improved their English communication through participating in

structured team projects and social events reported a greater perception of social integration. The

authors suggested that international student developmental programs could be structured to

facilitate both social integration and academic achievement, such as social events within

academic programs. By doing so, students feel less isolated and able to improve their English at

the same time.

Campus Climate for International Students

Glass (2012) examined the extent to which 12 specific educational experiences were

associated with international undergraduates’ perception of campus climate, learning, and

development. Guided by a self-authorship framework of intercultural maturity (King & Baxter-

Magolda, 2005) and using multiple regression analysis, the study analyzed 437 international

17
student respondents to the Global Perspective Inventory (GPI), which assesses global and

holistic student learning and development, as well as student experiences and perceptions of their

campus environment (Braskamp, Braskamp, & Engberg, 2013). The results suggested that

international students who participate in leadership programs, interact with others from their own

culture, and take courses where professors facilitate intergroup dialogue reported more positive

perceptions of campus climate. The study was limited by a small sample size. In addition, since

respondents were selected randomly across the nation, the study did not examine the impact of

institutional characteristics, such as size, setting, control, and density on participants’

perceptions.

Based on an analysis of a representative sample of 36,973 U.S. and international students

from 135 U.S. colleges and universities using the GPI, Glass et al. (2013) confirmed many

disturbing trends reported in higher education news resources (e.g., Inside Higher Ed, The

Chronicle of Higher Education) and research studies published in the top peer-reviewed higher

education research journals. These disturbing trends include: (a) a lack of community, (b) low-

quality faculty-student interactions, and (c) uneven global perspective taking (i.e., disposition

and the capacity of an individual to think in complex terms). The authors further emphasized that

supportive campus environments play an important role in student development, influencing

students’ social and psychological adjustment to campus life.

Choudaha and Schulmann (2014) examined the gap between higher education

administrators’ beliefs about why undergraduate international students persist or withdraw from

a particular campus and the actual reasons provided by the students themselves. The study’s aim

was to increase conversations about issues related to internationalization in higher education.

The authors used mixed methods, including quantitative analysis of survey data and focus

18
groups, in this national study involving 517 international students and 510 international

education professionals from 83 institutions. They found that international students and

international education professionals provided notably different explanations for why students

might leave their institution of first enrollment. In particular, the top reasons for leaving

identified by administrators were: transfer to a “better fit institution” (67%), financial reasons

(64%), academic difficulties (62%), and inadequate English language skills (40%). In contrast,

the top reasons reported by students for transferring are: access to jobs or internships (37%),

affordability (36%), and availability of scholarships (34%). Academic preparedness reasons were

not among the top five for students. The authors suggested that this perception gap reveals both

the urgent need for an evidence-based approach to higher education decision-making and the

enormous challenges for identifying and applying evidence within the dynamic higher education

environment. As a result of their findings, the authors suggested that institutions: (a) understand

the diverse needs and expectations of international students, (b) collaborate on

internationalization efforts across departments, and (c) invest in campus programs and services

that improve student experiences.

A dissertation study by Di Maria (2012) examined the factors affecting student affairs

administrators’ views of campus services for international students. In particular, the author

asked three research questions: (a) How are campus services provided to international students?

(b) How should campus services be provided to international students? and (c) What factors

affect student affairs administrators’ views of campus services for international students?

Through a mixed methods study using an Internet-based survey and interviews, Di Maria found

that over 97% of the student affairs administrators view the responsibility to serve international

students as a shared responsibility. However, 70 to 90% of the participants identified one or

19
more of the following challenges as support providers: (a) they are largely excluded as

stakeholders, (b) they are challenged by communication barriers associated with culture and

language, and (c) they lack training opportunities at their institutions. Specifically, respondents

expressed concern over the administration and the intentionality of internationalizing student

support efforts at their institution. However, a substantial number also expressed a desire to learn

about internationalization strategies, to improve services for international students, and to

become more involved in internationalization efforts. The author concluded that persistence of

international students should not be viewed as the responsibility of only international student

advisors on campus. Instead, it should become a joint responsibility of the broader campus

community, including faculty, academic advisors, English language program staff, and student

affairs professionals.

In summary, a review of the literature indicates that the issue of intercultural integration

engages a wide range of institutional stakeholders (Agnew, 2012; Australian Education

International, 2010; Bristish Council, 2014; Di Maria, 2012; Singapore Ministry of Education,

2010; Spencer-Oatey, Dauber, & Williams, 2014), such as faculty and staff at all levels and

within both academic and student support areas. A multi-pronged environmental approach is

generally recommended, as student integration should not solely be the responsibility of

international student support staff, counselors, and it definitely should not rely on international

students and domestic students alone. Current consistent findings include the identified stressors

of adjustment and the existence of a perception gap in the reasons for international student

attrition between higher education staff and students. It has also become clear that engagement

and adaptation patterns differ by student origin, culture, and institutional type. Scholars have

called for more studies on institutional efforts to guide the practice of integrating international

20
students and domestic students.

Literature on Best Practices

In this section, the studies currently available on institutional practices and efforts

conducted by institutions, government entitites, and research agencies that aim to find out what

practices are being employed by institutions in the United States and worldwide are discussed.

Best Practices in the United States

The current U.S. research literature about best practices heavily emphasizes student

coping strategies, but not institutional coping strategies. Most of the recommended practices are

aimed at helping international students cope with campus culture and meet the university’s

expectations. Very few studies investigate how institutions prepare U.S. students for their new

classmates and how institutions can internationalize their environments to adapt to the growing

international population that they intentionally seek. More research is needed to explore how

universities can create environments that accommodate and reflect the diverse cultures of their

students and how institutions can facilitate meaningful communication between international

students and domestic students, especially those who show disinterest in each other.

Glass, Wongtrirat, and Buus (2015) aimed to help institutions realize their existing

strengths and capacities to guide the development of inclusive campus climates for international

students. Based on interviews with international students and higher education leaders, the

authors selected six U.S. colleges and universities with different institutional characteristics (e.g.,

community colleges, liberal arts colleges, and research universities) and discussed the strategies

and actions to create campus environments for the academic and social integration of

international students on each campus. Some of the practices they examined include: (a) a

graduation requirement for all undergraduates of a minimum of two classes that are infused with

21
global learning outcomes; (b) creating proactive, data-driven, evidence-based case management

and tracking system to enhance international student success; (c) forging strong connections

between the global community and the local public through housing and residence life; and (d)

making support for international students and their families a strategic priority by creating a

coordinated service model to implement curricular and co-curricular programs that develop

culturally competent students. One limitation of this work is that the authors only suggested what

institutions should try to achieve, but they did not examine the impact of the recommended

initiatives on student integration, nor did they actually review, critique, or otherwise provide

guidance on how to put the suggestions into action.

Hanover Research (2011) sought to identify the best practices in international student

recruitment and retention among Anglophone countries. Their report provided several commonly

agreed upon strategies for international student retention and services. Institutions can use

programs (e.g., orientations, bridge programs, mentorships, and English language institutes) and

initiatives that create a welcoming culture on campus to support international students. The

report indicated that, although higher education institutions are not commercial enterprises,

service quality for international students and scholars should be considered a first priority.

Although the report did not include recommendations for specific process or structures of

implementation, it did provide five main customer service quality dimensions for measuring

international student services (SERVQUAL), including tangibles (appearance of service

employees and physical factors such as equipment and facilities), reliability (the ability to

perform the service in an accurate and dependable manner), assurance (delivering services with

respectful, polite, and effective communication), responsiveness (the readiness and willingness

to assist its customers in providing them with a good, quality, and fast service), and empathy

22
(caring and individualized attention; Parasuraman, Berry, & Zeithaml, 1991; Parasuraman,

Zeithaml, & Berry, 1985, 1988).

Young et al. (2014) explored best practices in international student integration among

U.S. institutions through extensive online research, reviewing articles and national award-

winning campuses, and seeking recommendations from several international education leaders.

The authors compiled a list of 16 best practices from 10 institutions, one professional

association, and one statewide coalition. They further described four common themes among

these best practices, including partnerships, community building, active student learner/leader,

and committed intentionality. This study did not claim to actually determine the effectiveness of

these practices, but was simply identifying practices that could be adapted at the University of

Minnesota Twin Cities (UMTC). The practices cited by Young et al. (2014) and being adopted at

UMTC are not compared in terms of their effectiveness, as some of the practices are still in the

pilot stage. However, the paper is one of the few studies that focused on institutional practices on

international student integration.

Best Practices Worldwide

The U.S.’s global competitors for a market share of international students—Singapore,

Australia, and the UK—all have government-led efforts to improve integration among

international students as part of their national strategies. Earlier in the 21st century, these

countries switched philosophy from care for international students to integration. One major

trend among these countries is in adopting a collective and collaborative approach to creating a

campus culture. One critique of these attempts is that they lack a concrete process to select or

evaluate processes and programs to determine if they achieve the stated objectives of the central

authority, rather they appear to be more aspirational. There is no evidence that their goal is being

23
achieved or that there are programs in place to attempt to do so.

The UK Council for International Student Affairs commissioned authors Spencer-Oatey

et al. (2014) to report on the state of knowledge as to what has worked in terms of international

student integration in postsecondary education systems in the UK. The deeper goal of this effort

was to establish communities of practice that will work toward increasing integration and

improving the experience of all students. The authors first introduced the theoretical integration

models for different institutional contexts through a review of 30 years of literature. In doing so,

they pointed out that the existing integration interventions are largely assumption-based rather

than evidence-based. Second, the authors illustrated the current levels of integration between

international and domestic students in the UK through an analysis of the latest International

Student Barometer (ISB) data, an international student satisfaction survey intended to aid policy

decision-making. Third, the authors used case studies to provide examples of internationalization

strategies and activities that have proven effective in student integration. Among the major

strategies they discovered were efforts to create a platform for home and international students to

collaborate around a common goal, to encourage them to learn from each other, and to

intentionally seek to improve the international culture on campus. A few examples of

implementing these strategies include: (a) encouraging students to participate in music

ensembles that reflect diverse musical and cultural backgrounds; (b) encouraging students to

explore the literature of different countries with the aim of building an awareness of the cultural

values of other people; (c) engaging students to participate in multicultural group work by

establishing a context via a confidential online messaging system; and (d) soliciting students’

personal reactions to a story about a dysfunctional student team, such as participating unequally

in group work.

24
 The Australian government started a community of practice in relation to international

student integration. The Australian Department of Education, Employment, and Workplace

Relations (DEEWR, 2008) reported examples of good practice in assisting international students

to integrate with Australian students and the wider community. This paper sought to open up

opportunities to share good practice across the sector and to learn from others’ experience. The

authors divided practices into four types: (a) collaborative international/domestic student

learning programs, (b) promoting engagement with the wider community, (c) orientation and

information services for international students, and (d) staff/student social and cultural exchange

activities. Like many other cited studies, this one did not include empirical support for the

effectiveness of these programs, but simply described what were perceived to be effective

practices. One of the major themes of this analysis is promoting a change of philosophy. For

example, one of the participating programs reported that their philosophy has evolved from

having an objective of delivering practical support to recognizing the reciprocal relationships that

develop between domestic volunteering students and international students and the considerable

learning that takes place for all participants. Reflecting this shift in philosophy is a change in the

program name from “International Student Care Program” to “Community Connections.” Other

salient practices include project-based learning, community services, and formal evaluation and

feedback systems. It is worth noting that the Australian study did not provide a conclusion.

However, the exemplary programs reviewed in this study share three commonalities: (a) single

initiatives rather than a collective and campuswide approach, (b) a lack of benchmarking to show

if the value is added by the institution, and (c) a lack of evaluating the process for the

fidelity of implementation.

The Singapore government is taking a comprehensive approach to the internationalization

25
of their education system from the K-12 through college levels. The Singapore Ministry of

Education (2010) put together a best practices package aimed at helping schools consider how to

help young domestic students develop a strong sense of their own national identity while

enabling them to cultivate a global orientation and the intercultural skills they will need to thrive

in an interconnected world. The ideal outcome is for all students to become seamlessly integrated

into their student body and the wider Singapore community. As part of this approach, the

government developed a three-tier system for integrating Singaporean and international students.

The tiers include functional integration, developing social networks, and promoting mutual trust

and understanding. The first tier focuses on efforts to help meet newcomers’ physical needs, such

as settling down and adjusting to studying and living in Singapore, forming support systems, and

learning about local norms. The second tier seeks to create opportunities for local students and

newcomers to form friendships based on shared interests and to begin to understand and

appreciate cultural differences and diversity. The third tier attempts to foster mutual trust,

understanding, and acceptance among all students in Singapore through shared experiences,

social ties, and common values. A comprehensive suite of programs across all three tiers of

integration are intended to be consistently implemented, sustained, and refined over time.

However, there is no proof of structure and process of assessment to demonstrate the fidelity of

the programs.

Theoretical Frameworks

The theoretical underpinnings of this study trace back to a line of theories related to U.S.

domestic student integration, involvement, and engagement. This includes Tinto’s (1975, 1987,

1993) theories of student integration, Astin’s (1970, 1984, 1987, 1993) theory of student

involvement, Kuh’s concept of student engagement (Kuh, Schuh, Whitt, & Associates, 1991;

26
Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, Whitt, & Associates, 2005), and most recently, Museus’ (2014) culturally

engaging campus environment (CECE) model.

Tinto’s Student Integration Theory

Tinto’s (1975, 1987, 1993) theory of student integration was originally proposed for the

purpose of explaining why students leave or stay in college. Tinto proposed that student

departure from an institution can be predicted by students’ level of integration academically

(sharing academic values) and socially (developing student, staff and faculty friendships), and

that integration is facilitated by successful separation from family and high school (see Figure 1).

Tinto’s theory is rooted in several sociological theories, namely Emile Durkheim’s (1897/1951)

theory of anomie (as applied to the conceptualization of student dropout from college by Spady,

1971) and Van Gennep’s (1960) rites of passage theory (subsequently refined by Tinto, 1993).

Durkheim (1897/1951) referred to anomie as a state of disconnection from societal norms and

values resulting from decreasing amounts of interaction among various groups due to rapid

population growth (Allan, 2005). In studying the suicide rate differences among European

Protestants and Catholics in German-speaking countries, Durkheim argued that Catholics had

lower suicide rates than the Protestants because Catholics had higher levels of integration—more

connections between individuals (group attachment) and higher levels of regulations of behavior

(norms and morale). Durkheim further argued that suicide at a macro level is caused by lack of

moral (value) integration and insufficient collective affiliation (Tinto, 1973) rather than of their

integration, both academically (formal learning) and socially (informal learning). Tinto (1993)

later borrowed from Van Gennep’s (1960) rites of passage theory and extended his own theory

by noting that college is an initiation to adulthood, and only when students separate from their

own cultures to adapt to a new culture will they benefit from the full rewards of membership in

27
Figure 1. Tinto’s theory of student integration. Taken from “Leaving College: Rethinking the
Causes and Cures of Student Attrition,” by Vincent Tinto, 1993, p. 114. Copyright 1993 by the
University of Chicago Press.

the college community; otherwise, they are at risk of departure. Tinto (1993) expanded the

the debate on the causes of student departure to institutional factors that affect retention, viewing

academic and social integration as availing institutional influences to reducing dropout rates

(Voigt & Hundrieser, 2008). Many researchers have used Tinto’s (1993) theory as a point of

departure for their investigations of student persistence (Andrade, 2006).

Definition of integration. There are a variety of notions regarding integration. For

example, authors from the UK, Spencer-Oatey et al (2014) analyzed the literature and found that

integration takes place at three difference levels: community (social integration; Berry, 2005),

individual (personal integration; Bennett, 1986), and institutional (structural integration; Allport,

1954). In a U.S. historic and cultural context, integration is often associated with the domestic

Civil Rights Movement as people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds started living,

working and attending school together. In addition to equal rights, the term integration has been
28
used in higher education context to characterize the relationship between a student and the

college they attend. Integration also refers to the “coordination of mental processes with the

environment,” in addition to “the practice of uniting people from different races in an attempt to

give people equal rights” (Merriam-Webster, 2017).

Tinto’s (1975) student integration model has been very influential within higher

education research and practice and so has it shaped the use of the term integration accordingly.

The impetus for this model was to explain student attrition. The model’s original focus was on

how the student is integrated into the social and academic milieu of the university. Tinto (1997)

revised the theory from focusing on social and academic integration happening as concurrent

processes to a more longitudinal process of development, where social integration was more

critical at the early stages and academic integration at the later stages (McCubbin, 2003).

However, the term integration in Tinto’s (1975) model still retains the connotation of

“assimilation” and “acculturation,” which infer detaching from one’s home culture to join

another culture. Critics of this notion suggest that the level of incongruence between racial and

ethnic minority students’ respective home cultures and the cultures found on their campuses is

positively related to cultural dissonance or tension due to the incongruence between students’

cultural meaning-making systems and the new cultural knowledge they encounter, and such

dissonance is inversely related to the likelihood of success (Museus & Quaye, 2009).

Museus, Lam, Huang, Kem, and Tan’s (2011) proposed concept—cultural integration—

is more relevant to the intent of the research for capitalizing on students’ cultural contributions to

their educational environments. The concept of cultural integration refers to the integration of

students’ cultural backgrounds and identities with the academic and social domains of students’

lives—and the role of such integration in validating students’ cultural backgrounds and

29
identities. Such use of the term cultural integration differs from Tinto’s (1987, 1993, 1997)

concepts of academic and social integration in fundamental ways.

First, the concept of cultural integration emphasizes the validation and inclusion of

students’ cultural backgrounds and identities rather than detaching them in order to succeed in

the academic environment. Second, cultural integration refers to the extent to which students

view the academic environment (e.g., space, courses, projects, or a set of activities) as reflecting

the academic, social, and cultural components of their lives, rather than focusing on the extent to

which students assimilate into the academic and social subsystems of their respective campuses.

Third, the cultural engagement concept focuses at the institutional level (e.g., educational

environment and activities) rather than at a student level, emphasizing the primary responsibility

on the part of faculty, administrators, and staff as they are the major forces that design and

structure most learning environments (Museus et al., 2011).

Thus, the definition of integration for the purpose of this research is adapted from the

concept of cultural integration:

An integrated campus environment reflects the interaction, self-identification, and

acceptance of all students’ cultural backgrounds and identities among students, faculty

members, executive administrators, and staff through institutional efforts to enhance the

academic environment, such as its spaces, curricula, and activities.

Astin’s Student Involvement Theory

Astin’s (1984) student involvement theory also emphasizes the mutual relationship

between institution and student rather than placing full responsibility on the student to “fit in.” In

1966, Astin developed what is now one of the nation’s largest continuously administered

national surveys of the college student experience—the Cooperative Institutional Research

30
Program (CIRP) surveys. Based on the results from the CIRP Freshman Survey, Astin developed

student involvement theory. Astin (1985) proposed that students learn through being involved.

The greater the amount of physical and psychological energy a student puts into their academic

and social experiences in college, the more successful they will be. In other words, students who

are active in their learning are more successful than students who are less active (Astin, 1985,

1993, 2003; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Wolf-Wendel, Ward, & Kinzie, 2009).

Astin (1984) chose the term involvement over the psychological construct motivation to

focus on more directly observed and measured behaviors. Thus, involvement related to observed

behaviors rather than unobserved attitudes or perceptions, but it implies aspects of motivation

(Astin, 1984). Hence, it is easier for educational practitioners to answer the question, “How do

you get your students involved?” than “How do you motivate your students?” In this way,

institutions can focus time, attention, and resources on ways to stimulate and support student

involvement.

