1. International Student Integration: Using Theory and Practice to Prepare the Next Generation of Student Affairs Professionals
Tuesday, March 12th - 11:15 AM - 12:05 PM
306 AB - LA Convention Center
Kerrie Montgomery Orozco, Ph.D., Director of Campus Life BBC, Florida International University
Ken Guan, Ed.D., Residence Life Coordinator, Indiana University Bloomington

2. Overview of the Presentation
Presenter Introductions
Review of Related Theories
Presentation of Findings
Facilitated Group Discussion

3. Presenter Introductions
Kerrie Montgomery Orozco, Ph.D.
Exchange Program Advisor
Organization/Programming Advisor
Qualitative Dissertation: Surviving and Thriving: The First-Year Transition Experiences of Chinese Undergraduate Students in the United States
Ken Guan, Ed.D.
Student Services and Support Coordinator
Residence Life and Housing Professional
Mixed Methods Dissertation: Assessing Institutional Efforts To Culturally Integrate International Undergraduate Students

4. Traditional Theories – Student Engagement
Theories of Student Integration - Tinto (1975, 1993)
Theory of Student Involvement - Astin (1970, 1984, 1993)
Concept of student engagement - Kuh, Schuh, Whitt, & Associates, 1991; Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, Whitt, & Associates, 2005
Transition Model – Schlossberg, Waters, & Goodman (1995)

5. Why did we end up with the same theory?

6. Contemporary Framework – Student Engagement
Culturally Engaging
Campus Environment
Museus, 2014

7. Framework Details
Cultural Relevance Cultural Familiarity Culturally Relevant Knowledge Cultural Community Service Cross-Cultural Engagement Cultural Validation
Cultural Responsiveness Collectivist Orientation Humanized Environments Proactive Philosophies Holistic Support

8. Qualitative Study Findings

9. Study Overview Phenomenological Study
Three Interview Series with Six Participants
Framework = Transition Theory + CECE Model + Chinese Values
Data Analysis
Open Coding and Content Analysis

10. Presentation of Findings – Qualitative Study
Schlossberg’s Transition Theory + CECE Model
Used the CECE Indicators to assess “Support” – 8 of 9 were identified
Proactive Philosophies
Provide mandatory Orientation Programs
Cultural Familiarity
Reliance on peers in the absence of faculty and staff from same cultural background
Culturally Relevant Knowledge
Existence of Student organizations, information posted/provided in the native language, intentional programming related to different cultures

11. Presentation of Findings – Qualitative Study
Meaningful Opportunities for Cross-Cultural Engagement
Programming and excursions allowing interaction with many different students
Provide intentional efforts in Housing and Res Life
Culturally Validating Environments
Presence of campus educators (faculty, staff, advisors, etc.) who validate students’ backgrounds and identities
Provide faculty training to promote awareness, understanding, support for international students with regard to language and pedagogical differences

12. Presentation of Findings – Qualitative Study
Humanized Educational Environment
Encourage development of meaningful relationships with faculty and staff
Holistic Support
Intentional outreach to provide resources and information before it is requested
Cultural Community Service
More challenging for international students, but they still want opportunities to give back to the local community or build skills related to their majors

13. The Value Added + Blind Web Scan Study

14. Method – Value Added + Blind Web Scan Study
Value-added multiple regression
Blind Web scan analysis
Verification

15. Blind Web Scan Analysis 103 Institutions (3,808 international students)

16. Commonalities
Offer opportunities to learn about the culture, important issues, and knowledge
e.g., cultural celebrations, demonstration, education
Providing spaces and opportunities to connect
e.g., organization, clubs, departments; professional backgrounds and skillsets

17. Differences
Place greater priority on validating the backgrounds, knowledge, and experiences
e.g., strategic priority; mission; curriculum; recognize the necessity of intervention; data implementation; survey instrument; retention plan

18. Differences
Encourage meaningful relationships with leadership and faculty members
e.g., invite campus leaders and faculty to meet with students; guest speaker; jogging with the president

19. Differences Build a culture of campus wide collaboration
e.g., orientation, multicultural affairs, IT, career services, student with disabilities, registrar’s office, admissions, faculty, etc.

20. Differences Foster educationally meaningful cross cultural engagement
e.g., deeper dialogue & interaction, de-cluster practice, experiential learning

21. Differences Offer opportunities that can positively impact community
e.g., leadership, volunteer, research

22. Differences
New learning activities and support are proactively brought to students
e.g., timely update, friendly interface, orientation best practices

23. Discussion Questions
How would you characterize the overall level of support for international students, especially at the undergraduate level, on your campus? 
What are the primary institutional sources of support for these students on your campus? Who is missing from this list? 
How can you use the Nine Indicators of the Culturally Engaging Campus Environments model to reconceptualize the types of support being offered by your institution and to engage various campus partners in this work? 

24. References
Astin, A. (1984/1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 40(5), 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., 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. Museus, S. D. (2014). The culturally engaging campus environments (CECE) model: A new theory of success among racially diverse college student populations. In M. B. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research (pp. 189 – 227). doi: / _5 Schlossberg, N. K., Waters, E. B., & Goodman, J. (1995). Counseling adults in transition: Linking practice with theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company. Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45, 89–125. doi: / Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

25. See you next year in Austin, Texas!
Thank you!
See you next year in Austin, Texas!