To measure involvement, Astin (1984) particularly emphasized time: “A highly involved

student is one who devotes considerable energy to studying, spends much time on campus,

participates actively in student organizations, and interacts frequently with faculty members and

other students” (p. 31). Astin claimed “time” as the most precious resource, as the more time and

effort students devote to designed activities, the more likely they are to achieve the

developmental goals the institution has set for them. Thus, if the goal is to have international

students and domestic students integrate well, and to increase their knowledge and understanding

of different cultures, the institutions should create opportunities for domestic and international

students to interact, have hands-on experiences together, and discuss issues with one another

(Burkhardt & Bennett, 2015).

31
 Although the theory of involvement is widely cited, a majority of the research using this

theory has been focused on involvement in extracurricular activities (Pascarella & Terenzini,

1991, 2005). The focus has also been on the relationship between student characteristics and

level of involvement, without much attention to the influence of institutional characteristics.

Astin and Tinto both suggest that student’s social integration with the institution is a critical

component to their persistence. Astin’s (1984) involvement theory focused on more than drop

out or persistence; instead, it focused on behaviors that promote persistence (Voigt &

Hundrieser, 2008). Tinto’s (1993) theory of integration accommodates the institutional

responsibility by including the impact of organizational characteristics on student persistence

(Berger & Braxton, 1998), emphasizing the role the organization plays in student social

integration.

Kuh’s Student Engagement Concept

Kuh’s concept of student engagement is aimed at identifying best practices in

undergraduate education (Kuh, 2001, 2003; Kuh et al., 2005; Wolf-Wendel et al., 2009). The

student engagement concept was originally influenced by three constructs: (a) the quality of

student effort (Pace, 1980), (b) the amount of time for involvement (Astin, 1985), and (c) “good

practices” in undergraduate education (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). As Pascarella and

Terenzini (1991) indicated, one of the most inevitable and undeniable conclusions from 20 years

of research in higher education is that the impact of college is largely determined by the

individual’s quality of effort and level of involvement in both academic and non-academic

activities. The concept of student engagement encompasses two key components. The first is the

amount of time and quality of effort students put into their educational activities. The second is

how institutional resources are allocated and how learning opportunities and services are

32
organized to foster student participation in meaningful educational activities (Kuh, 2001, 2003;

Wolf-Wendel et al., 2009). Wolf-Wendel et al. (2009) further stated that the theory of

engagement informs institutional improvement by identifying specific activities institutions

could implement to directly and indirectly impact student outcomes. As noted in the earlier

review of empirical literature, for international students, increased educational engagement has a

positive correlation with their grades and persistence (Kuh, Cruce, Shoup, Kinzie, & Gonyea,

2008)

In summary, integration and involvement are broader concepts than engagement as they

relate to curricular, co-curricular, and extracurricular activities. Integration arises from

sociological roots and looks at student success at a macro level, while involvement entails a more

behavioral perspective. One could say that, for students to be successful in college, they need to

be integrated. To be integrated, they need to first be involved. To be involved, they need to be

engaged. Engagement is thus the first step for student involvement from an institutional

perspective. The institution serves as an active agent in creating a supportive, engaging, and

involving environment. Specifically, engaging students requires involving students in

educationally purposive activities, a key type of involvement that promotes academic integration.

Shortcomings of the Three Theories

Although these three theories have advanced levels of understanding of how institutional

environments can impact student success, they share one common shortcoming. They have been

criticized as racially and culturally biased (Tanaka, 2002) because the research supporting the

development and testing of these theories generally does not include a sufficient consideration of

the racial and cultural context in their explanations of student success (Dowd, Sawatzky, &

Korn, 2011). These theories were created based on measuring common behaviors among

33
primarily White students and are only accurate in capturing White undergraduates’ experiences

and not those of minority students (Hurtado & Carter, 1997). A de-racialized and acultural

perspective of student success is problematic, because it can lead to inaccurate predictions of

student outcomes for underserved student populations and the perpetuation of structuring

environments based on the behaviors of European American populations. Moreover, it can send

inaccurate unspoken messages that racial and cultural bias does not exist in shaping institutional

environments, programs, and practices, or that it does not ultimately impact the experiences and

outcomes of racially diverse populations (Museus, 2014).

Museus’ Culturally Engaging Campus Environment Model

Museus’ (2014) CECE model adapts the basic tenets of the prior theories and applies

them to issues of campus cultural climate. The CECE model encompasses the prior perspectives

of college student success, which were based primarily on studies of White students, and the

CECE model integrates elements of self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000) and

addresses the shortcomings of the traditional models informed by substantial literature on diverse

college student populations. The CECE model suggests that students’ access to culturally

engaging campus environments is both directly and indirectly correlated to an increased

probability of persistence to graduation.

The CECE model functions by examining the impact of campus environment on the

experiences of diverse student populations. The CECE model describes nine characteristics to

reflect campus environments that are relevant to the cultural backgrounds and communities of

diverse college students and that respond to the norms and needs of diverse students. These

indicators are Cultural Familiarity, Culturally Relevant Knowledge, Cultural Community

Service, Meaningful Cross-Cultural Engagement, Culturally Validating Environments,

34
Collectivist Cultural Orientations, Humanized Educational Environments, Practice Philosophies,

and Holistic Support.

These nine indicators can be used as benchmarks for universities and colleges to measure

how culturally engaging campus environments are, to pinpoint what can be improved and to

develop strategies to optimize success among minority students on campuses (Museus, 2014). If

an institution commits to these nine areas to foster a culturally engaging environment, then

diverse student populations on campus are more likely to be successful (Museus, 2014).

Applying CECE to the International Student Experience

The CECE model emphasizes culture and race, which is congruent with the focus of this

study on international students. Evidence has demonstrated that how institutions structure

campus environments and how educators conduct their work play a significant role in

influencing the level of student success at the undergraduate level (Bensimon, 2007; Guiffrida,

2003; Jayakumar & Museus, 2012; Museus, 2011; Museus & Neville, 2012; Museus & Ravello,

2010; Rendón, Jalomo, & Nora, 2000). The CECE model was created to foster an environment

for minority students to thrive.

The constructs in the CECE model are quantifiable and testable. Since many of the

indicators are measurable, the model makes it possible to gather quantitative data to compare

outcome differences among institutional practices. Although the CECE model was originally

developed based on studies of U.S. students, it can be readily applied to international students.

The model is a student success model to engage campus culture and students from all race and

cultures of origin (Museus, 2014), and international students fit into the purpose of the model as

they come from racially and culturally diverse backgrounds and different nationalities.

35
 Summary

The reviewed literature focused on three areas: (a) the empirical literature related to

international student retention, engagement, and integration (b) the practical literature related to

approaches that are considered to exemplify best practices (albeit lacking evidence to support

those claims) and (c) salient theoretical frameworks that can inform the study of effective

approaches to integrating international students into U.S. campus environments. Several gaps

were identified in all three of these domains.

First, the scope of the current research literature about supporting international students

focuses mainly on student-level concerns, with less attention to institutional-level concerns.

Research is largely related to students’ psychosocial adjustment. This is reflected in several

systematic research literature reviews and meta-analyses that identify adjustment-related

stressors for international students (De Araujo, 2011; Zhang & Goodson, 2011). The identified

stressors have remained relatively consistent over 50 years and the practices and interventions to

help students to cope with the stress, such as orientation programs and buddy pairing, are

generally the same as when the stressors were first discovered.

Second, the current research literature about best practices heavily emphasizes student

coping strategies, but not institutional coping strategies. Most of the recommended practices are

aimed at helping international students cope with campus culture and meet the university’s

expectations. Very few studies were found to investigate how institutions prepare U.S. students

for their new classmates and how institutions can internationalize their environments to adapt to

the growing international population that they intentionally seek. More research is needed to

explore how universities can create environments that accommodate and reflect the diverse

cultures of their students and how institutions can facilitate meaningful communication between

36
international students and domestic students, especially those who show disinterest in each other.

Third, although literature on best practices suggests that most of the focus is on

campuswide efforts, international student integration initiatives are mainly carried out by

international student services offices. Other offices, such as student affairs offices, are often

excluded as stakeholders and challenged by communication barriers associated with culture and

language (Di Maria, 2012).

Fourth, the current research is not grounded in conceptual models that form a basis for

operationalizing practice. Studies only consider relatively abstract concepts rather than more

elaborate conceptual schemes to provide a rich basis for operationalizing support for

international student integration and, just as importantly, for evaluating support efficacy.

Fifth, the current research literature is largely assumption-based and not evidence-based.

Studies generally fail to describe systematic implementation and evaluation methods to create

theory-guided protocols for best practices that can then be implemented and evaluated as to their

fidelity. A systematic approach is needed to design promising practices and to determine what

actually works.

Sixth, the number of available national data sources is limited and outdated. For instance,

the NSSE data sets used in the majority of the studies on student engagement were already more

than four years old at the time those studies were conducted. The enrollment of international

students across the country has increased dramatically since when those studies were published

using already outdated data, and now, an increasing number of institutions are paying different

levels and kinds of attention to international student enrollment due to increasing numbers. The

rapid change in numbers of international students makes it difficult to generalize to current or

future conditions.

37
 Finally, the current research lacks a theoretical model directly relevant to international

student integration. Commonly used theories were based upon the study of White U.S. students,

which is inappropriate for supporting students from different cultures, races, social classes, and

countries of origin, all of which can misinform and misdirect administrative decision making.

Research Purpose and Research Questions

The issues and concerns raised in this chapter point to an environmental and college

impact study that entails systematic design and an evaluation of best practices for international

student integration. The purpose of this study is to advance our understanding of what

distinguishes universities that have the best results in terms of integration from institutions with

poorer results related to how they organize themselves for international student integration

within their contextualized characteristics. The identification of high-performing institutions is

based on a value-added approach. The research questions are:

1. Can we empirically distinguish among levels of institutional performance in

integrating international students, taking into account institution contexts (inputs and

mission characteristics) by using an institution-level value-added regression model?

2. Can we observe notable differences between high- and low-performing institutions in

terms of the types of programs and services or broader environmental support

characteristics they offer as identified online?

38
 CHAPTER 3—METHOD

A two-stage method is employed in this study. In the first stage, target institutions are

identified using a value-added regression model. The criterion for determining international

student engagement is the Supportive Environment indicator as answered only by international

students responding to the NSSE. In the second stage, a web scan is used to explore a set of

institutions in which international students average “better than expected” and “below expected”

on this engagement indicator.

The expected performance is determined through an institution-level regression model

based on a point-in-time analysis. This model predicts international student perceptions of the

campus environment, taking into account given characteristics within which the institution

operates that are part of its core mission and context, but also impact prospects for student

engagement (e.g., institution size and setting). In the second stage, a web-based document

analysis is conducted (Merriam, 2002), using Museus’ (2014) CECE model as a framework for

collecting and assessing through available documentation, policies, programs, and practices (Kuh

et al., 2005) that promote international student cultural integration at the selected institutions.

Stage 1: Value-Added Regression Approach

A regression-based, value-added approach is proposed to estimate international student

engagement effectiveness. The impetus for this approach derives from Astin (1977, 1993) and

his colleagues’ use of such a model to account for differences in institutional mission and context

when comparing institutional graduation rates. Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, and Whitt (2005, 2010) also

used this approach to identify institutions that were notably effective in engaging students.

Dadashova, Ziskin, and Hossler (2010) also used a similar approach to examine institutional

efforts around student retention across multiple institution types. For the following application, I

39
specifically assess institutional levels of engagement for international students.

Astin’s (1977, 1993) original use was based on the evidence that better academically-

prepared students are more likely to graduate, and therefore, more selective institutions will, on

the basis of student input alone, have higher graduation rates. By controlling for institutional

selectivity using a regression model that predicts institutional graduation rates, the institution’s

actual performance can then be compared against its predicted performance (the regression

residual) as opposed to directly comparing institutions to each other.

Graduation rates and other such measures reflect to a large extent the kinds of students

that enroll; they do not describe the value an institution adds to student success given the types of

students that enroll. Colleges and universities with better reputations have the ability to spend

more money to attract well-prepared and well-motivated students. Institutions that are “less

competitive” or more “open access” are disadvantaged even though they may contribute

significantly to student success by their unique missions and targeted student populations.

Employing a value-added method, the institutions are considered against their prospects for

performance within the contexts that they operate (selectivity, resources, and fixed

environmental characteristics; Kuh et al., 2005). Thus, the purpose of the proposed analysis is to

measure how well institutions utilize their resources to add value to student engagement with the

campus environment. This value-added method is controversial in some ways, especially when

used at the student level to assess learning gains, but is arguably “one step forward” from other

assessment methods in estimating university-level performance (Kelchen & Harris, 2012).

The value-added approach used in this study is a multiple regression analysis. I first

predicted the campus environment engagement score for international students at each institution

based on the institutions’ given circumstances and characteristics (i.e., holding constant the

40
factors that are either not within the control of the institution or that reflect important aspects of

the institutional mission). Examples of such factors include admission selectivity, residential

setting, aggregate student characteristics (student affluence and service to underrepresented

minorities), urban v. rural location, and program mix.

After developing and assessing the reliability of the regression model, I used a sampling

strategy to select institutions that perform at “above expected” and “below expected” levels from

two points along the continuum of predicted performance. The residual score from the regression

analysis (actual minus predicted average score among international students on the NSSE

Supportive Environment indicator) is used to distinguish levels of performance. Institutions that

have the highest standardized residual values, likely over 1.5 standard error units above the mean

residual (0) is considered as “above expected” candidates. Conversely, institutions with the

lowest standardized residual values, likely less than -1.5 standard error units below the mean

residual, is the “below expected” candidate institutions.

Only first-year students are included in the current study for two reasons. First, the

freshman year is the time students face the greatest challenges to adjust to a new environment.

Those who are not able to adapt to the environment are likely to depart (Tinto, 2007). Although

seniors have had a wider range of experiences during college, they are arguably the more

engaged ones compared to those who departed prior to reaching senior level. By the end of their

first year, freshman students can provide informed reports about their experiences in a variety of

college activities. Second, the experiences of first-year students and seniors differ substantially in

terms of curriculum (coursework for first-year students emphasizes general education, while

seniors are concentrated in the major) and out-of-class experiences (first-year students spend

more time on formal extracurricular activities, while seniors may have studied abroad,

41
participated in internships, and so on; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991).

Instrumentation

A large number of surveys have been developed over the years for the purpose of

measuring student experience in the United States. Borden and Kernel (2010) identified over 120

survey instruments that specifically target the undergraduate student population. They also

suggest three criteria for selecting an appropriate instrument for institutional assessment

purposes: (a) the appropriateness of the tool for the specific job at hand; (b) the skills and

experiences of users; and (c) the availability of sufficient financial, personal, and material

resources. Based on these criteria, the NSSE survey was selected for use in this study. The NSSE

survey is a comprehensive survey of engagement (as its name implies), and with the revisions

made in 2014, contains questions that allow the researcher to identify international students and

their country of origin. NSSE is the only survey that represents the multidimensional nature of

student engagement.

Engagement Indicators

There are 10 NSSE engagement indicators organized within four themes. The four

themes are Academic Challenge, Learning With Peers, Experiences With Faculty, and Campus

Environment. Since the intention of the study is assessing cultural integration efforts at the

institution level, the theme of Campus Environment was selected. Specifically, the campus

environment indicator of Supportive Environment was used. The items comprising the SE

indicator are listed in Table 1. This indicator measures student perceptions of the levels of

institutional commitment in the following ways: (a) utilization of learning support services; (b)

encouragement of contact among students from different backgrounds; (c) opportunities

provided for students to be involved socially; (d) support provided for students’ overall well-

42
Table 1

NSSE Supportive Campus Environment Indicator

How much does your institution emphasize the following individual items on a 4-point Likert scale?
(Never = 0; Sometimes = 1; Often = 2; Very often = 3, with the total scale converted to a 60-point
range).
1. Providing support to help students succeed academically
2. Using learning support services (e.g., tutoring services, writing center)
3. Encouraging contact among students from different backgrounds (e.g., social, racial/ethnic,
religious)
4. Providing opportunities to be involved socially
5. Providing support for your overall well-being (e.g., recreation, health care, counseling)
6. Helping you manage your non-academic responsibilities (e.g., work, family)
7. Attending campus activities and events (e.g., performing arts, athletic events)
8. Attending events that address important social, economic, or political issues

being; (e) help received by students to manage their non-academic responsibilities; and (f)

opportunities for students to participate in campus activities and events, in particular, those

events that address important social, economic, or political issues. These items map closely to

the targeted performance outcomes of this study: international student adjustment to and

engagement within their campus environments.

Predictor Variables

The factors selected to predict “expected” levels of performance were derived from the

empirical literature that has been based on the same engagement and integration theoretical

frameworks. Several studies have shown that international students behave differently under

different conditions, such as host region, control, size, and setting (Glass, 2013; Korobova, 2012;

Kuh et al., 2005; Phillips, 2013; Zhao & Douglas, 2012). A total of eight variables regarding

institutional characteristics have been used, as available from the Fall 2015-2016 U.S.

Department of Education’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) data and

the categories of the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. The eight

variables are: Carnegie Basic Type, size (undergraduate enrollment), geographic region,

43
“urbanicity,” proportion of international students, program mix (specifically the proportion of

degrees conferred in STEM), international student density, and residential setting characteristics

(primarily non-residential, primarily residential, and highly residential). In the following section,

a detailed explanation is provided to discuss the selection of exogenous, predictor variables.

Carnegie basic type, size, setting, and selectivity. No institution is uniformly high or

low across all measures of engagement (Kuh & Pike, 2005). Thus, it is necessary to look at

student integration across different institution types. The Carnegie basic type, size, and setting

were derived from the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education (2010).

Specifically, the size and setting classification provides broad groups for both size and residential

housing characteristics. Finally, the undergraduate profile Carnegie classification includes

characteristics of selectivity.

Region and urbanicity. University location is a significant factor influencing the number

of domestic friends that international students make and their satisfaction with these friendships.

Gareis (2012) found that international students were more pleased with the number and quality

of their friendships with Americans in the South than the Northeast. The author speculated that

the regional differences might be attributed to Southern hospitality. In addition, international

students were more satisfied in smaller non-metropolitan college towns than in metropolitan

environments. The author explained that international students at those institutions might have

fewer on- and off-campus networks of people from their own country or region to turn to, and

thus are more likely to make American friends. It is worth noting that region may have an

interaction effect on the proportion of minority students. Although a more diverse student body

leads to greater chances for inter-cultural interaction and a more positive impact on students

across student and institutional characteristics (Hu & Kuh, 2003), regions of the country with

44
substantial minority populations are likely to have higher proportions of minority students

(Hurtado, Dey, Gurin, & Gurin, 2003). Thus, because the region is being considered, the

proportion of minority student is not selected as an additional predictor variable to avoid

interaction effects.

Density of international students (non-resident alien). Although international students

and domestic students will have more experience with diversity as the proportion of international

students on campus increases, the experience is not always a positive one. Zhao et al. (2005)

revealed that international students perceive their campus to be less supportive as their

proportion increases. Explaining from the concept of negative amplification (Weick, 1979), as

the proportion of international students increases, it is more likely international students will

make friends with those who share similar cultural background and interests. International

students can encounter more barriers in college than domestic students, such as registration,

parking tickets, and unfriendliness of individuals (especially staff and faculty members). Such

disappointments and frustrations are more likely to be expressed out of proportion, which in turn,

is likely to amplify the listener’s interpretation of the campus environment as negative.

Program mix. Academic major was an important and critical variable when examining

student engagement. Kuh (2003) suggested that major field-specific outcomes could and should

be looked at as they link with student engagement, as an academic major has an effect on student

engagement. In addition, Harper, Carini, Bridges, and Hayek (2004) proposed that major

selection and the development of career aspirations also have an effect on engagement.

International students need different sets of skills and they behave differently depending on their

major; consequently, their student engagement might differ as well. Academic major was an

important and critical variable when examining student engagement and, as such, is one of the

45
variables in the survey. The undergraduate and graduate program instructional program profiles

of the Carnegie Classifications distinguish among institutions according to their program mix.

The undergraduate profile focuses exclusively on the presence of arts and sciences versus

professions (dominated by one, the other, or mixed). Because international students are

encouraged or required in some cases to pursue degrees in STEM fields (science, technology,

engineering or mathematics), I explored expanding the categories of the Carnegie Undergraduate

Instructional Profile classification to include STEM fields as a separate focus, more like the

Graduate Instructional Program Classification. Specifically, the analysis included the proportion

of undergraduate degrees conferred in STEM fields.

Residential setting (proportion of students living on/off campus). Pascarella and

Terenzini (1991) concluded that living on campus was the strongest determinant of engagement

and involvement. Numerous NSSE reports have consistently illustrated that on-campus residents

(versus off-campus living and commuting) were more likely to bond with other students, engage

in campus events and other educationally purposeful activities, and experience greater gains in

learning and development. In particular, both first-year students and seniors living on campus

spent about twice as much time in co-curricular activities. Thus, campuses with larger on-

campus student populations have more opportunities for engagement. The categories of the size

and setting classification were used to reflect the residential setting of campuses.

Multiple Ordinary Linear Squares Regression Model

Multiple ordinary linear squares (OLS) regression is a generalized linear modeling

technique that may be used to model multiple explanatory (predictor) variables and also

categorical explanatory variables (Hutcheson, 2011). A multiple OLS regression model is used in

this analysis to predict the level of campus environment engagement for international students

46
(Y), given the explanatory variables (X1 = Carnegie Basic Classification Type, X2 = Size, X3 =

Residential setting, X4 = Selectivity, X5 = Urbanicity, X6 = Region, X7 = Program Mix, X8 =

International student proportion). The relationship between variables Y and X is calculated as

follows:

Supportive Campus Environment = α + β1 (Carnegie type) + β2 (size) + β3 (setting)

+ β4 (selectivity) + β5 (urbanicity) + β6 (region) + β7 (program mix)

+ β8 (% international students) + ε

In this equation, “α” (also known as the intercept) indicates the value of Y when all values of the

predictor variables are zero. Each “β” parameter (also known as the regression coefficient)

indicates the average change in Y that is associated with a unit change in one predictor variable

(X), while controlling for the other predictor variables in the model. The model was used to

calculate a predicted campus environment engagement score for each institution.

The equation is provided for illustrative purposes. In the actual implementation of the

model, several of the factors are represented by multiple variables. Specifically, the categorical

variables, like control and setting, are reflected in dummy variables. Since Carnegie type is a

binary indicator (baccalaureate/all other), a single variable in the regression equation can be

used. Setting, however, is a multinomial variable, that is, a categorical variable with more than

two levels (non-residential, primarily residential, and highly residential). As a result, two dummy

variables are used to include this factor in the analysis. Table 2 shows the operational measure

(variable) and specific regression variables used to represent each of the factors described above.

Stage 2: A Single-Blind Web Scan Analysis

In the second stage, a web content analysis of selected universities’ websites was

performed. Content analysis is a research method for making replicable and valid inferences

47
from data to their context, with the purpose of providing knowledge, new insights, a

representation of facts and a practical guide to action (Krippendorff, 1980, as cited in Elo &

Kyngäs, 2008). The method has been primarily used in the field of traditional communication

(Al-Olyayan & Karande, 2000, as cited in Kim & Kuljis, 2010) and nursing (Elo & Kyngäs,

2008).

The expansion of the Internet has resulted in a large amount of user-generated content

on social media, blogs, YouTube, wikis, and so on. Such user-generated content has attracted

researchers to access and analyze the data available on the Internet. Web content analysis allows

researchers to collect data without investing a significant amount of time and energy on

collecting data, such as through interviews, surveys, and focus groups. The use of content

analysis has been extended to the discipline of social sciences and human-computer interaction

(Kim & Kuljis, 2010).

Because of its importance to adjustment, many institutions focus supports on first-year

students and make that information increasingly available through their websites, both in terms

of the processes that culminated in developing those services and the descriptions of the types of

services available. In addition, because of increasing branding efforts for becoming a global

leader in higher education, institutions portray these efforts of internationalization through the

electronic media. The web scan method is suitable for this context. Another advantage of the

web scan content analysis is that it is very useful to test an earlier theory (the CECE model) in a

different situation, in this case, a different student population—international students (Elo &

Kyngäs, 2008).

The web scan analysis for this study consists of two steps: data collection and sorting. For

the data collection step, a search was performed within each of the institution’s respective

48
Table 2

Description of Predictors Included in Value-Added Regression Model

General Predictors Variable Type Source and Coding

Carnegie Basic Type Classification
Carnegie Basic Type
1 Dummy Variable Arts & Science Focus (1, 0);
Classification
Reference group is All Others
Carnegie Size and Setting Classification
Primarily residential (1, 0); Highly residential
Residential Setting 2 Dummy Variables
(1, 0);
Reference group is Non-Residential
IPEDS
Size Categorized
Fall 2015, total headcount enrollment
IPEDS
Average SAT or converted ACT of entering
Selectivity Categorized first-time student (IPEDS does not include
average SAT or ACT scores. This is based on
averaging the 25th and 75th percentiles.)
IPEDS
Urban locale recoded (collapsed)
Urbanicity 3 Dummy Variables 3 variables
City (1, 0); Suburb (1, 0); Town (1, 0);
Reference group is Rural
IPEDS
Combination of IPEDS Geographic Region
Region 3-7 Dummy Variables
codes (8 regions)
Collapsed depending on sample
IPEDS
Program Mix Categorized
% Baccalaureate Degrees in STEM
IPEDS
International Student Continuous
Non-Residential Alien as a % of total
Density (Percentage)
Undergraduates degree-seeking headcount

websites. The search has two objectives: (a) to identify institutional practices and visions related

to fostering a culturally engaging environment for international students, as evident through

programs and activities that are mentioned online; and (b) to distinguish the scope of the efforts

regarding their scope within specific units or campuswide. For the data sorting strategy, the

search results were sorted into categories based on the CECE model. The CECE model was used

as a framework to sort the data in a consistent and systematic manner in order to make the
49
data from each institution’s website comparable.

As noted above, institutions were selected according to whether the engagement levels of

international students are, on average, “below expected” or “above expected” levels. In addition,

these institutions were selected from various points in the predicted performance continuum. To

eliminate researcher bias, the web-scanned institutions were selected by a person other than the

researcher, so that the researcher does not know which institutions are in which category.

Data Collection Strategy

A within-institution website scan was conducted for each selected institution. Institution

web pages were searched to identify documents, programs, and activities that pertain to

enriching the campus cultural environment for international students. The documented programs

and activities were those intentionally involving international students for the purpose of their

integration, engagement, and retention. Specifically, the following web page were scanned as

available on each site:

• Current student web page

• Prospective student web page

• Administrative division focusing on international students or affairs

• Administrative division focusing on student life or student affairs

• Any other offices that appear, nominally, to be related to intercultural activities or

objectives

• Orientation-related programs and offices

• Student clubs/cultural centers/pages

• Event schedules to scan for programs related to international or intercultural programs

and activities

50
 To maintain consistency, any items related to opportunities for international student

integration, engagement, and retention found within five clicks from a beginning web page were

recorded in a database. These items were subsequently reviewed in more depth as discussed

below. In addition, the following documents were scanned, focusing on activities and programs:

• Most recent annual reports from administrative offices (those related to international,

student, and intercultural affairs)

• The 2015 Chief Executive Officer’s (typically the President or Chancellor) state of

campus address (visions or achievements, if any)

• 2015 orientation schedule (length, including domestic students)

• Any specific planning document related to internationalization

• Overall institution strategic plan

Through the exploration process, the researcher is likely to discover other types of administrative

units, documents, and activities that relate to international student engagement. Therefore, the

researcher conducted a secondary review of the websites, especially focusing on the ones that

were scanned earliest in the process, to search for items later discovered as possibly related to the

practices and efforts of each institution for rating.

Key Term Search

Several broad but explicit key terms were employed in a general search of each

institution website. These include international students, international student integration,

international student engagement, international student retention, international student

development, international student success, and domestic students and international students.

Each term was searched separately. Researcher’s discretion was used to decide whether the

returned items appear to be related to the search objectives.

51
Data Sorting Strategy

Once documents and information were collected, the content was analyzed and then

categorized according to a chart (see Table 1) that corresponds to the markers for culturally

engaging environments according to Museus’ (2014) CECE model. The CECE model describes

nine characteristics reflective of a culturally engaging campus environment that are relevant to

the cultural backgrounds and communities of diverse college students and that respond to the

expectations and needs of diverse students. These indicators are Cultural Familiarity, Culturally

Relevant Knowledge, Cultural Community Service, Meaningful Cross-Cultural Engagement,

Culturally Validating Environment, Collectivist Cultural Orientations, Humanized Educational

Environments, Practice Philosophies, and Holistic Support.

To better understand what data could be captured within the indicators of the framework,

a pilot study was conducted prior to the scan of selected institutions to explore what types of

information would be found. Several random non-selected universities were examined without

the CECE framework. Once the searchable results were collected, they were put into some of the

categories that are relevant to the CECE framework. Such evidence included but was not limited

to the following seven categories:

1. Any evidence of opportunities for community service related to cultural or immersive

experiences and any other sources that provide a record of community services that

intentionally involve international students;

2. Evidence of opportunities that intentionally involve international students to learn

more about international and domestic culture and different communities of origin,

which create intensive dialog among students with different backgrounds and beliefs

(e.g., cultural centers, lectures, and other co-curricular activities);

52
 3. Evidence of opportunities to engage international students, domestic students, and the

local community in positive and purposeful interactions;

4. Visions and their achievement, as illustrated through an internationalization plan or

campus strategic plan;

5. Evidence of social media, especially platforms popular among international students,

to introduce opportunities and services and to extend invitations to international

students; and

6. An “other” category is created to document the unique or unanticipated opportunities

and support for international student engagement.

Institutional Comparison

Upon reviewing the evidence, the researcher sorted the institutions according to the

comprehensiveness of evidence revealed through the web scan. This was first done without

regard to which category the institution was in based on the regression analysis. The sorted

results were then divided according to the level of predicted performance. Within each of these

groups, the sorted results were then compared to the regression-produced categories to assess the

degree of concordance between the regression findings and the web scan findings.

53
 CHAPTER 4—FINDINGS

The purpose of this research was to find evidence related to the efforts institutions have

made to integrate international students, and specifically those efforts that foster engagement

with domestic students. Based on having a sufficient number of international student

respondents, 103 institutions were selected from among those participating in the NSSE survey.

Using a value-added multiple regression analysis, 12 universities with especially positive (six)

and negative (six) international student perceptions of the supportiveness of the campus

environment were selected for further review. The websites of these universities were examined

using a web scan analysis. Finally, staff within the international student services offices of each

institution were contacted for the purpose of establishing trustworthiness. This chapter describes

the findings (i.e., results of the analyses), the adjustments made to the web scan method, and the

degree of concordance between the regression findings and the web scan findings.

Overall Sample of Institutions

The institutional sample was generated from institutions that participated in the 2014 and

2015 NSSE survey. Specifically, an initial analysis was conducted to determine how many

institutions included responses from at least 20 international students. These criteria produced a

total of 3,808 international students’ responses from 103 different institutions. The final data

extract included, for these students, the item responses and total calculated scale scores for the

Supportive Environment (SE) indicator. The data extract from NSSE also included several

categorical characteristics of the 103 institutions: Carnegie Classification Basic Type, enrollment

(size) category, percentage of international students (density), percentage of STEM programs,

average SAT or ACT equivalent score, region, locale, and residential character. Due to

requirements to retain student and institution anonymity, the researcher was provided with a

54
range of scores and coded institution identifiers rather than raw scores and actual institution

identifiers. A list of institutional identifiers was provided to the research advisor for the purpose

of identifying the institutions that would be included in the web scan portion of the research so

that the researcher was unaware of which represented a positive or negative outlier.

Sample Characteristics

The characteristics of the 103 institutions in the original sample are described in Table 3.

This table also depicts how the distribution of the sample institutions and respondents differed

from the distribution of all U.S. bachelor’s degree-granting 4-year colleges and universities (the

population from which NSSE was drawn). The sample institutions are slightly skewed toward

doctoral institutions in distribution for the characteristic of Carnegie Classification type. Half

(50%) of the institutions were from research/doctoral universities as categorized by the Carnegie

Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, with most being “very high” research

universities (colloquially referred to as “R1” universities). Most of the remaining doctoral

universities fell into the second (high research) category, with just a few in the third doctoral

level. Just over 25% of participating universities were in the Master’s Colleges and Universities

categories and a little less than 15% of the institutions were in the Baccalaureate categories. The

remaining few institutions are categorized predominantly as Special Focus institutions.

The sample institutions are relatively even in distribution among the other characteristics of size

(i.e., enrollment, skewed slightly toward larger institutions); percentage of international students

(skewed slightly toward the low end); percentage of STEM degrees (uniform); overall average

SAT or ACT equivalent (normally distributed); locale (skewed slightly toward urban

institutions); and residential character (skewed toward highly residential).

In comparison to the overall population of 4-year, degree-granting institutions in the

55
Table 3
Frequency Distribution on Original Variables: Sample Characteristics vs. 4-Year Degree-
Granting Institutions in the United Statesa

Institutions International Students

Sample Population
Sample Population Respondents Enrollment
(n = 103) (N = 2,433) (n = 3,808) (N = 12,245,717)
Total Institutional Sample 100 100 100 100
Carnegie Basic Type
Research, Very High 25 4 39 22
Research, High 18 4 13 14
Doctoral/Research 7 3 6 10
Master’s Colls & Univs 27 27 21 37
Baccalaureate Colleges 14 31 10 11
All Other 10 31 11 5
Enrollment (Size)
Fewer than 1,500 6 49 4 6
1,500 to 2,499 12 13 8 6
2,500 to 4,999 14 15 11 11
5,000 to 9,999 16 10 14 15
10,000 to 19,999 22 7 30 22
20,000 or more 31 6 33 40
% International Students
Less than 4% 27 65 23 59
4 to less than 6% 22 13 19 17
6 to less than 10% 20 11 17 12
10 to less than 15% 19 6 29 8
15% or more 11 5 12 5
% STEM Degrees Group
Less than 10% 23 53 21 31
10 to less than 15% 17 18 17 24
15 to less than 20% 24 11 19 18
20 to less than 30% 22 10 30 18
30% or more 23 9 13 9
Average SAT/ACT
Less than 1000 16 67 13 57
1000 to less than 1100 25 20 22 27
1100 to less than 1200 23 7 25 10
1200 to less than 1300 22 3 20 3
1300 or more 14 3 20 3
Region
New England 11 8 17 6
Mideast 20 19 22 18
Great Lakes 14 15 15 16
Plains 7 11 5 9

56
 Institutions International Students
Sample Population
Sample Population Respondents Enrollment
(n = 103) (N = 2,433) (n = 3,808) (N = 12,245,717)
Southeast 22 23 21 23
Southwest 11 8 7 12
Rocky Mt & Far West 16 17 13 16
Locale type
City: Large 37 27 40 32
City: Midsize 13 12 12 16
City: Small 17 13 17 16
Suburb: Large, Mid, Sm 21 24 21 18
Town: Fringe, Distant, & 13 24 11 19
Remote
Residential Character
Highly Residential 33 35 36 48
Primarily Residential 29 28 29 33
Commuter 29 36 25 18
a
Population refers to all 4-year degree-seeking institutions (excluding primarily Associate’s
degree institutions) included in the 2010 Carnegie Classification. Carnegie Classification data
supplemented with IPEDS data for same institutions.

United States, the sample included an overrepresentation of doctoral institutions (50% of the

sampled institutions were doctoral), whereas 11% of 4-year, degree-granting institutions in the

United States were doctoral; at the other end of the spectrum, baccalaureate colleges were

underrepresented (14% of the sample institutions were baccalaureate), whereas 31% of 4-year,

degree-granting institutions in the United States were in the Baccalaureate categories. For size,

small institutions were underrepresented (6% sample vs. 49% population) and large institutions

were overrepresented (53% vs. 13%); for international student density, institutions with less than

4% proportion of international students were underrepresented (27% vs. 65%) and those with

10% or more were overrepresented (30% vs. 11%); institutions with less than 10% STEM group

were underrepresented (23% vs. 53%) and those with 15% or more were overrepresented (69%

vs. 30%); institutions with inclusive admissions were underrepresented (23% vs. 53%) and those

with 1100 or more SAT/ACT cut off scores were overrepresented (59% vs. 13%); region, locale,

and residential character distribution were congruent with each population distributed

57
accordingly. These differences are clearly related to the propensity for international students to

enroll at large, doctorate-granting universities relative to other types of institutions.

At the student level, the comparison between sample respondents and the international

student population distribution was relatively more consistent with the overall population.

Students enrolled in doctoral institutions were equally represented in the sample (58% of the

respondents were from doctoral institutions), and 46% of the total population was from doctoral

institutions; students enrolled in baccalaureate colleges were also equally represented in the

sample (10% vs. 11%). For enrollment, all categories were equally represented; for international

student density, institutions with less than 4% proportion of international students were

underrepresented (23% vs. 59%), whereas institutions with 10 or more were overrepresented

(41% vs. 13%); for percentage of STEM, all categories of institutions are relatively equal, except

those with 20% or more were over represented (43% vs. 27%); for selectivity, institutions with

inclusive admissions were underrepresented (13% vs. 57%) and those with 1100 or more

SAT/ACT cut off scores were over represented (65% vs. 16%); region, locale, and distribution

were congruent with each population distributed accordingly; for residential character, special

focus institutions were over represented (10% vs. 1%).

Target Outcome Measure

The outcome measure for determining the quality of international student experience on

each campus was the percentage of international students on each campus who had a score above

the top third of scale scores of all international respondents in the sample for the Supportive

Environment (SE) indicator. Examining the distribution of this scale across all institutions and

respondents in the sample revealed that the cutoff for the top one-third of the distribution was

42.5 on a 60-point scale. The percentage of international students on each campus that had a

58
scale score above this cutoff point ranged from a low of 7% to a high of 69% (mean = 35%,

median = 33%, and standard deviation = 12.2%).

Table 4 shows the average of this outcome score (percentage of international students

with SE scale scores higher than 42.5), according to the institutional characteristics described in

Table 3. These means were used to determine how to collapse the original institutional

characteristic variables into dummy variables for the regression analysis to predict institutional

scores. These choices were made based on visual inspection of the means. For ordinal variables,

only consecutive categories were grouped, but for nominal variables, any groups could be

collapsed together. The goal of this step was to reduce the variables in preparation for

maximizing their predictive value. The shaded rows in Table 4 indicate which values were

assigned the value of 1; the non-shaded rows were assigned values of 0.

Table 5 is a summary of the collapsed dummy variables used in the institution-level

regression analysis (n = 103) to predict the top third outcome, the frequency count and

percentage of each dummy variable, and the mean and standard deviation of the top third

outcome score. Again, the shaded rows in Table 5 represent the values that were set to “1” for

each dummy variable with the non-shaded rows serving as the reference group.

Refining the Regression Model

Initially, a regression analysis was performed using all these predictors. The overall F

value for this analysis was 4.862 (df = 10, and the R2 was 0.346., Table 6 shows the coefficients

for this initial model.

During the pruning process, the six variables with non-significant regression coefficients

(STEM group, SAT_Hi, density, locale, size, residential) were removed. After seeing no loss in

predictivity, four variables (Carnegie Basic type, SAT_Mid, and region_45, region_136) were

59
Table 4

Average Percentage of International Students in Top Third of Supporting Environment Score

Mean Std Dev

Total Institutional Sample
.35 .122
Carnegie Basic Type
Research, Very High .33 .107
Research, High .34 .103
Doctoral/Research .32 .116
Master’s Colleges & Univs .32 .127
Baccalaureate Colleges .47 .118
All Other .33 .109
Enrollment (size)
Fewer than 1,500 .37 .156
1,500 to 2,499 .42 .155
2,500 to 4,999 .36 .123
5,000 to 9,999 .31 .115
10,000 to 19,999 .35 .110
20,000 or more .33 .112
Percentage of International Students
Less than 4% .36 .156
4 to less than 6% .32 .155
6 to less than 10% .38 .123
10 to less than 15% .33 .115
15% or more .35 .121
Percentage of STEM Group
Less than 10% .34 .119
10 to less than 15% .32 .105
15 to less than 20% .33 .122
20 to less than 30% .38 .160
30% or more .37 .068
Average SAT/ACT
Less than 1000 .37 .103
1000 to less than 1100 .31 .121
1100 to less than 1200 .31 .141
1200 to less than 1300 .37 .084
1300 or more .43 .122
Region of Country
New England .36 .091
Mideast .31 .094
Great Lakes .34 .101
Plains .39 .164
Southeast .40 .128
Southwest .36 .132
Rocky Mountains & Far West .29 .137
Locale of City
City: Large .34 .123
City: Midsize .35 .122

60
 Mean Std Dev
Total Institutional Sample
.35 .122
City: Small .34 .126
Suburb: Large, Midsize, & Small .36 .118
Town: Fringe, Distant, & Remote .38 .135
Residential
Residential Highly .38 .125
Residential Primarily .34 .108
Commuter Primarily .33 .134
Special focus .32 .112

Table 5

Final Variables Used in Regression to Predict Top Third Outcome

Frequencies Mean Top 3rd

N % Mean Std Dev
Carnegie Basic Type
Baccalaureate Colleges 89 86.4 0.33 0.111
All Other 14 13.6 0.47 0.113
Enrollment (size)
Less than 5,000 71 68.9 0.33 0.110
5,000 or more 32 31.1 0.38 0.138
Percentage of International Students
Less than 10% 72 67.7 0.35 0.113
10% or more 31 32.3 0.34 0.139
Percentage of STEM Group
Less than 10% 66 61.2% 0.33 0.115
10% or more 37 38.8% 0.37 0.129
SAT/ACT (Two Dummies)
Less than 1000 16 17.9% 0.37 0.100
1000 to less than 1200 50 44.6% 0.31 0.129
1200 or more 37 37.5% 0.39 0.102
Region of Country
Mideast, Rocky Mountains & Far
West 37 32.7% 0.30 0.113
New England, Great Lakes,
Southwest 36 41.3% 0.35 0.104
Plains, Southeast 30 26.0% 0.40 0.132
Locale (City vs. Not City)
City 68 65.7% 0.34 0.121
No City 35 34.3% 0.37 0.121
Residential
All Other 69 66.3% 0.33 0.118
Residential High 34 33.7% 0.38 0.123

61
Table 6

Regression Coefficients for Initial, Full Variable Prediction Model

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficientsa Coefficients Coefficients
Model Std.
B Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 0.34 0.032 10.661 <.001
basic_bacc 0.16 0.041 0.451 3.914 <.001
enr_size -0.029 0.03 -0.11 -0.956 0.341
NRA_grp -0.018 0.025 -0.066 -0.713 0.478
Stem_Grp -0.004 0.025 -0.017 -0.174 0.862
SAT_Mid -0.079 0.031 -0.323 -2.554 0.012
SAT_Hi -0.007 0.037 -0.027 -0.183 0.855
Region_45 0.1 0.026 0.373 3.818 <.001
Region_136 0.064 0.026 0.252 2.515 0.014
Locale_notcity -0.013 0.025 -0.049 -0.512 0.61
Res_Hi -0.017 0.03 -0.065 -0.559 0.577
a
Dependent Variable: SETOP3rd_mean

maintained in the final prediction model (see Table 7). The R2 for the final model was reduced

from 0.346 to 0.323, which shows a relatively small loss in predictivity for the much more

parsimonious model; the F value for the final model increased to 11.707 (df = 4).

Selecting Outlier Universities

Examining the institutional-level residuals (predicted values minus the actual values), six

positive and six negative outliers were selected from across the spectrum of predicted values.

Figure 2 illustrates which institutions were selected on this basis (indicated by the triangle

marker). The research advisor, who had the information required to identify institutions,

provided the researcher with the names of the 12 institutions without indicating which

institutions were negative or positive outliers or providing any information on where each

institution was on the predicted value spectrum. The research advisor and researcher did not

share any information about institutions again until the web scan was completed.

62
Table 7

Coefficient Table for Final Model

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Coefficientsa Std.
Model B Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 0.31 0.021 14.895 <.001
basic_bacc 0.121 0.031 0.341 3.905 <.001
SAT_Mid -0.06 0.021 -0.247 -2.833 0.006
Region_45 0.1 0.025 0.374 3.946 <.001
Region_136 0.059 0.024 0.231 2.436 0.017
a
Dependent Variable: SETOP3rd_mean

Outliers Selected for Web Scan Analysis

80%

70%
Actual Value of Top Third Scorers

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Predicted Value of Top Third Scorers

Selected institutions indicated by triangular marker

Figure 2. Graphical depiction of outlier selection.

63
 Profile of the 12 Institutions

As shown in Table 8, the 12 selected institutions were distributed across a wide range of

the provided characteristics. Based on Carnegie Classification (2010), the distribution was nearly

uniform across categories. For size, the resulting institutions were evenly distributed across

categories. For international student density, half of the selected institutions had enrollment that

contained 10-15% of international students. From program mix (percentage of STEM programs),

over 40% of the sample had less than 10% STEM programs, and over 40% of the sample had

between 20-30%. For selectivity (SAT/ACT), over 80% were below 1200 cut off scores. For

region, no institutions were from Mideast and Great Lakes regions. For locale, over 66% of the

sample was located in cities, none were located in suburbs, and 33% were located in towns. For

residential character, over 40% were highly residential. Appendix D describes the profile of each

institution in detail, including institutional characteristics and international enrollment trends.

Web Scan Method

This section describes the evolution of the web scan method, the web scan framework,

and the web scan rubric through seven stages of development. Relevant materials identified

through web scan were initially extracted and analyzed without consideration of the CECE

model. Emergent themes were then matched, combined, and collapsed into eight of the nine

CECE indicator categories.

Step 1: Searching With One Generic Key Word

To capture relevant web pages and documents, the keyword international students was

used as the search term on each of the 12 institutional websites. The information was written

down in a spreadsheet after being read by the researcher. The note taking simply described the

information seen on the websites with no personal opinion. About half of the samples (Institution

64
Table 8

The 12 Selected Outliers Characteristics Distribution

Frequency Percentage
Total Institutional Sample 12 100
Carnegie Basic Type
Research, Very High 1 8
Research, High 2 17
Doctoral/Research 1 8
Master’s Colleges & Universities 3 25
Baccalaureate Colleges 3 25
All Other 2 17
Enrollment (size)
Fewer than 1,500 3 25
1,500 to 2,499 2 17
2,500 to 4,999 1 8
5,000 to 9,999 3 25
10,000 to 19,999 1 8
20,000 or more 2 17
Percentage of International Students
Less than 4% 2 17
4 to less than 6% 2 17
6 to less than 10% 1 8
10 to less than 15% 6 50
15% or more 1 8
Percentage of STEM Group
Less than 10% 5 42
10 to less than 15% 0 0
15 to less than 20% 2 17
20 to less than 30% 5 42
30% or more 0 0
Average SAT/ACT
Less than 1000 3 25
1000 to less than 1100 3 25
1100 to less than 1200 4 33
1200 to less than 1300 1 8
1300 or more 1 8
Region of Country
New England 1 8
Mideast 0 0
Great Lakes 0 0
Plains 3 25
Southeast 4 33
Southwest 2 17
Rocky Mtns & Far West 2 17

Table 8 (continued)

65
 Frequency Percentage
Locale of City
City: Large 4 33
City: Midsize 1 8
City: Small 3 25
Suburb: Large, Mid, & Small 0 0
Town: Fringe, Distant, & Remote 4 33
Residential
Residential Highly 5 42
Residential Primarily 3 25
Commuter Primarily 2 17
Special focus 2 17

A, B, D, I, and L) yielded sufficient information on their websites to demonstrate efforts taken to

promote international student integration. The other seven institutions did not yield sufficient

information to demonstrate such efforts. Thus, a different set of key words was used as search

terms in the following round.

Step 2: Searching With a Different Set of Key Words

Another set of keywords was used to capture more relevant information, especially

focusing on the seven sites that did not yield sufficient results. These keywords included

international student integration, international student engagement, international student

involvement, and international student retention.

Step 3: Refining the Web Scan Framework

Based on the initial two rounds of the web scan with multiple sets of key words, 12

themes were identified: (a) staffing pattern/professional readiness, (b) department/organization

dedicated to international student support, (c) cultural celebration/demonstration/education, (d)

leadership and volunteer opportunities, (e) meaningful interaction, (f) strategic priority, (g)

assessment component, (h) campuswide collaboration, (i) faculty and student relationships, (j)

timely updated information, (k) user-friendly web interface, and (l) orientation best practices.

Comparing these themes with the corresponding CECE indicators, all 12 can be related to eight

66
out of nine CECE indicators, although in some cases, assumptions are being made by the

researcher about the intended or likely outcomes of institutional practices.

There was no practical way to gather information at the student level consistent with the

Holistic Support indicator from the CECE model, such that the students know a person on

campus who they can trust to give them particular support, to help them solve particular

problem, or to give them the information they need. Thus, the Holistic Support indicator was left

out from the final framework. This is a limitation of the study and an area of potential future

research.

Table 9 was developed to describe the similarity between the CECE model and the nine

emergent themes. Eight indicators from the CECE model are used as the final framework for

data analysis.

Step 4: Refining Rating Categories

A detailed rubric was finalized (see Appendix B). The eight CECE indicators are used as

dimensions, the CECE survey question mappings are used as reference to categorize the specific

output (efforts/practices) for rating, and emergent themes are used to sort data extracted through

the web scan.

Step 5: Defining a Rating Scale

A rubric was created to depict the standards for web scan ratings for the intensity of each

dimension. For each dimension of the rubric, a 3-point scale was used for differentiating the

levels of intensity: 1 = below average, 2 = average, and 3 = intensive (see Table 10).

A rating score of 3 (intensive) in each dimension is assigned for strong evidence of effort

(two or more practices) as put forth by the institution listed in the practice/effort section of the

rubric. A rating score of 2 (average) is assigned for some evidence of effort (at least one

67
Table 9

CECE Indicators and Emerged Web Scan Themes

CECE Model Emerged Themes Through Web Scan

a) Peers, faculty, and staff background/
experiences/expertise (staffing pattern and
1. Cultural Familiarity professional readiness)
b) department/organization dedicated to
international student support
2. Culturally Relevant Knowledge c) Cultural celebration/demonstration/education
3. Cultural Community Service d) Leadership and volunteer opportunities
e) Meaningful interaction between domestic and
4. Meaningful Cross-Cultural Engagement
international students
f) Strategic priority
5. Cultural Validation
g) Assessment component
6. Collectivist Cultural Orientations h) Campuswide collaboration
7. Humanized Educational Environments i) Relationship with faculty and staff
j) Timely updated information
8. Proactive Philosophies k) User-friendly web interface
l) Orientation best practices

Table 10

Rating Scale

Score Level Description

1 Below average Limited opportunities (no evidence, no practices present)
2 Average Somewhat limited opportunities (some evidence, at least one practice)
3 Intensive Sufficient opportunities (strong evidence, two or more practices)

practice). Finally, a rating score of 1 (below average) is assigned when no evidence (no practices

present) is found to satisfy the criteria listed in the rubric.

The scoring scheme (1-3) is created based on the number of sets of practices the

institutions have put forth to provide a culturally engaging and supportive environment for

international students. This scale has a number of limitations.

First, the web scan method through key words search is only able to detect an

institution’s stated practices or aspirations. It is impossible to assess how well the programs

described in documents are actually implemented.

68
 Second, a more granular scale could potentially lead to more distinctive comparisons of

the intensity of each dimension, such as the performance of institutions with more than three sets

of practices in one particular dimension compared to institutions with two sets of practices. Due

to the limited number of institutions studied, and the limits of using a web scan to identify

practices, few institutions demonstrated more than two practices in each dimension. These are

areas of potential future research, particularly with a larger sample size and a more

comprehensive scan through web, document analysis, and perhaps site visits.

Step 6: Calling Institutions

Because the information on institutional efforts presented from websites and documents

is limited, some CECE indicators might not have emerged through the web scan. However,

information being not available on the institution’s website does not automatically indicate that

the efforts do not exist. Thus, each institution was contacted to verify the data collected from the

web scan. To establish contact with personnel from each institution and to receive timely

responses, two types of administrators were originally contacted for each institution. These two

types included: (a) the person who oversees the area responsible for integrating international

students from a broader/strategic view (e.g., Vice President/Associate Vice President/Assistant

Vice President/Dean for International Education or Student Affairs, Director of Institutional

Research); and (b) the person who specifically oversees work with international students (e.g.,

Director or Assistant Director of International Center).

Among the first eight institutions (Institutions A, B, C, D, E, F, H, and I) that were

contacted, only half of the VPs/AVPs were able to speak in person (from Institutions B, F, H,

and I), only one of them provided constructive information (Institution B). All of the

VPs/AVPs/Deans that were reached suggested contacting the Director of International Services.

69
Thus, for the remaining four colleges (Institutions G, J, K, and L), only the mid-level

administrators (e.g., Director of International Services) were contacted.

Through phone calls, new information was gained. Specifically, no information was

received for Institution H from the web scan; however, as a result of the phone call, the Director

of International Services provided information that placed the institution as one of the top six

performers. Contacting other institutions led to similar upgrades in their overall scores. Finally,

the personnel from the 12 institutions all made themselves available for phone verification.

Contacting the institutions helped ensure that each sample received a fair opportunity to

demonstrate their efforts toward international student integration.

Step 7: Rating and Comparing Institutional/Dimensional Results

The finalized ratings were recorded in a spreadsheet of tables. Based on the rating scale,

the total score for each institution (for the purpose of institutional performance comparison) and

the total score of each dimension (for the purpose of dimensional comparison) were calculated.

Overall Result

Table 11 shows how the institutions scored for each dimension and overall. Among the

total scores of each dimension, Cultural Familiarity scored the highest overall rating (34 points),

followed by Proactive Philosophies (32 points); on the other end of the spectrum, Humanistic

Educational Environments scored the lowest overall rating (21 points), followed by Cultural

Validation (26 points).

What Did They All Do?

Among the total ratings of each dimension, Cultural Familiarity scored the highest rating

(33 points), followed by Proactive Philosophies (31 points), indicating that a majority of

institution-focused resources and activities as related to the Cultural Familiarity and Proactive

70
Table 11

Institutional Scores for Each Dimension and Overall Scores

Dimensions
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Cross-Cultural

Environments
Total

Orientations

Philosophies
Engagement

Educational
Community

Meaningful

Humanized
Familiarity

Knowledge

Collectivist
Validation
Institution

Culturally

Proactive
Relevant
Cultural

Cultural

Cultural

Cultural
Service

A 3 2 2 3 3 3 1 3 20
B 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 24
C 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 11
D 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 24
E 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 13
F 3 3 2 2 1 3 1 2 17
G 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 21
H 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 22
I 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 17
J 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 3 17
K 3 3 3 1 2 2 1 2 17
L 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 23
Total 34 29 28 26 27 29 21 32

Philosophies dimensions. Specifically, most institutions scored a rating of 3 (intensive) on

Cultural Familiarity, indicating that there was strong evidence on most of the campuses that

spaces and opportunities are available for students to connect with faculty, staff, and peers who

understand their cultural backgrounds, identities, and experiences. This can be inferred from

departments/organizations dedication to international student support through peer supports,

student organizations and centers, and staffing patterns through staff background and

professional readiness. Such practices can make it easier for international students to find people

on campus with a similar background—people who understand them and their struggles. They

also have the opportunity to interact frequently with people who share similar backgrounds and

71
who have access to sufficient spaces to connect with people from their native communities.

What Did They All Not Do?

On the other end, Humanistic Educational Environments scored the lowest rating (21

points), followed by Cultural Validation (26 points), indicating that a majority of institutions

have not focused sufficiently on Humanistic Educational Environments and Cultural Validation.

Specifically, most institutions scored 1 (below average) on Humanistic Educational

Environments, indicating that there was no evidence found on most of the campuses that

sufficient curricular or co-curricular opportunities are provided for international students to

develop meaningful relationships with faculty and staff members who care about them and who

are committed to their success. This can be inferred through institutional efforts in a variety of

opportunities to engage faculty and staff with international students, to foster mutual

understanding, and to improve the relationship between international students and faculty and

staff. Little evidence was found demonstrating the extent to which educators care about

international students, are committed to their success, or pay attention to feedback from

international students. There was also little evidence found showing international students had a

view of educators on their campus as caring human beings.

Other Findings

It is worth mentioning that international student offices nest across four different types of

departments: international affairs, student affairs, academic affairs, and enrollment. The rigors of

the programs divide almost evenly (see Table 12 and Figure 3). This does not align with Di

Maria’s (2012) prior research, such that having international student services under a student

affairs office did not contribute to greater engagement.

72
Table 12

International Student Services Unit Distribution

Division Top Six Low Six Total

International affairs L (1) I (1) 2
Student affairs/life A, D, G, H (4) C, F, K (3) 7
Academic affairs B (1) J (1) 2
Enrollment E (1) 1

Division/Department
8
7
6
3
5
4
3
2 4
1 1
1
1 1 1
0
International affairs Student life Academic affairs Enrollment

Top Low

Figure 3. International student services unit comparison.

Concordance: Regression Findings vs. the Web Scan Findings

Eight out of 12 institutions had congruence between the web scan and the residual results.

Specifically four out of the six highest institutions from the web scan (Institutions A, G, D, and

B) were positive residual outliers. Incongruently, two institutions that had relatively positive web

scan results were two of the negative outliers from the residual model (Institutions H and L).

Similarly, four out of six institutions (Institutions C, E, I, and J) rated relatively low in the web

scan, were congruently from the negative outlier residual group. However, low web scan-rated

Institutions K and F were positive regression outliers (as shown in Table 13). The mixed level of

concordance between the web scan and residual analysis is also indicated by a modest correlation

73
Table 13

Regression and Web Scan Results Comparison

Institution Web Scan Residual Predicted

B 24 Positive High
D 24 Positive High
L 23 Negative Low
H 22 Negative Low
G 21 Positive Low
A 20 Positive Low
F 17 Positive Low
K 17 Positive High
I 17 Negative High
J 17 Negative Low
E 13 Negative High
C 11 Negative High

(0.35) between the residual rating (the difference between predicted and actual score) and the

web scan rubric rating. Although only modestly correlated, the outlier analysis was more

successful in differentiating high from low web scan-rated institutions compared to the

regression predicted score, which was correlated at -0.11 with the web scan ratings.

74
 CHAPTER 5—DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

The purpose of this research was to find evidence regarding the success of the efforts

U.S. higher education institutions have made to integrate international students generally, and

specifically, those efforts that foster engagement with domestic students. Based on a value-added

regression analysis on each campus’ average level of perceived campus support among

international undergraduate students using exogenous factors beyond the institution’s direct

control as predictors, a set of 12 outlier institutions (six negative and six positive) were selected

for further review. A blind assessment of campus web pages was then conducted to assess the

robustness of international student support programs on each campus. The results demonstrated

that the value-added approach for assessing institutional effectiveness provides a somewhat valid

measure of effectiveness, although there was sufficient divergence between the value-added

measure and the qualitative assessment of international student services to warrant further

research and careful consideration of using this method to assess institutional effectiveness. This

chapter discusses the findings from the web scan and value-added analysis. First, the researcher

reviews the interpretation of the results, the institutional efforts identified through the web scan,

and the contribution to the literature based on these efforts. Second, the researcher presents

speculation regarding the mixed findings on the congruency between the web scan and the

residual analysis results. Third, the researcher discusses limitations of the current research and

suggestions for future research.

Interpretation of Overall Results

According to the web scan results, six institutions were characterized as high performing,

and six as low performing. The two highest rated institutions had the top rating (3) on all eight

dimensions. In contrast, the lowest rated institution scored the lowest rating (1) on five of the

75
eight dimensions and a moderate rating (2) on the other three dimensions. The group differences

among highest and lowest rated performance indicate that high-performing institutions put

efforts toward more areas than low-performing institutions.

As seen in Table 14, only the highest and lowest rated institutions have clear patterns of

being rated high and low from the web scan. These clear patterns match the residual analysis,

identifying two highest and two lowest outliers. As the ratings get mixed, the concordance is less

clear. This indicates that the web scan ratings, based on one person’s informed judgment, are

perhaps less reliable than desired, and further research might be warranted to develop more

rigorous and reliable ratings for such an analysis. However, it is also possible that the value-

added regression model was not sufficiently rigorous to identify outliers reliably.

Group Performance by Dimension

Dimension 1: Cultural Familiarity. All institutions in the high group scored a rating of

3, all but two institutions in the low group scored a rating of 3, and only the two lowest overall

rated institutions scored a lower rating of 2. Thus, there was not sufficient variation on this

dimension that could be detected through the web scan, although the fact that the two lowest

institutions were rated low on this dimension indicates that further consideration and better

documentation might be able to reveal larger differences. The result on this dimension indicates

that a majority of the institutions, across the high and low groups, have put effort toward making

spaces and opportunities available for students to connect with faculty, staff, and peers who

understand their cultural backgrounds, identities, and experiences. This can be inferred from

departmental/organizational dedication to international student support through student

originations and centers, as well as staffing pattern through staff background and professional

readiness.

76
Table 14

Ratings of the 12 Outlier Institutions Across the Web Scan Dimensions of Performance

Dimensions

Environments
Orientations

Philosophies
Educational
Community

Meaningful

Humanized
Familiarity

Knowledge

Collectivist
Validation
Culturally

Proactive
Relevant
Cultural

Cultural

Cultural
Cultural

Cultural
Service

Cross-
Group Total

High B 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 24
D 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 24
L 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 23
H 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 22
G 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 21
A 3 2 2 3 3 3 1 3 20
Low F 3 3 2 2 1 3 1 2 17
I 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 17
J 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 3 17
K 3 3 3 1 2 2 1 2 17
E 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 13
C 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 11

Examples. One of the institutions with a rating of 3 placed professionals with proper

training in the Registrar’s Office, the Assignment Office, and Career Services to assist with

international student issues. Another campus connects new international students with their co-

national peers or clubs right after their arrival.

According to Museus (2014), such practices make it easier for international students to

find people on campus with a similar background—people who understand them and their

struggles—and to have the opportunity to interact with people who share a similar background

frequently, as well as those who have access to sufficient space to connect them with people

from their community.

Dimension 2: Culturally Relevant Knowledge. Half of the institutions in each group

77
scored a rating of 3, and the other half of the high group scored a lower rating of 2, whereas two

institutions in the low group scored a rating of 2 and one scored a rating of 1. This indicates less

sufficient variation detected through the web scan on this dimension, although the fact that the

institutions in the high group rated relatively low, and the two lowest institutions were also rated

low, indicates that further consideration on the correlation between the specific dimensional

performance and the overall performance is needed. The result on this dimension indicates that

half of each group provided opportunities for students to learn about their own cultural

communities through culturally relevant curricular and co-curricular opportunities.

Examples. Many institutions include a practice typically known as Coffee Hours. The

International Center on one of the campuses selects an area of the globe as a special focus for the

entire campus to be exposed to each semester. The Director of the Center intentionally arranges

campuswide events related to the area of focus, including special lectures and forums, cultural

events (such as dance and music performances), Fulbright Scholar events, and religious

ceremonies. In addition, intercultural communication and global perspectives are also built into

the curriculum for all students as a graduation requirement. Another example is an event geared

toward children ages 4 to 10 so they have the opportunity to travel the world by pairing with

college buddies and visiting country stations set up by students. At each station, the children are

able to experience a culture hands-on as they read stories, make crafts, play games, or learn

dances from countries around the globe.

According to Museus (2014), such practices demonstrate institutional effort in providing

opportunities for international students to learn about the culture and important issues within the

culture and to gain knowledge about their own cultural community.

Dimension 3: Cultural Community Service. All but two institutions in the high group

78
scored a rating of 3, and the rest scored a rating of 2. In the low group, only one institution

scored a rating of 3, and the rest scored a lower rating of 2, except the lowest overall rated

institutions that scored a rating of 1. This indicates somewhat sufficient variations on this

dimension that could be detected through the web scan. The results indicate that high group

campuses from the web scan tended to provide a greater variety of opportunities for students to

give back to and positively transform their home communities. Several examples can show how

this dimension was put into practice.

Examples. Typically, such practices are known as “peer mentor programs” or as

international-themed student organizations. On one of the campuses studied, a mentor program

selects students returning to the United States from study abroad and international students to

serve as mentors to incoming international students and domestic participants. Their job is to

help international students feel comfortable on campus and answer their questions about policies

and procedures related to life in the residence halls, campus facilities, registration, and academic

procedures, as well as questions about U.S. culture and off-campus opportunities in the local

community. On another campus studied, the purpose of an international student club is to bring

together all international students and all other members of the campus community who are

interested in fostering the studying of and sharing the cultures of many lands, starting on their

own campus. An international student advisory board on another campus advises about services

and programs, such as the peer mentor program, writing labs, field trips and recreational

programs, and the overall international student experience on campus. One of the campuses used

the student run advisory board as the vehicle to provide feedback for the university to improve

services for international students. These opportunities are volunteer-based or awarded with a

stipend and are coordinated by international and domestic students.

79
 According to Museus (2014), a more culturally engaging campus offers leadership,

research, or volunteer opportunities for students to help improve the lives of people, to give back,

and to positively impact the international cultural community.

Dimension 4: Meaningful Cross-Cultural Engagement. All but two institutions in the

high group scored a rating of 3, and the rest scored a lower rating of 2. In the low group, none of

the institutions scored a rating of 3. Four of them scored a lower rating of 2, and two scored the

lowest rating of 1. This depicts that the high group campuses put more efforts toward offering

programs and practices that facilitate educationally meaningful cross-cultural interactions among

their students that focus on solving real social and political problems. This can be inferred

through the existence of programs and events that lead to deeper dialogue and meaningful

interaction beyond social events that are dedicated to the interaction between domestic and

international students. A few examples can show how this dimension was put into practice.

Examples. Typically, this dimension is carried out by a culture integration class of both

international and domestic students. One of the campuses offered such a class for two hours per

week. International students are provided with grade incentives to speak to domestic students

other than their roommates to ask pre-designed questions for generating meaningful interaction,

such as student's perspective of the presidential election. In addition, international students are

spread out in different class sessions without being clustered with co-nationals and other

international students through intentional social engineering and a small classroom ratio.

According to Museus (2014), such practices show that the institution provides sufficient

opportunities to discuss important social, political, and diversity-related issues with people from

different cultural backgrounds.

Dimension 5: Cultural Validation. All institutions in the high group scored a rating of

80
3, whereas none of the institutions in the low group scored a rating of 3. In fact, half the low

group scored a lower rating of 2, and the other half scored the lowest rating of 1. This depicts

that the culture of the high group campuses was characterized by putting more effort into

validating the cultural backgrounds, knowledge, and identities of international students. This can

be inferred through the campuses that prioritize international student integration, involvement,

and inclusion, as mentioned in the strategic plan or recognized as a necessity for intervention to

integrate international students into campus life. The highly rated campuses also had an

assessment component that demonstrates that the data has been collected with a detailed plan to

implement improvements into practice.

Examples. One of the high-performing institutions in this dimension had a strategic plan

from the highest administrative level down to the unit level. The strategic plan of the campus

indicates that the leadership should reinforce the institution’s distinctive excellence in

internationalism and, more broadly, should encourage every department and program in the

college to seize and develop opportunities to be distinctive in additional ways that serve students

well. The Division of Student Affairs has made internationalism a core value alongside academic

excellence, civic engagement, and multiculturalism. The Office of International Student Services

made a goal of successfully re-integrating and applying the education in home countries and

cultures, or applying and further adapting this education in the United States. Moreover, the

institution has its own detailed assessment plan for international student programs, which

collects data and then implements the data into practice.

According to Museus (2014), such practices demonstrate the extent to which staff on the

high group campuses value international cultural community and the knowledge and experiences

of people in the international community.

81
 Dimension 6: Collectivist Cultural Orientations. All high group institutions scored the

highest rating of 3, whereas only one low group campus scored the rating of 3; three of the

remaining institutions scored a lower rating of 2 and two scored the lowest rating of 1. A

sufficient variation on this dimension was detected through the web scan. This demonstrates that

staff on the high group campuses put more effort toward cultivating cultures that emphasize

teamwork and the pursuit of mutual success. This can be inferred through the collaboration of

international student services with other offices, such as orientation and multicultural centers.

Examples. One of the high-performing institutions in this dimension balances the number

of international students for each major and geographical representation in each classroom. The

Director of the Office of International Education works closely with other faculty members, the

Registrar's Office, the Housing Office, and the Admission’s Office to assign students with a

domestic roommate and to enroll them into class sessions and majors with less co-national

international students. According to Museus (2014), such practices demonstrate that people on

high group campuses tend to help each other succeed, support each other, and work together

toward common goals.

Dimension 7: Humanized Educational Environments. All but two institutions from the

high group of the web scan scored the highest rating score of 3, the rest scored 2 and 1,

respectively. The low group yielded one high rating score (3), two scored a lower rating score

(2), and one scored the lowest rating score (1). A somewhat sufficient variation is observed

between the high and low performance group, although it is not completely consistent with the

overall high/low distinctions among campuses. The results indicate that a majority of campuses

from the high group put more effort than those in the low group toward providing opportunities

for international students to develop meaningful relationships with faculty and staff members.

82
Their effort can be inferred through their practices in providing opportunities to engage faculty

and staff with international students, to foster understanding, and to improve the relationship

between international students and faculty and staff.

Examples. An example can show how this dimension was put into practice. On one of

the high-performing campuses, the Office of International Student Services facilitates a weekly

gathering for international students to talk with a special guest from the campus community on a

trendy topic. Past guests have included faculty members and senior level staff members, such as

the Director or Associate Director of the Multicultural Center, Housing, Health and Wellness, the

Senior Career Services Specialist, the Dean or Associate Dean of Students (Disability Services),

the Vice President for Student Affairs, the Provost, and the University President.

On another high-performing campus in this dimension, the Director of International

Student Services is a tenured faculty member whose tenure status gives them camaraderie

working with other faculty, which makes communication easier, especially in encouraging

faculty to include an international perspective in their courses. A similar weekly program also

invites faculty and senior level staff, such as Vice Presidents, to talk with students. The

International Student Services staff also collaborates with faculty to bring special guests with an

international perspective to campus and into the classroom. In addition, the President also leads a

jogging program to jog with students daily. Another campus’ Career Center hosts weekly events

for professional preparedness with an international focus. The program invites recent alumni

who have an international career to share the wisdom of self-branding.

According to Museus (2014), such practices can demonstrate the extent to which

educators in general care about international students on this campus and are committed to

international student success; feedback demonstrates that international students view these

83
educators as caring human beings.

Dimension 8: Proactive Philosophies. All institutions in the high group from the web

scan scored the highest rating of 3. Two institutions in the low group scored the highest rating

and the rest of the institutions scored a lower rating of 2; none scored the lowest rating. Like

Cultural Familiarity (Dimension 1), the scores on this dimension did not vary as much as desired

from a measurement perspective. This indicates that all institutions in the high and low groups

share similar practices in regard to adopting philosophies that lead faculty, administrators, and

staff to proactively bring important information, opportunities, and support services to students,

rather than waiting for students to seek them out or hunt them down on their own. This can be

inferred through information sharing, such as the user friendliness of the website interface, the

amount of information on the website, the timeliness of updates from social media pages, and

best practices for orientation.

Examples. The Office of International Student Services and the Career Center on one of

the high-performing campuses frequently updates information on the website about summer

internship opportunities, tax filing in January, and other topics. All offices on this campus have

Facebook pages and update them regularly, and these social media pages share information

specifically tailored to the student population they serve. In addition to online information

sharing, the Office of International Student Services also utilizes student talent to create visually

appealing posters to attract students. During orientation, international students receive eight days

of orientation in total on this campus. The first four days of orientation is for international

students only, and the second half of the orientation is combined with domestic students.

According to Museus (2014), this indicator demonstrates that people on this campus

often send international students important information about new learning opportunities and the

84
support that is available on campus. Students do not have to seek out new learning opportunities

on their own.

Summary

The web scan results indicated that high-performing institutions not only scored more of

the highest ratings in areas where low group institutions had relatively high ratings, and they also

scored the highest ratings in areas where the majority of the institutions in the low group scored

low ratings. Such areas include Cultural Community Service, Meaningful Cross-Cultural

Engagement, Cultural Validation, Collectivist Cultural Orientations, and Humanized Educational

Environments. Specifically, high group campuses did particularly well in providing more

opportunities for students to give back to and positively transform their home communities,

offering more programs and practices that facilitate educationally meaningful cross-cultural

interactions; making international student integration, involvement, and inclusion a strategic

priority; cultivating cultures that emphasize teamwork and the pursuit of mutual success; and

finally, providing more opportunities to engage faculty and staff with international students.

The web scan infers that a majority of the selected institutions include the number of

international students or their nationalities on the website and promotional materials; few web

documents mention any specific strategies for facilitating international cultural integration.

Knight (2011) calls it a long-lasting myth that more international students on campus will result

in a more internationalized institutional culture. Knight (2011) also warns that the majority of

domestic students commonly show no more than neutral attitude about engaging socially with

international students. Putnam (2007) suggests that simply putting people in the same location

with those who are different can even lead to greater distrust and suspicion. Thus, level of

diversity does not in itself ensure that people will interact meaningfully with each other. The

85
quality of interaction is also a stronger predictor than level of diversity for predicting

intercultural relations (Dejaeghere, Hooghe, & Claes, 2012).

Allport’s (1954) contact hypothesis elucidates four necessary conditions that are

particularly effective in reducing prejudice and improving quality of interaction: (a) equal status,

(b) common goals, (c) institutional support, and (d) perception of similarity between the groups.

One of the necessary conditions is working toward a common goal. Putnam (2007) used the

military as an example where, with the vast number of immigrants in the U.S. Army, American

soldiers have more friends from other cultures than the average American because they are

working side by side with new immigrants toward a common goal.

Student employment, community service, and outdoor programs might provide some

possible platforms and opportunities for students to have positive interactions and a sense of

belonging. Astin (1984) viewed on-campus jobs as one of the most interesting environmental

factors that affected retention, because part-time employment increases the likelihood the student

employee will come into contact with other students, faculty members, and college staff

members; also, relying on an on-campus job as a source of income may result in a greater sense

of attachment to the university. Other benefits of on-campus employment may be having

international and domestic students and supervisors working together toward a common goal.

Glass (2012) used the Global Perspective Inventory to survey 437 international students,

and the results revealed that international students who participate in community service along

with other programs, such as leadership programs and campus-organized diversity discussions,

interact with people from cultural backgrounds other than their own and take courses with

materials on race and ethnicity; these students showed higher levels of learning and development

and reported better campus climate. Glass (2013) explained that community service, cultural

86
events, and leadership programs enhance a sense of belonging; a sense of belonging increases

cross-cultural interaction between international and domestic students and significantly improves

international students’ average grades.

Outdoor adventure programs are developed with validated psychology and education

pedagogy. Following the spirit of the U.S. frontiersman during the colonial time, outdoor

adventure education utilizes camping and other leisure recreation activities as a channel to

develop student resilience and coping skills. Fabrizio and Neill (2005) stated that cross-cultural

experience and outdoor education literature are positively linked together. In the outdoor

programs, participants are constantly challenged to adapt to new environments, social and

physical demands, and they must be very intentional about their own behavior (Richards, 1977).

With proper guidance from the trip leader, the participants are required to accept a new living

situation, learn the culture of the group, develop survival skills, and take on a role that is

respected by the group.

In sum, institutions can provide a variety of opportunities for international students and

domestic students, staff, or faculty to work side by side toward a common goal, which can

promote international student and domestic student social integration.

Contribution to the Literature and to Practice

The present study contributes four general findings to the literature and practice on

international student involvement, engagement, and integration. First, in similar studies that seek

to identify effective practices, web scan and document gathering are typically used as a

preliminary step, followed by a campus visit and interviews. However, none of the previous

research described how the preliminary research was conducted. This study used a systematic

web scan methodology for conducting an online exploratory study. By using a systematic

87
method, information can be sorted in a consistent and comprehensive manner, especially for a

larger scale multi-campus research project that involves a team of researchers. This method can

better prepare researchers for a campus visit. This can be contrasted with a peer review for which

the campus prepares a self-study and invites external peers to validate the findings. Although the

web scan is not as richly informed as a self-study, neither is it likely to be as self-serving.

Moreover, with this method, the researcher selects institutions with an objective method for

identifying cases that are interesting to explore based on how they are identified as outliers using

the value-added regression analysis.

Second, no previous research has used the CECE model as a framework to examine

campus environments for the integration of international students. Through the seven stages of

development of the web scan method, the web scan framework, and the web scan rubric, the

relevant materials identified were initially extracted and analyzed without consideration of the

CECE framework. Emergent themes were found to align with eight of the nine CECE indicator

categories, which were then used to sort the extracted data in the third stage of the method.

Third, the web scan results demonstrate that the value-added approach for assessing

institutional effectiveness holds some promise for use as a measure of effectiveness, although

there was sufficient divergence between the value-added measure and the qualitative web scan

analysis of international student services to warrant further research and development of a more

powerful regression model based on a broader range of exogenous factors that affect the

environment within which campus staff work to engage international students. However, the

misaligned findings would in fact equip researchers with targeted consideration prior to a

campus visit, and may lead to a clearer understanding given the exogenous and endogenous

factors that are within or beyond the institution’s control. In the following section, the rationale

88
for misalignment is discussed with regard to directions for future research.

Fourth, a marketing value for recruiting and branding emerged from this study. As the

parents, students, and government agencies around the world are becoming more sophisticated in

selecting institutions in which to enroll or with which to collaborate, accessible web

documentation provides instant evidence to demonstrate institutional efforts and commitments

for student experiences. Recruiting and marketing professionals could benefit from utilizing

university websites to exhibit such information to perspective students and their families,

government agencies, and global partner universities to attract more committed students and

institutional collaborations.

Fifth, the term integration is re-claimed in this study to reflect a multilateral process. As

cultural dissonance has a negative impact on student success, Tinto’s (1993) use of integration is

problematic as it suggests that international students detach from their home cultures and join the

predominant on-campus culture. Integration is reconceived here as reflecting reciprocal and

inter-influential relationships among the cultural identities of students, faculty, and staff.

Rationale for Misalignment

Although two thirds of the institutions share concordant results between residual ranking

and the web scan ranking, one third of the institutions did not. Two out the six institutions that

were rated highly using the CECE-inspired framework were from the list of negative outliers.

Conversely, two of the six institutions rated low in the web scan were on the list of positive

outliers. Two reasons are considered next for this misalignment as related to exogenous

(external) and endogenous (internal) factors, respectively.

Exogenous Factors

The values of the exogenous predictors for the four institutions are shown in Table 15.

89
Institutions F and K were rated in the low web scan group but performed high on the residual

ranking. Both institutions are public research universities (R1) located in the Southwest region

and have a relatively low proportion of international students. Perhaps, due to the low proportion

of international students and the large campus size, students support each other largely within

their own national group and view their environment as supportive.

In contrast, institutions H and L placed in the high web scan group, but rated low in the

residual ranking. These institutions are markedly different from each other according to the

predictor characteristics, except that they both have a relatively high proportion of undergraduate

international students.

Endogenous Factors

Table 16 shows that the web scan ratings for Institutions F and K (17 and 17 each) and

Institutions H and L (22 and 23, respectively) are in a relatively narrow range of difference

compared to other institutions in both groups. Nominally, these institutions appear to have

similarly engaging programs according to the CECE criteria. However, it is not possible through

the web scan to determine how well the programs described in documents are implemented. An

implementation fidelity framework, such as the model proposed by Dane and Schneider (1998),

could address this potential gap between what the web scan can identify and what is actually

occurring.

Fidelity. Dane and Schneider (1998) identify five components of fidelity (a) adherence

(b) exposure (c) quality of delivery (d) participant responsiveness, and (e) program

differentiation. Adherence refers to program components being delivered as prescribed.

Exposure refers to the extent to which the intended participants are actually exposed to the

program content. Quality of delivery refers to training and competence of program staff and the

90
Table 15

The Values of the Exogenous Predictors for the Four Misaligned Institutions

Instructional

UG Enroll.
UG Profile
Carnegie

Program

Proportion
(UG, 2014)
Region
Setting
Profile
Locale
Type

Size
F Doctoral Town: Professions Full-time, High Large Primarily SW 3
Higher Distant plus arts and more residenti- (AZ NM
Research sciences, selective, al OK TX)
Activity high higher
graduate transfer-in
coexistence
K Doctoral City: Professions Medium High Large Primarily SW 5
Higher Large plus arts and full-time, nonresid- (AZ NM
Research sciences, inclusive, ential OK TX)
Activity high higher
graduate transfer-in
coexistence
H Special City: Professions Full-time, Excl- Small Highly SE 16
Focus: Arts, Small focus, no inclusive, usive residenti- (AL AR
Music, and graduate lower al FL GA
Design coexistence transfer-in KY LA
Schools MS NC
SC TN
VA WV)
L Doctoral City: Arts and Full-time, High Large Primarily Far West 13
Highest Mid sciences more nonresid- (AK CA
Research plus selective, ential HI NV OR
Activity professions, higher WA)
high transfer-in
graduate
coexistence

availability of necessary resources to effectively deploy the program. Participant responsiveness

refers to the engagement of the participants in the program. Program differentiation refers to

unique features of the intervention being distinguishable from other programs.

The web scan method used in this study does not include a sufficient review of the actual

implementation of these programs. To some extent, it can detect the sophistication of the

program design, and therefore speaks to some elements of adherence (or at least what the

91
Table 16

Web Scan Findings for the Four Misaligned Institutions

Dimensions

Cross-Cultural

Environments
Orientations
Engagement

Philosophies
Educational
Community

Meaningful

Humanized
Familiarity

Knowledge

Collectivist
Validation
Culturally

Proactive
Relevant
Cultural

Cultural

Cultural

Cultural
Web Scan

Service
Total
Group

High L 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 23
H 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 22
Low F 3 3 2 2 1 3 1 2 17
K 3 3 3 1 2 2 1 2 17

programs are intended to adhere to), quality (the intricacy of the design), and differentiation (to

the extent that the mechanisms by which the program are intended to work are described). The

web scan method is acknowledged to be superficial, identifying “what” is being done but not

delving very deeply into “how” (or how well) it is done. Still, even though superficial, the web

scan method was able to detect differences that aligned with the regression analysis.

In summary, neither the web scan nor the value-added approach can comprehensively

assess an institution’s efforts, since neither can probe into how well programs are executed, such

as can be accomplished using an approach like the one prescribed by Dane and Schneider’s

(1998) implementation fidelity model, or other such approaches used to assess process

effectiveness.

Limitations and Implications

As an exploratory study, the follow up related to investigating high- and low-performing

institutions are limited in three notable ways: first, by selecting only 12 institutions, and second,

by only conducting a web-scan document analysis, and third, the intended use of the framework.

92
Sample Size

Kuh et al. (2005) conducted a similar type of study—Documenting Effective Educational

Practice (DEEP)—in which the everyday workings of a variety of educationally effective

colleges and universities were examined to learn what they do to promote student success. The

authors noted that the high-performing universities they identified were not necessarily superior

to other universities. Still, the selected institutions were the outliers that performed above or

below what was expected. Similar to the reasoning drawn from the DEEP study, the researcher

reasons that activities and programs at each campus set them apart, which is worth exploring and

can hopefully be applied to other campuses.

Web Scan Analysis

Procedure. Due to the limited literature regarding the web scan methodology, the

procedure used in this study had to be designed without having a well-tested method from which

to draw. Similar studies that have sought to identify effective practices using web scan and

document gathering as the first step did not describe in sufficient detail how the preliminary

research was conducted. This study provides a systematic way to conduct an online exploratory

study.

Scoring scheme. The scoring scheme (1-3) was created based on the number of sets of

practices the institutions have documented through their web sites to provide a culturally

engaging and supportive environment for international students. This scale has a number of

limitations. First, the web scan method through key words search is only able to detect an

institution’s reported activities, but not necessarily the quality or levels of participation of those

activities. It is impossible to assess how well the programs described in documents are actually

implemented. Second, a more granular scale could potentially lead to more distinctive

93
comparison for intensity of each dimension, such as the performance of institutions with more

than three sets of practices in one particular dimension compare to the ones with two sets of

practices. Due to the limit number of institutions studied, few institutions demonstrated more

than two practices in each dimension. These are areas of potential future research, particularly

with a larger sample size.

Data verification. Because of the limitation of a web document scan, each institution

was contacted to verify the data collected from the web scan. Two types of administrators were

originally contacted for each institution, including the person who oversees the area responsible

for integrating international students from a broader/strategic view (e.g., Vice

President/Associate Vice President/Assistant Vice President/Dean for International Education or

Student Affairs, Director of Institutional Research), and the person who specifically oversees

work with international students (e.g., Director or Assistant Director of International Center).

Although the two types of administrators are directly related to the purpose of integrating

international students, programs and practices in other units (e.g., degree programs or

classrooms) on each campus remain unknown. These are areas that lead to a deeper study of

programs that involve faculty and non-international services units.

Timing. The regression analysis used to identify best practice institutions captured a one-

point-in-time picture of the international student experience, specifically the second semester

during first year of study. A more comprehensive assessment, involving students at multiple

points of their academic career, would provide a more reliable and valid assessment of the

supportive environment for international students. In addition, the NSSE survey, like most

surveys, often has a limited response rate. This study only considered 103 institutions that had a

sufficient number of international students who responded to NSSE.

94
 Framework

The CECE model was not designed for the purpose of assessing international student

integration, but rather as a basis for assessing the impact of campus climate from student

feedback for more general purposes related to cultural inclusiveness. Although reasoned to be

sufficient for the purpose and population of this study, more analysis can be done to determine if

and how the CECE model can be more rigorously applied as part of a scan of programs and

services conducted through a web and document scan or through other methods. If and when

more institutions use the CECE survey, it will be possible to explore more closely the

relationship between international student engagement and the campus climate as assessed using

the CECE survey instrument.

For one of the CECE indicators in particular, Holistic Support, there was no practical way

to gather information at the student level consistent with the indicator, as the indicator is about

whether the students know a person on campus who they can trust to give them particular

support, to help them solve particular problem, or to give them the information they need. Thus,

the Holistic Support indicator was left out from the final framework. This is a limitation of the

study and an area of potential future research.

Conclusion

International student enrollment in the United States has been increasing at a steady rate,

although more recent trends show a possible softening of this trend. Institutions have started

paying attention to the importance of international student integration, which will become

increasingly important if the trend continues to soften—institutions will be competing for a

limited resource. Several research articles (e.g., Gareis, 2012; Glass et al., 2014; Glass &

Westmont-Campbell, 2014) have reported that international students and domestic students do

95
not interact with each other naturally without institutional efforts to serve as a catalyst. This

exploratory research utilized a value-added regression model for identifying potentially low- and

high-performing institutions and a web scan methodology to investigate how these institutions

put forth efforts to facilitate international and domestic student integration. The findings indicate

that the level of effort made by the institutions in Cultural Community Service, Meaningful

Cross-Cultural Engagement, Cultural Validation, Collectivist Cultural Orientations, and

Humanized Educational Environments was modestly associated with the extent to which

international students view their institutions as more or less supportive of their integration and

engagement. A stronger association was discovered between the value-added measure

(regression residual) and the web scan ratings (r = .35). This demonstrates that the value-added

approach for assessing institutional effectiveness provides a somewhat valid measure of

effectiveness, although there was sufficient divergence between the value-added measure and the

qualitative assessment of international student services to warrant further research and careful

consideration of using this method to assess institutional effectiveness. Finally, the findings of

this study demonstrate that the web scan method can serve as a systematic, exploratory

approach—although somewhat limited—for measuring institutional efforts. Future research is

needed to explore effective practices in depth and how those practices can be implemented

effectively.

96
 REFERENCES

Abe, J., Talbot, D., & Geelhoed, R. (1998). Effects of a peer program on international student

adjustment. Journal of College Student Development, 39, 539-547.

Allan, K. D. (2005). Explorations in classical sociological theory: Seeing the social world.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Andrade, M. S. (2006). International students in English-speaking universities adjustment

factors. Journal of Research in International Education, 5, 131-154.

doi:10.1177/1475240906065589

Andrade, M. S. (2009). The international student picture. In M. S. Andrade & N. W. Evans

(Eds.), International students: Strengthening a critical resource (pp. 1-24). Washington,

DC: ACE/Rowman Littlefield.

Andrade, M. S., & Evans, N. W. (2009). Keys to persistence—International students in higher

education. In M. S. Andrade & N. W. Evans (Eds.), International students: Strengthening

a critical resource (pp. 43-72). Washington, DC: ACE/Rowman Littlefield.

Astin, A. W. (1970). College influence: A comprehensive view. Contemporary Psychology, 15,

543-546.

Astin, A. W. (1975). Preventing students from dropping out. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Astin, A. W. (1977). What matters most in college: Four critical years. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal

of College Student Development, 25, 297–308.

97
Astin, A. W. (1985). Involvement the cornerstone of excellence. Change: The Magazine of

Higher Learning, 17(4), 35-39.

Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Australian Department of Education, Employment, and Workplace Relations. (2008). Examples

of good practice in assisting international students to integrate with Australian students

and the wider community. Retrieved from

https://internationaleducation.gov.au/Research/Publications/Documents/Good_Practice.p

df

Australian Education International. (2010). Enhancing the international student experience: A

report on seven demonstration projects funded by Australian Education International and

conducted in collaboration with Universities Australia. Retrieved from

https://internationaleducation.gov.au/research/Publications/Documents/Enhancing%20the

%20International%20Student%20Experience.pdf

Bennett, M. J. (1986). A developmental approach to training for intercultural sensitivity.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 179-186. doi:10.1016/0147-

1767(86)90005-2

Bensimon, E. M. (2007). The underestimated significance of practitioner knowledge in the

scholarship on student success. Review of Higher Education, 30, 441–469.

doi:10.1353/rhe.2007.0032

98
Berger, J. B., & Braxton, J. M. (1998). Revising Tinto's interactionalist theory of student

departure through theory elaboration: Examining the role of organizational attributes in

the persistence process. Research in Higher Education, 39, 103-119.

doi:10.1023/A:1018760513769

Berry, J. W. (2005). Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 29, 697-712. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.07.013

Bevis, T. B., & Lucas, C. J. (2007). International students in American colleges and

universities: A history. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Borden, V. M. H., & Kernel, B. M. (2010). Measuring quality in higher education. Retrieved

from the Association for Institutional Research website: http://apps.airweb.org/surveys/

Braskamp, L. A., Braskamp, D. C., & Engberg, M. E. (2013). Global Perspective Inventory.

Retrieved from https://gpi.central.edu/supportDocs/manual.pdf

Brustein, W. (2009). It takes an entire institution: A blueprint for the global university. In R.

Lewin (Ed.), The handbook of practice and research in study abroad: Higher education

and the quest for global citizenship (pp. 249-265). New York, NY: Routledge.

Burkhardt, J. B., & Bennett, E. E. (2015). Shaping the future of a globalized world: A qualitative

study of how undergraduate international students’ everyday cross-cultural experiences

were impacted by university diversity initiatives. European Journal of Training and

Development, 39, 162-181. doi:10.1108/EJTD-06-2014-0042

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2012, February). Carnegie

classifications [Data file]. Retrieved from

http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/downloads/cc2010_classification_data_file.xls

99
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate

education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7. Retrieved from

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED282491.pdf

Choudaha, R., & Schulmann, P. (2014). Bridging the gap: Recruitment and retention to improve

student experience. Retrieved from the NAFSA: Association of International Educators

website: http://www.nafsa.org/retentionresearch

Dadashova, A., Ziskin, M., & Hossler, D. (2010). An examination of institutional practices

surrounding student retention. Paper presented at the annual conference of the

Association for the Study of Higher Education, Indianapolis, Indiana.

De Araujo, A. A. (2011). Adjustment issues of international students enrolled in American

colleges and universities: A review of the literature. Higher Education Studies, 1(1), 2-8.

doi:10.5539/hes.v1n1p2

Dejaeghere, Y., Hooghe, M., & Claes, E. (2012). Do ethnically diverse schools reduce

ethnocentrism? A two-year panel study among majority group late adolescents in Belgian

schools. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36, 108-117.

doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.02.010

Di Maria, D. (2012). Factors affecting views of campus services for international students

among student affairs administrators at five public universities in Ohio (Doctoral

dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global database. (UMI

No. 3546227)

100
Douglass, J. A., & Edelstein, R. (2009). The global competition for talent: The rapidly

changing market for international students and the need for a strategic approach in the

U.S. Berkeley, CA: Center for Studies in Higher Education. Retrieved from

http://www.cshe.berkeley.edu/publications

Dowd, A. C., Sawatzky, M., & Korn, R. (2011). Theoretical foundations and a research agenda

to validate measures of intercultural effort. Review of Higher Education, 35, 17–44.

doi:10.1353/rhe.2011.0033

Drash, W. (2015). Culture clash in Iowa the town where bubble tea shops outnumber Starbucks.

CNN. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2015/07/us/culture-clash-

american-story/

Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide: A study in sociology (J. A. Spaulding & G. Simpson, trans.).

Glencoe, IL: Free Press. (Original work published 1897)

Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced

Nursing, 62, 107-115. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x

Evans, N. W., Carlin, D. B., & Potts, J. D. (2009). Adjustment issues. In M. S. Andrade & N. W.

Evans (Eds.), International students: Strengthening a critical resource (pp. 25–42).

Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Fischer, K. (2011). Colleges adapt to new kinds of students from abroad. The Chronicle of

Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Colleges-Educate-a-New-

Kind-of/127704

Fischer, K. (2012a). Many foreign students are friendless in the U.S., study finds. The Chronicle

of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.chronicle.com/article/Many-Foreign-

Students-Find/132275

101
Fischer, K. (2012b). Newspaper column about foreign students sparks controversy at Kansas

State U. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from

http://chronicle.com/article/Newspaper-Column-About-Foreign/131023/

Gareis, E. (2012). Intercultural friendship: Effects of home and host region. Journal of

International and Intercultural Communication, 5, 309-328.

doi:10.1080/17513057.2012.691525

Glass, C. R. (2012). Educational experiences associated with international students' learning,

development, and positive perceptions of campus climate. Journal of Studies in

International Education, 16, 226-249. doi:10.1177/1028315311426783

Glass, C. R., Buus, S., & Braskamp, L. (2013). Uneven experiences: What’s missing and what

matters for today’s international students. Retrieved from

http://ww2.odu.edu/~crglass/Report-on-International-Students.pdf

Glass, C. R., Gómez, E., & Urzúa, A. (2014) Recreation, intercultural friendship, and

international students' adaptation to college by region of origin. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 42, 104-117. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2014.05.007

Glass, C. R., & Westmont-Campbell, C. (2014). Comparative effects of belongingness on the

academic success and cross-cultural interactions of domestic and international students.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 38, 106-119.

doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.04.004

Glass, C. R., Wongtrirat, R., & Buus, S. (2015). International student engagement: Strategies for

creating inclusive, connected, and purposeful campus environments. Sterling, VA:

Stylus.

102
Guiffrida, D. A. (2003). African American student organizations as agents of social integration.

Journal of College Student Development, 44, 304-319. doi:10.1353/csd.2003.0024

Hagey, A., & Hagey, J. (1972). International student and junior college: Academic and social

needs. Journal of College Student Personnel, 13, 140-144.

Hamilton, J. (1979). Comparison of domestic and international students’ perceptions of the

university environment. Journal of College Student Development. 20, 443-446.

Hanover Research. (2010). Best practices in international student recruitment and retention in

anglophone countries. Washington, DC: Author.

Hanover Research. (2013). Retention strategies for international students. Retrieved from

http://www.hanoverresearch.com/2013/06/16/retention-strategies-for-international-

students/

Hanover Research. (2014). Trends in higher education marketing, recruitment, and technology.

Retrieved from http://www.hanoverresearch.com/media/Trends-in-Higher-Education-

Marketing-Recruitment-and-Technology-2.pdf

Harper, S. R., Carini, R. M., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2004). Gender differences in student

engagement among African American undergraduates at historically Black colleges and

universities. Journal of College Student Development, 45, 271-284.

doi:10.1353/csd.2004.0035

Harper, S. R., & Quaye, S. J. (2009). Beyond sameness, with engagement and outcomes for all.

In S. R. Harper & S. J. Quaye (Eds.), Student engagement in higher education (pp. 1-15).

New York, NY: Routledge.

103
Harrison, N. (2012). Investigating the impact of personality and early life experiences on

intercultural interaction in internationalised universities. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 36, 224-237. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.03.007

Hassard, J. (1995). Sociology and organization theory: Positivism, paradigms and postmodernity

(Vol. 20). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Higher Education Research Institute (HERI). (2012). Diverse learning environments survey.

Retrieved from http://www.heri.ucla.edu/dleoverview.php

Hu, S., & Kuh, G. D. (2003). Diversity experiences and college student learning and personal

development. Journal of College Student Development, 44, 320-334.

doi:10.1353/csd.2003.0026

Hurtado, S., & Carter, D. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of the campus

racial climate on Latina/o college students’ sense of belonging. Sociology of Education,

70, 324–345. doi:10.2307/2673270

Hurtado, S., Dey, E. L., Gurin, P. Y., & Gurin, G. (2003). College environments, diversity, and

student learning. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and

research (Vol. 18, pp. 145-190). Boston, MA: Kluwer.

Hutcheson, G. D. (2011). Ordinary least-squares regression. In L. Moutinho & G. D. Hutcheson

(Eds.), The Sage dictionary of quantitative management research (pp. 224-228).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

I-Graduate International Insight. (2017). International student barometer. Retrieved from

https://www.i-graduate.org/services/international-student-barometer/

Integration. (2017). In Merriam-Webster. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/integration

104
Jayakumar, U. M., & Museus, S. D. (2012). Mapping the intersection of campus cultures and

equitable outcomes among racially diverse student populations. In S. D. Museus & U. M.

Jayakumar (Eds.), Creating campus cultures: Fostering success among racially diverse

student populations (pp. 1–27). New York, NY: Routledge.

Johnson, N., Oliff, P., & Williams, E. (2011). An update on state budget cuts: At least 46 states

have imposed cuts that hurt vulnerable residents and the economy. Retrieved from the

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities website:

www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1214

Kelchen, R., & Harris, D. N. (2012). Can “value added” methods improve the measurement of

college performance? Empirical analyses and policy implications (Context for Success

Working Paper). Retrieved from the HCM Strategists website:

http://www.hcmstrategists.com/contextforsuccess/papers/KELCHEN_HARRIS_PAPER.

pdf

Kim, I., & Kuljis, J. (2010). Applying content analysis to web-based content. Journal of

Computing and Information Technology, 18, 369-375. doi:10.2498/cit.1001924

King, P. M., & Baxter-Magolda, M. B. (2005). A developmental model of intercultural maturity.

Journal of College Student Development, 46, 571-592. doi:10.1353/csd.2005.0060

Korobova, N. (2012). A comparative study of student engagement, satisfaction, and academic

success among international and American students. Retrieved from ProQuest

Dissertations and Theses Global Database. (UMI No. 3511608)

Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Newbury Park,

CA: Sage.

105
Kuh, G. D. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning: Inside the National

Survey of Student Engagement. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 33(3), 10-

17, 66. doi:10.1080/00091380109601795

Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE. Change: The

Magazine of Higher Learning, 35(2), 24-32. doi:10.1080/00091380309604090

Kuh, G. D., Cruce, T. M., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R. M. (2008). Unmasking the effects

of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. Journal of Higher

Education, 79, 540–563. doi:10.1080/00221546.2008.11772116

Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J., Bridges, B., & Hayek, J. C. (2007). Piecing together the

student success puzzle: Research, propositions, and recommendations. ASHE Higher

Education Report, 32(5). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., & Associates. (2005). Student success in

college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., & Associates. (2010). Student success in

college: Creating conditions that matter (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kuh, G. D., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., Andreas, R. E., Lyons, J. W., Strange, C. C., … MacKay,

K. A. (1991). Involving colleges: Successful approaches to fostering student learning and

development outside the classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kwai, C. K. C. (2010). Model of international student persistence: Factors influencing retention

of international undergraduate students at two public statewide four-year university

systems (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses

Global database. (UMI No. 3390997)

106
Lee, A. (2013). Lee: Racism separates at the UI. The Daily Iowan. Retrieved from

http://www.dailyiowan.com/2013/09/20/Opinions/34742.html

Lee, J. J. (2015). International student experiences: Neo-racism and discrimination. International

Higher Education, 44, 3-5.

Lee, J. J., & Opio, T. (2011). Coming to America: Challenges and difficulties faced by African

student athletes. Sport, Education and Society, 16, 629-644.

doi:10.1080/13573322.2011.601144

Lee, J. J., & Rice, C. (2007). Welcome to America? International student perceptions of

discrimination. Higher Education, 53, 381-409. doi:10.1007/s10734-005-4508-3

Longden, B. (2004). Interpreting student early departure from higher education through the lens

of cultural capital. Tertiary Education & Management, 10, 121-138.

doi:10.1023/B:TEAM.0000023836.16827.5a

Mamiseishvili, K. (2012). International student persistence in U.S. postsecondary institutions.

Higher Education, 64(1), 1-17. doi:10.1007/s10734-011-9477-0

McCubbin, I. (2003). An examination of criticisms made of Tinto’s 1975 student integration

model of attrition. Retrieved from: http://www.psy.gla.ac.uk/~steve/localed/icubb.pdf

Melnick, G. A., Kaur, G., & Yu, J. (2011). Social integration and academic outcomes: The case

of an international public policy and management program. Journal of Public Affairs

Education, 17, 569-584. Retrieved from

http://www.naspaa.org/jpaemessenger/Article/VOL17-4/07_MelnickKaurYu.pdf

Miller, D., & Harwell, D. (1983). International students at an American university: Health

problems and status. Journal of School Health, 53, 45-49. doi:10.1111/j.1746-

1561.1983.tb04053.x

107
Merriam, S. B. (Ed.). (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and

analysis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Moran, D. (2012). International students deal with social media racism. The State News.

Retrieved from

http://statenews.com/index.php/article/2012/07/international_students_deal_with_social_

media_racism

Museus, S. D. (2011). Using cultural perspectives to understand the role of ethnic student

organizations in Black students’ progress to the end of the pipeline. In D. E. Evensen &

C. D. Pratt (Eds.), The end of the pipeline: A journey of recognition for African

Americans entering the legal profession (pp. 162–172). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic

Press.

Museus, S. D. (2014). The culturally engaging campus environments (CECE) model: A new

theory of college success among racially diverse student populations. In M. B. Paulsen

(Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 189-227). New York,

NY: Springer.

Museus, S. D., Lam, S., Huang, C., Kem, P., & Tan, K. (2011). Cultural integration in campus

subcultures: Where the cultural, academic, and social spheres of college life collide. In S.

D. Museus & U. M. Jayakumar (Eds.), Creating campus cultures: Fostering success

among racially diverse student populations (pp. 106-129). New York, NY: Routledge.

Museus, S. D., & Neville, K. (2012). Delineating the ways that key institutional agents provide

racial minority students with access to social capital in college. Journal of College

Student Development, 53, 436-452. doi:10.1353/csd.2012.0042

108
Museus, S. D., & Quaye, S. J. (2009). Toward an intercultural perspective of racial and ethnic

minority college student persistence. Review of Higher Education, 33, 67-94.

doi:10.1353/rhe.0.0107

Museus, S. D., & Ravello, J. N. (2010). Characteristics of academic advising that contribute to

racial and ethnic minority student success at predominantly White institutions. NACADA

Journal, 30, 47-58. doi:10.12930/0271-9517-30.1.47

National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). (2006). Engaged learning: Fostering success

for all students. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, Center for Postsecondary

Research.

NSSE. (2017). About NSSE. Retrieved from http://nsse.indiana.edu/html/about.cfm

Open Doors. (2012). Fast facts 2012. Retrieved from the Institute of International

Education website:

https://www.iie.org/en/Research-and-Insights/Open-Doors/Fact-Sheets-and-

Infographics/Fast-Facts

Open Doors. (2014). Open Doors 2014: A 15-year snapshot. Retrieved from the Institute of

International Education website:

http://www.iie.org/~/media/Files/Corporate/Open-Doors/IEW-Fifteen-Year-Highlights-

v2.ashx

Open Doors. (2016). Enrollment trends. Retrieved from the Institute of International

Education website: https://www.iie.org/Research-and-Insights/Open-

Doors/Data/International-Students/Enrollment-Trends

Otsu, A. (2008). International students’ satisfaction on campus (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved

from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global database. (UMI No. 3318537)

109
Özturgut, O. (2013). Best practices in recruiting and retaining international students in the U.S.

Current Issues in Education, 16(2), 1-21. Retrieved from

https://cie.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/cieatasu/article/viewFile/1213

Pace, C. R. (1980). Measuring the quality of student effort. Current Issues in Higher Education,

2, 10-16.

Parasuraman, A., Berry L. L., & Zeithaml V. A. (1991). Refinement and reassessment of the

SERVQUAL Scale. Journal of Retailing, 67, 420-450.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml V. A., & Berry L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of services quality

and its implication for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41-50.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml V. A., & Berry L. L. (1988). Servqual: A multiple-item scale for

measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12-40.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1980). Predicting freshman persistence and voluntary

dropout decision from a theoretical model. Journal of Higher Education, 51, 60-75.

doi:10.2307/1981125

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights

from twenty years of research (Vol. 1). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How collect affects students: A third decade of

research (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Phillips, G. C. (2013). A comparative study of international student engagement and success

based on race/ethnicity, gender, and institutional type. Retrieved from

http://purl.umn.edu/159138

110
Pike, G. R., & Kuh, G. D. (2005). A typology of student engagement for American colleges and

universities. Research in Higher Education, 46, 185-209. doi:10.1007/s11162-004-1599-

Pyle, K. R. (1986). Guiding the development of foreign students. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass.

Redden, E. (2012, October 16). "I am not racist, but..." Recent incidents bring to light the

problem of discrimination against international students. Inside Higher Ed.

Retrieved from

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/10/16/tensions-simmer-between-american-

and-international-students

Redden, E. (2013, March 4). Strangers in a strange land. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/03/04/international-educators-consider-

challenges-integrating-students-abroad

Redden, E. (2014, February, 20). At a gathering of senior international educators, the integration

of international students was a theme. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/02/20/gathering-senior-international-

educators-integration-international-students-was

Rendón, L. I., Jalomo, R. E., & Nora, A. (2000). Theoretical considerations in the study of

minority student retention in higher education. In J. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student

departure puzzle (pp. 127–156). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic

motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.

doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

111
Singapore Ministry of Education. (2010). Integration in Singapore schools: A best practices

package. Retrieved from the National Integration Council website:

https://www.nationalintegrationcouncil.org.sg/assets/files/Docs/Resources/Best_Practices

_Package_for_Integration_in_Schools.pdf

Spady, W. (1971). Dropouts from higher education: Toward an empirical model. Interchange,

2(3), 38-62. doi:10.1007/BF02282469

Spencer-Oatey, H., Dauber, D., & Williams, S. (2014). Promoting integration on campus:

Principles, practice and issues for further exploration. Retrieved from the UK Council

for International Student Affairs website: https://institutions.ukcisa.org.uk/Info-for-

universities-colleges--schools/Publications--research/resources/70/Promoting-Integration-

on-Campus-Principles-Practice-and-Issues-for-Further-Exploration

Stage, F. K., & Hossler, D. (2000). Where is the student? Linking student behaviors, college

choice, and college persistence. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student departure

puzzle (pp. 170-194). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

Strange, C., & Banning, J. (2001). Educating by design: Creating campus environments that

work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Sullivan, C., & Kashubeck-West, S. (2015). The interplay of international students’ acculturative

stress, social support, and acculturation modes. Journal of International Students, 5(1), 1-

11. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1052843.pdf

Tanaka, G. (2002). Higher education’s self-reflexive turn: Toward an intercultural theory of

student development. Journal of Higher Education, 73, 263–296.

doi:10.1353/jhe.2002.0024

112
Tierney, W. (1992). An anthropological analysis of student participation in college. Journal of

Higher Education, 63, 603-618. doi:10.2307/1982046

Tilsley, A. (2012, October 1). Spotlighting hate: Blogs at two universities aim to promote

tolerance by highlighting insensitive and offensive comments posted on social media.

Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/10/01/blogs-aim-bring-light-hateful-speech-

online

Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research.

Review of Educational Research, 45, 89–125. doi:10.3102/00346543045001089

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.).

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Tinto, V. (2007). Research and practice of student retention: What next? Journal of College

Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 8(1), 1-19. doi:10.2190/C0C4-EFT9-

EG7W-PWP4

University World News. (2013, June 29). International students boost graduation rates.

Retrieved from

http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20130627215621428

Van Gennep, A. (1960). The rites of passage. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Voigt, L., & Hundrieser, J. (2008). Student success, retention, and graduation: Definitions,

theories, practices, patterns, and trends. Retrieved from

http://www.stetson.edu/law/conferences/highered/archive/media/Student%20Success,%2

0Retention,%20and%20Graduation-

%20Definitions,%20Theories,%20Practices,%20Patterns,%20and%20Trends.pdf

113
Wan, T., Chapman, D. W., & Biggs, D. A. (1992). Academic stress of international students

attending U.S. university. Research in Higher Education, 33, 607-622.

doi:10.1007/BF00973761

Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-

Wesley.

Wolf-Wendel, L., Ward, K., & Kinzie, J. (2009). A tangled web of terms: The overlap and

unique contribution of involvement, engagement, and integration to understanding

college student success. Journal of College Student Development, 50, 407-428.

doi:10.1353/csd.0.0077

Yan, K., & Berliner, D. (2011). An examination of individual level factors in stress and coping

processes: Perspectives of Chinese international students in the United States. Journal of

College Student Development, 52, 523-542. doi:10.1353/csd.2011.0060

Young, N., Kappler, B., Woodruff, G., Eland, A., Isensee, B., Yefanova, D., & Yu, X. (2014).

Seeking best practices for integrating international and domestic students. Retrieved

from http://global.umn.edu/icc/documents/14_integration_best_practices_overall.pdf

Zhang, J., & Goodson, P. (2011). Predictors of international students’ psychosocial adjustment to

life in the United States: A systematic review. International Journal of Intercultural

Relations, 35, 139-162. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.11.011

Zhao, C. M., & Douglass, J. (2012). The international student density effect: A profile of a

global movement of talent at a group of major U.S. universities. Higher Education

Forum, 9, 45-59. Retrieved from http://rihejoho.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/wp/wp-

content/uploads/2016/12/106674.pdf

114
Zhao, C. M., Kuh, G. D., & Carini, R. M. (2005). A comparison of international student and

American student engagement in effective educational practices. Journal of Higher

Education, 76, 209-231

115
 Appendix A

Original Web Scan Rubric Based on the CECE Model

Data Source Categories

Annual Report from Office of International Affairs Opportunities to learn more about international and
Annual Report from Office of Student Affairs domestic culture and different community of origins,
Annual Report from Office of Intercultural Affairs which create an intensive dialog among students
President State of Campus Address (visions, with different backgrounds and beliefs. A few
achievements if any) examples including the number of majors,
Orientation Schedule (length, including domestic subcultural groups (e.g., cultural centers, student
students) clubs), lectures, space utilizations, and other co-
President’s State of Campus Address curricular activities
Campus Internationalization Plan Opportunities for community service related to
Strategic Plan cultural or immersive experiences as well as any
Current Student Web Page other sources that provide a record of community
Prospective Student Web Page services that intentionally involve international
Office of International Affairs students
Office of Student Affairs
Engage international students, domestic students,
Office of Intercultural Affairs
and local community in positive and purposeful
Orientation
interactions
Student Clubs/Cultural Centers (pages show the
number of faculty of other nationalities) Visions, achievement, and illustrated through
campus and curriculum internationalization plan,
Key Terms: campus strategic plan, number of international
alumni, and mentions in the president’s state of the
International student integration campus address
International student engagement Evidence of social media channel, and especially
International student retention those platforms are popular among international
International student development students, to introduce opportunities and services, as
International student success well as extending invitations to international
Domestic students and international students students
“Other” unique or unanticipated opportunities and
support for international student engagement
Campuswide vs. departmental vs. both
NSSE student-staff interaction score
NSSE NSSE student-faculty interaction score
NSSE student-student interaction score

116
 Appendix B

Finalized Web Scan Rubric

Dimension CECE Survey Question Mapping Output: Practices for Rating

Cultural Familiarity It is easy to find people on campus Department/organization
dedicated to international student
Campus spaces for • with similar backgrounds support
students to connect with • to interact frequently from similar
faculty, staff, and peers backgrounds Clubs, centers, and organizations
who understand their • who understand international
cultural backgrounds, students Staffing pattern / professional
identities, and • who understand their struggles readiness
experiences. • who are generally willing to take
the time to understand their Staff members with international
experiences background or experience,
specialized services providers
On campus, there is sufficient space trained for working with
for me to connect with people from international students, etc.
my community.
Culturally Relevant On campus, there are enough Cultural celebrations/
Knowledge opportunities to learn about demonstration/education

Opportunities for • the culture Presentations, coffee hours,

students to learn about • important issues festivals, etc.
their own cultural • knowledge of my own cultural
communities via community.
culturally relevant
curricular and co-
curricular opportunities
Cultural Community At my institution, there are enough Volunteer / leadership
Service opportunities (research, community opportunities
service projects, etc.) to
Opportunities for Paid or non-paid, peer advising,
students to give back to • help improve the lives of people orientation leader, student
and positively transform in, government, student organization,
their home • give back to, and resident assistant, etc.
communities. • positively impact my cultural
community.

117
Dimension CECE Survey Question Mapping Output: Practices for Rating
Meaningful Cross- On campus, there are enough Meaningful domestic-international
Cultural Engagement opportunities to discuss interaction

Programs and practices • important social issues Programs and events that lead to
that facilitate • important political issues deeper dialogue and meaningful
educationally • important diversity-related issues interaction beyond social events;
meaningful cross- with people from different buddies programs; learning
cultural interactions cultural backgrounds. communities; roommate matching;
among their students de-cluster practices, etc.
that focus on solving
real social and political
problems.
Cultural Validation In general, people on campus value Strategic priority

Campus cultures that • knowledge Mentioned in the strategic plan,

validate the cultural • my cultural community listed as a strategic priority;
backgrounds, • the experiences of people from/in Recognize the necessity of
knowledge, and my cultural community intervention to integrate
identities of diverse international students into campus
students. life, etc.

Assessment component

Data collected, and have or have a

plan to implemented into practice;
survey instrument geared toward
international students, etc.

Good retention rate and strategy

Collectivist Cultural In general, people on this campus Campuswide collaboration
Orientations
• help each other succeed International student services is
Campuses cultures that • support each other nested under student affairs vs.
emphasize a collectivist, • work together toward common other department vs. stand alone;
rather than goals has close collaboration with offices
individualistic, a of orientation, multicultural
cultural orientation that centers, career services, registrar’s
is characterized by office, admissions, faculty, etc.
teamwork and pursuit of
mutual success.

118
Dimension CECE Survey Question Mapping Output: Practices for Rating
Humanized Educational In general, educators on campus Relationship with faculty and staff
Environments
• care about students on this Faculty-student and/or staff-student
Availability of campus social, guest speaker, etc.
opportunities for • are committed to my success
students to develop
meaningful relationships I view educators on this campus as
with faculty and staff caring human beings.
members who care
about and are committed
to their success.
Proactive Philosophies People on this campus often send me Timely updated information
important information about
Philosophies that lead Social media page to update
faculty, administrators, • new learning opportunities students in a timely manner
and staff to proactively • support that is available on
bring important campus User-friendly interface
information,
opportunities, and On campus, I feel like I have to seek Website with sufficient
support services to out new learning opportunities on my information and an organized
students, rather than own. structure for students to navigate
waiting for students to
seek them out or hunt Orientation best practices
them down on their
own. Extended vs. one-day; international
only vs. combined with domestic;
pre-arrival vs. on campus only, etc.

119
 Appendix C

Description of the Rubric Categories

Cultural Familiarity

Spaces and opportunities are available for students to connect with faculty, staff, and

peers who understand their cultural backgrounds, identities, and experiences. This can be

inferred from departmental/organizational dedication to international student support through

student originations and centers, as well as staffing patterns through staff background and

professional readiness. Such practices make it easier for international students to find people on

campus with a similar background and who understand them and their struggles. It also makes it

easier for international students to interact with people with similar backgrounds frequently and

have access to sufficient space to connect with people from their community.

Culturally Relevant Knowledge

There are opportunities for students to learn about their own cultural communities

through culturally relevant curricular and co-curricular opportunities. This can be inferred

through the variety of the activities provided, such as cultural celebrations, demonstrations, and

regular education, as well as generating meaningful conversations. Such practices can

demonstrate the extent to which institutional effort provides opportunities for international

students to learn about the culture and important issues within and to gain knowledge about their

own cultural community.

Cultural Community Service

There are opportunities for students to give back to and positively transform their home

communities. This can be inferred through the extent to which students take on leadership or

volunteer opportunities to help improve the lives of international students on campus. Such

120
practices demonstrate that there are somewhat limited opportunities (e.g., research, community

service projects) to help improve the lives of people, to give back, and to positively impact the

international cultural community.

Meaningful Cross-Cultural Engagement

The campus offers programs and practices that facilitate educationally meaningful cross-

cultural interactions among their students that focus on solving real social and political

problems. This can be inferred through the existence of programs and events that lead to deeper

dialogue and meaningful interaction beyond social events and are dedicated to the interaction

between domestic and international students. Such practices show that the institution provides

sufficient opportunities to discuss important social, political, and diversity-related issues with

people from different cultural backgrounds.

Cultural Validation

The culture of the campus validates the cultural backgrounds, knowledge, and identities

of international students. This can be inferred by international student integration, involvement,

and inclusion as a strategic priority mentioned in the strategic plan, by the recognition of the

necessity of interventions designed to integrate international students into campus life, and by the

assessment component that demonstrates that there is a plan to implement results from the data

collected into practice. Such practices demonstrate that, in general, people on campus value more

international cultural community and the knowledge and experiences of people in the

international cultural community.

Collectivist Cultural Orientations

The campus culture emphasizes a collectivist, rather than individualistic, cultural

orientation that is characterized by teamwork and pursuit of mutual success. This can be inferred

121
through the collaboration of international student services with other offices, such as orientation

and multicultural centers. Such practices demonstrate that people on campus help each other

succeed, support each other, and work together toward common goals.

Humanized Educational Environments

There are opportunities for international students to develop meaningful relationships

with faculty and staff members who care about and are committed to their success. This can be

inferred through institutional efforts to engage faculty and staff with international students, to

foster understanding, and to improve the relationship between international students, faculty, and

staff. Such practices can demonstrate the extent to which educators in general care about

international students on this campus and are committed to international student success. These

practices are supported by feedback from international students who view educators on campus

as caring human beings.

Proactive Philosophies

The campus adopted philosophies that lead faculty, administrators, and staff to

proactively bring important information, opportunities, and support services to students, rather

than waiting for students to seek them out or hunt them down on their own. This can be inferred

through information sharing, such as the user friendliness of the website interface, the amount of

information on the website, the timeliness of update from social media pages, and best practices

for orientation. Such practices demonstrate that people on this campus often send international

students important information about new learning opportunities and important information

about the support that is available on campus; therefore, students do not have to seek out new

learning opportunities on their own.

122
 Appendix D

Institution Profiles

The profile of each institution is depicted, including Carnegie Basic Type Classification,

size, setting, selectivity, urbanicity, region, program mix, and the trend of international

enrollment. The rating and practices found via the web scan are then described.

Institution A

Institution A is a private, medium in size, more selective institution, located in the New

England region. It offers professionally focused majors up to master's degrees. It resides in a

small city. At least half of its degree-seeking undergraduates live on campus where at least 80%

attend full time. In 2014, 21% of the total enrollment was international students, and 16% of the

undergraduate enrollment was international students. Between 2004 and 2014, the percentage of

total enrollment of international students increased from 9% to 21%; the percentage of

international undergraduate enrollment increased from 7% to 16% (between 2004 and 2014).

Institution A
International Enrollment as Percent of
Total Enrollment
25
21
20
20 18
17
14
15
9
10 8 8
7 7
6
5

0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

123
 Institution A
International Enrollment as Percent of
Undergraduate Enrollment
25

20
16 16
14
15 13
11
10 7

0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Institution B

Institution B is a small, private, more selective institution, located in the Southeast

region. It offers arts and sciences plus professional degrees exclusively at the undergraduate

level. It resides in a distant town, and at least half of its degree-seeking undergraduates live on

campus, where at least 80% attend full time. The institution chooses students from all around the

world without advertising. Among 3,000 international applicants, 30 are chosen each year.

Between 2004 and 2014, the percentage of total enrollment (exclusively undergraduate) that

were international students remained steady, between 7% and 8%.

Institution B
International Enrollment as Percent of
Total (Undergraduate) Enrollment
25
20
15
8 7 8 7 8 8 7 7 7 8 8
10
5
0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

124
 Institution C

Institution C is a medium size, private, selective institution, located in the Plains region.

It offers up to doctoral degrees (with moderate research activity). Academic levels are high in

undergraduate, with professional majors plus arts and sciences with some graduate degrees. The

campus resides in a small city, and at least half of its degree-seeking undergraduates live on

campus, where at least 80% attend full time (i.e., highly residential). Between 2004 and 2014,

the percentage of total enrollment (undergraduate and graduate) that were international students

was steadily yet slowly growing, from 5% to 10%. The percentage of undergraduate enrollment

that was international students remained constant, 10% to 12% between 2009 and 2014.

Institution C
International Enrollment as Percent of
Total Enrollment
25

20

15
10
9
10 8 8 8 8
7 7
5 5 5
5

0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

125
 Institution C
International Enrollment as Percent of
Undergraduate Enrollment
25

20

15 12
11
10 10 10 10
10

0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Institution D

Institution D is a small, private, more selective institution located in the Plains region. It

exclusively offers undergraduate degrees focused on arts and sciences majors. The institution is

located in a large city, and at least half of its degree-seeking undergraduates live on campus,

where at least 80% attend full time. Between 2004 and 2014, the percentage of total enrollment

of international students remained between 11%-14%. As the institution exclusively offers

undergraduate degree courses, the total enrollment is also the undergraduate enrollment.

126
 Institution D
International Enrollment as Percent of Total
(Undergraduate) Enrollment
25

20
14 14
15 13
12 12 12 12 12
11 11 11
10

0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Institution E

Institution E is a small size, private, inclusive in selection institution located in the Plains

regain. It offers baccalaureate degrees in diverse majors (professions plus arts and sciences). The

institution resides in a remote town, and at least half of its degree-seeking undergraduates live on

campus, where at least 80% attend full time. Between 2004 and 2014, the percentage of total

enrollment of international students remained steady (around 9%) until 2011, down to 1%. Since

2012, the proportion of international students increased to 13% by 2014.

Institution E
International Enrollment as Percent of Total
(Undergraduate) Enrollment
25

20

15 13
12
10 10
9 9 9
10 8 8 8

5
1
0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

127
 Institution F

Institution F is a large, public, more selective institution located in the Southwest region.

The highest degree the institution offers is the doctoral degree plus arts and sciences fields, with

high research activity. A large number of degrees have both graduate and undergraduate degrees.

The campus resides in a distant town, with 25%-50% of degree-seeking undergraduates living on

campus, and between 50% and 80% who attend full time (primarily residential).

Institution F
International Enrollment as Percent of
Total Enrollment
25

20

15
9 9 9
10 8 8 8 8
7 7 7 7

0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Institution F
International Enrollment as Percent of
Undergraduate Enrollment
25

20

15

10

5 3 3 3 3
2 2

0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

128
 Institution G

Institution G is a small art institution with a total student body of 1000+, and the

international student population is 24% of the total student body, with 83% of international

students from Asia. The top four countries of origin are China, Korea, Indonesia, and the Middle

East. The department primarily responsible for integrating international students is nested within

student services, and the Director reports directly to the Vice President for Student Services and

reports weekly to the Provost. The campus resides in a large city, with fewer than 25% of its

degree-seeking undergraduates living on campus or fewer than 50% enrolled full time (primarily

nonresidential).

Institution G
International Enrollment as Percent of
Total Enrollment
25
21
20 18
16 16
15 15 15
15 13
12 12
11
10

0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

129
 Institution G
International Enrollment as Percent of
Undergraduate Enrollment
25
21
19
20 17
16 16 16
15

10

0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Institution H

Institution H is a size small, private, inclusive (less selective) institution, located in a

small city in the Southeast region. It offers exclusively undergraduate degree with a special focus

in arts, music, and design Schools. At least half of its degree-seeking undergraduates live on

campus and where at least 80% attend full-time (highly residential).

Institution H
International Enrollment as Percent of
Total (Undergraduate) Enrollment
25

20
16
15 13
11
9
10 7
6
5 5 5 5 5
5

0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

130
 Institution I

Institution I is a public, inclusive in admission, medium-sized institution, located in the

Southeast region. The institution offers up to doctoral degrees (moderate research activity). The

institution awards up to doctoral degrees. The enrollment profile is high in undergraduate. For

the undergraduate instructional program, 60-79% of bachelor's degree majors were in

professional fields, and graduate degrees were observed in up to half of the fields corresponding

to undergraduate majors. The campus resides in a large city, with at least half of its degree-

seeking undergraduates living on campus and at least 80% attending full time (highly

residential).

Institution I
International Enrollment as Percent of
Total Enrollment
25

20

15
10
10

5 3
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0
0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

131
 Institution I
International Enrollment as Percent of
Undergraduate Enrollment
25

20

15

10 8

5 2
0 0 0 0
0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Institution J

Institution J is a public, large size, selective institution located in the Southeast region.

Fall enrollment data indicate at least 80% of undergraduates are enrolled full-time at these

bachelor's or higher degree-granting institutions. Test score data for first-year students indicate

that these institutions are selective in admissions (40th to 80th percentile of selectivity among all

baccalaureate institutions). At least 20% of entering undergraduates are transfer students. Fall

enrollment data also shows both very high undergraduate enrollment, and less than 10% of full-

time graduate enrollment.

Sixty percent to 79% of bachelor's degree majors were in professional fields, and

graduate degrees were observed in up to half of the fields corresponding to undergraduate

majors. The campus resides in a remote town, with 25% to 49% of degree-seeking

undergraduates living on campus and at least 50% attending full time.

132
 Institution J
International Enrollment as Percent of
Total Enrollment
25

20

15
11
10 8
7
4
5 3 3 3
2 2 2 2

0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Institution J
International Enrollment as Percent of
Undergraduate Enrollment
25

20

15
11
10 8
7
4
5 3
2

0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Institution K

Institution K is a large size, inclusive in admission, public institution located in the

Southwest region. It awards up to doctoral degrees (higher research activity). Enrollment profile

is high undergraduate with professional majors plus arts and sciences. The campus resides in a

large city, with fewer than 25% of degree-seeking undergraduates living on campus and/or fewer

than 50% attending full time (this includes exclusively distance education institutions).

133
 Institution K
International Enrollment as Percent of
Total Enrollment
25

20

15 12
11 11 11
10
9
10 8
7 7 7
6
5

0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Institution K
International Enrollment as Percent of
Undergraduate Enrollment
25

20

15

10 7
6 6
5 5 5
5

0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Institution L

Institution L is a large size, more selective in admission, a public institution, located in

the Far West region. The institution awards up to doctoral degrees (highest research activity).

The enrollment profile is high undergraduate, majors in arts and sciences plus professions. The

campus resides in a midsize city, with fewer than 25% of degree-seeking undergraduates live on

campus and/or fewer than 50% attend full time (includes exclusively distance education

institutions).

134
 Institution L
International Enrollment as Percent of
Total Enrollment
25

20

15 13 13
11
9
10 8
7
6 6 6 6 6
5

0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Institution L
International Enrollment as Percent of
Undergraduate Enrollment
25

20

15 13 13
11
10 8
7
6
5

0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

135
 Ken Jian Guan
[email protected]

EDUCATION

Doctorate of Education in Higher Education 2017

with a Specialization in Human Resources Management and Organizational Behavior
Indiana University-Bloomington

Dissertation Topic: Assessing Institutional Efforts to Culturally Integrate

International Undergraduate Students

Graduate Certificate, Institutional Research 2017

Indiana University

Master of Education, Higher Education and Student Affairs 2007

University of Vermont

Bachelor of Arts, Psychology 2005

University of Hawaii at Hilo

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

Indiana University Bloomington (2012-2017)

Residence Life Coordinator, Residential Programs and Services July 2017 to Present
• Provide direct supervision and staff development for one full-time office manager and nine
undergraduate resident assistants
• Advise student government, community council, community educator, and welcome week
leaders
• Support the implementation of a new residential curriculum
• Manage the building budge of $5,000 for staff programming, community council, and
welcome week fund
• Collaborate with campus wide faculty, staff, and units to enhance academic success
• Assess and determine appropriate course of action in student conduct, crises, and conflicts
• Serve on the staff training committee

Assistant Residence Manager, Residential Programs and Services July 2016 to June 2017
• Provided direct supervision and staff development for one graduate supervisor and nine
undergraduate student staff
• Advised student government, community council, and community educators
• Supported the implementation of a new residential curriculum
• Managed the building budget of $3,000 for staff programming and community council
 • Collaborated with learning community staff to enhance student experience and success
• Assessed and determined appropriate course of action in student conduct, crises, and
conflicts
• Served on the staff training committee
• Worked closely with maintenance staff, custodial supervisor, and dining manager to
address issues or concerns in the building

Graduate Assistant, Office of Instructional Consulting July 2014 to June 2016

• Provided excellent consultation for faculty and staff implementing instructional design and
educational technology integration
• Co-managed the general operation of the office, and other three doctoral level consultants
• Participated in high-level strategic planning, systems building, resource allocation, staff
hiring, and general decision making within the unit

Housing Assistant, Residential Programs and Services April 2013 to July 2016
• Addressed and accommodated resident needs in 400 apartments
• Responded to emergencies and maintenance requests
• Worked closely with physical plant and facility crew
• Secured the building at night, performed building inspections, and facilitated fire drills
• Conducted new resident orientation and programs

Graduate Assistant, IU-CUNY Guttman Community College September 2012 to June 2014
• Worked with faculty and developed a website to highlight the Learning Analytics (LA)
project and benchmark effective LA practices worldwide, a project funded by the Bill &
Melinda Gates Foundation
• Interviewed faculty and practitioners in United States to understand how various types of
information can promote constructive behavioral changes better

Kansas State University (2010-2012)

Student Services & Support Coordinator March 2010 to September 2012

English Language Program
• Advised students on probation, dismissed students, or students on reinstated status and
coached them on improving disruptive classroom behaviors
• Developed attendance tracking and performance monitoring systems
• Managed student crisis issues, including mental health, arrests, domestic violence,
classroom disruptive behaviors, student bullying, and provided conflict mediation
• Served on the campus Critical Incident Response Team (CIRT)
• Designed and implemented missing students protocol
• Collaborated with campuswide offices in support of student crisis and retention, including
international admissions, international services, student life, residence life, health and
wellness, recreation center, and academic center
• Contributed to the selection of 13 full-time faculty
• Launched a pilot retention program: Training and Organization in Wellness, Academics,
Responsibility, and Discipline (2 credits)
 • Created and taught a college-level course for international student success: Culture
transition global perspective course: American Culture and Life Style (3 credits, 36
students)
• Co-developed a hybrid online and lecture course: the American Higher Education
Orientation (1 credit, 140 students/semester)

University of Texas at Austin (2007-2010)

Assistant Hall Coordinator, Housing and Food Services August 2008 to March 2010
• Facilitated annual housing survey
• Conducted research on various topics (e.g., organizational structures, window display
policy)
• Operated emergency and information channel
• Operated residence life cinema for 7,000 residents
• Supervised eight student technicians to provide technology support
• Developed content for websites on Organizational Diversity and Professional
Development, and off-campus housing

Hall Coordinator, Housing and Food Services August 2007 to July 2008
• Supervised 20 student staff across three honors residence halls with 560 residents
• Created staff training module
• Advised hall council
• Managed $2,000 programing budget
• Facilitated the residential Faculty Fellow Program in collaboration with faculty

University of Vermont (2005-2007)

Graduate Assistant to the Director, Office of Student Life August 2006 to May 2007
• Organized the first United Nations Association Film Festival, a week-long event on the
University of Vermont (UVM) campus
• Managed a $2,000 event budget
• Sought support from academic departments to create film festival
• Advised National Scholar Collegiate Society UVM Chapter (150 members)
• Conducted research on UVM Alumni who are in Peace Corps or are Nobel Peace Prize
winners
• Tracked all programs in the department

Coordinator of Civil and Judicial Programs August 2005 to May 2006

Graduate Assistantship at the Center for Student Ethics and Standards
• Conducted judicial meetings and formal hearings
• Selected, trained, and advised University Student Judicial Council members
• Facilitated the award-winning at-risk student retention program titled Project Discovery
• Coordinated the Advocate Program to protect student rights and guide students through the
judicial process
INTERNSHIPS AND PRACTICA

Institute for Curriculum and Campus Internationalization May 2014

Indiana University-Bloomington
• Assisted in planning and operational logistics, supported speakers, and attended post-
institute debriefing and evaluation
• Studied the visions, history, and most current practices in higher education
internationalization

Office of International Education January 2007 to May 2007

University of Vermont
• Created dialogue on global issues by inviting speakers on campus
• Self-initiated to plan and lead excursions for students

Center for Health and Wellness August 2006 to December 2006

University of Vermont
• Assisted in creating a living and learning community for health and wellness
• Hosted weekly discussion on wellness topics

Office of Students with Disabilities Services January 2006 to May 2006

University of Vermont
• Assessed student support needs through research and interviews
• Observed counseling sessions, and facilitated student meetings

Center for Career Services August 2005 to December 2005

University of Vermont
• Promoted career connection by interviewing distinguished alumni
• Created alumni profiles for publication online
• Attended counseling and case analysis meetings

PUBLICATIONS

Guan, J. (2008). A cultural history of people with disabilities. The Vermont Connection, 29, 22-
28.

Guan, J. (2008). An international student's comprehensive learning through his development in

the West. Presented at the Hawaii International Conference on Education, Honolulu, HI.

PRESENTATIONS

Chang, S., Chung, M., Guan, K., & Li, W. (2017, March). The importance of representation of
East Asians in student affairs. Presented at the annual meeting of the American College
Personnel Association (ACPA), Columbus, OH.
 Borden, V., Guan, K., & Zilvinskis, J. (2014, May). Learning analytics, IR, and
assessment: Living together in the same house. Presented at the 2014 Forum of
the Association for Institutional Research, Orlando, FL.

Borden, V., & Guan, K. (2013, January). Learning analytics in practice: Understanding and
tailoring to CUNY Guttman Community College. Presented to Guttman Community
College Full Faculty and Staff Team, Manhattan, NY.

Reppert, K., Williams, J., & Guan, K. (2011). Social networking around the world: A
comparison of international social networking sites. Presented at the Summer Institute
on Distance Learning and Instructional Technology, Overland Park, KS.

Reppert, K., Stinnett, M., & Guan, K. (2010). A blended orientation course: Integrating
international students into university life. Presented at the Summer Institute on
Distance Learning and Instructional Technology, Overland Park, KS.

Guan, J. (2008). An international student's comprehensive learning through his

development in the West. Presented at the Hawaii International Conference on
Education, Honolulu, HI.

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS

Chair for Best Practices Award March 2017 to March 2018

International Education Knowledge Community, NASPA
• Chaired a selection committee resulting in the honoring of four universities worldwide
with the Best Practices Award in international education
• Publicized best practice award winning programs

Vice Chair for Convention Programs March 2017 to March 2018

Commission for Global Dimension of Student Development, ACPA
• Improved and managed one of the oldest and distinguished Commission’s presence and
activities at the ACPA conventions
• Assisted with Commission meeting space requests and logistics and scheduling associated
with the International Colloquium
• Helped publicize Commission-sponsored programs and recruited volunteers to introduce
speakers and award certificates of appreciation
• Organized the Commission’s efforts at CelebrACPA, including compiling and producing
promotional materials, corresponding with CelebrACPA organizers, and recruiting
volunteers to represent the Commission during the event
• Initiated and co-drafted the mission statement and the implementation plan for the ACPA
Video on Demand Internationalization Channel

View publication stats