Innovative social support systems and the recruitment and retention of international students in U.S. higher education

(USC Thesis Other)

Innovative social support systems and the recruitment and retention of international students in U.S. higher education

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

INNOVATIVE SOCIAL SUPPORT SYSTEMS AND THE RECRUITMENT AND
RETENTION OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS IN U.S. HIGHER
EDUCATION

by

Chen-Han Lee

_____________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2012

Copyright 2012 Chen-Han Lee
ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my family, and especially to my parents, who
believed that this rebellious girl was “doctor material.” It is also dedicated to all the
teachers I have encountered, who gave me the inspiration to become the change I
want to see in the future. Lastly, it is dedicated to the international students who are
struggling the same way I once did: if I can make it, you can make it too.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my parents, Wang-Chen Lee, and Hsiu-Mei Shih, for
their support and love. They made sure I had all the support I needed throughout my
education, both physically and mentally. I have to thank my brothers, Eddy, Chung-
Han Lee, and Danny, Chia-Han Lee, for making me a tomboy; so instead of
becoming a housewife after graduating from college, I challenged myself to obtain
two more degrees.
I am also appreciative of my friends, who gave me the support and strength to
carry on, regardless of how far we were apart or how many hours they were ahead of
Hawaii Standard Time. And thanks to Kevin for feeding me even when I forgot to
eat, and for the support and love even when I was at the most stressed-out moments
in my life.
More importantly, I have to thank my dissertation committee, Dom, Melora
and Darnell, three of my favorite professors of all time, for their patience, support
and guidance. Without them, this girl with ESL problems would still be struggling.
Finally, to my classmates, the one and only USC Ed.D. Hawaii cohort of
2009, I thank you all. All that sweat and those tears, those snacks and lunch-time
talks made us that much closer; without your help, I would not have been able to
make it this far. I would like to thank, in particular, my writing partners throughout
the entire dissertation process, Emi Koga and Mel Habon, for all those times we
spent on- or off-line; for all the encouragement and entertainment; for all the ups and
iv
downs we went through together; for all the laughter and tears; for all the OCD and
color-coded post-its and planners. Thank you.
This is not the end; this is the beginning. This is the first step towards
“becoming the change we wish to see.” Let’s “change the future, one mind at a
time.”
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Figures vi
Abstract vii
Chapter One: Introduction 1
Chapter Two: Literature Review 13
Chapter Three: Methodology 44
Table 1: Data Collection Timeline 50
Chapter Four: Results 52
Chapter Five: Discussion and Analysis 85
References 98
Appendices 102
Appendix A: Interview Protocol for ISS Administration 102
Appendix B: Interview Protocol for International Services 104
Counselors or Advisors
Appendix C: Interview Protocol for ESL Program Advisors 105
Appendix D: Interview Protocol for Current International Students 107
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Assink’s (2006) analysis of innovation and market dynamics 16
Figure 2. The relationship between student social support system and 20
student recruitment and retention
Figure 3. Antecedents affecting international student recruitment and 29
retention
Figure 4. Mitchell’s (2001) model of the forces of modernization 30
vii
ABSTRACT
As the notion of globalization becomes more and more important, students
from all over the world decide to study abroad in order to gain multicultural
experiences. The United States has always been the leading country, with the most
international enrollment; yet the increasing demand for enrollment in universities
between English-speaking countries becomes a source of competition. Thus, the
purpose of this study was to look at innovations in the social support system for
international students in U.S. higher education, and examine whether a successful
social support system positively impacts international student recruitment and
retention. The results have shown that, with sufficient institutional support and
leadership, innovative social support programs positively impact student retention.

1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Studying abroad is still a dream of many students from all over the world. As
the importance of globalization is emphasized, increasing competition in this global
village becomes the driving force for students to consider pursuing further education
outside of their home countries, in order to gain multicultural competence and move
higher in the social ladder. For years, students from all over the world have
competed for opportunities to study in the post-secondary institutions in English-
speaking countries. Among all of the English-speaking countries, the United States,
the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia are the main countries that are
competing for more international enrollment (Schneider, 2000).
The reason why there is increasing competition between countries for
international student enrollment is that international student enrollment benefits the
economy of a host country in several different ways. First of all, higher education
institutions benefit from international enrollment because international students bring
more funding to the institutions — mainly through tuition, which includes non-
resident fees, tuition for extra English classes, etc. According to Mazzarol (1998),
the tuition and living expenses of international students provide an estimated $1.4
billion to the Australian economy, and $1.5 billion Canadian dollars to the Canadian
economy. U.S. universities and colleges were estimated to gain “a trade surplus of $6
billion in 1993 comprising about 10% of the total U.S. services trade surplus”
2
(Mazzarol, 1998, p. 164). In addition to tuition fees, $3.6 billion also entered the
U.S. economy from international students’ living expenses (Mazzarol, 1998).
Secondly, Mazzarol (1998) states that international students not only help
generate a major increase in revenue, but that thousands of employment
opportunities are also being provided with the increase of international enrollments.
In Australia, in the year of 1992, approximately 3,786 employment opportunities
were offered, and Canada had an additional 19,000 job openings in 1991 (Mazzarol,
1998). In addition to the increase in employment opportunities, the third benefit that
international students bring is the human capital that can contribute to growth in the
U.S. Chellaraj, Maskus, and Mattoo (2008) indicate that international students
“contribute to teaching and the generation of research publications in addition to
patents, suggesting that their marginal revenue products are even higher” (p. 457).
More importantly, Chellaraj et al. (2008) state that the presence of international
students is proved to have “a positive and significant effect on American innovation”
(p. 458), because the enrollment of international students has a direct correlation to
the increase in innovation and patent applications at U.S. universities.
Therefore, in the face of such competition in attracting international
enrollments, Canada, the UK, and Australia have set nationwide strategies to attract
foreign students (Schneider, 2000). However, the U.S. struggled with the recruitment
of international students. According to Chellaraj, Maskus, and Mattoo (2008), after
the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, U.S. immigration imposed more
restrictions upon international students regarding the issuance and the regulation of
3
U.S. student visas. These restrictions not only made the process of applying to U.S.
universities more difficult for international students. University officials in the U.S.
are also concerned about the impact of the restrictions, stating that they can result in
damage to research and scholarship in U.S. universities. Chellaraj et al. (2008) state
that Lawrence Summers (former president of Harvard University) warned U.S.
government that the “decline in foreign students threatens the quality of research
coming from U.S. universities” (p. 444).
Aside from the strict regulations on student visa issuance by the U.S.,
students are also less likely to consider the U.S. as the primary country to pursue
their degrees due to safety issues, particularly after September 2001. According to
Chellaraj et al. (2008), the number of applications from foreign students for
admission into U.S. universities has decreased drastically over the past few years,
while admission of international applicants has increased in other English-speaking
countries. Chellaraj et al. (2008) state that “foreign student enrollment declined by
4.3% in the United States between 2001 and 2004, while it increased by 7.7% in the
United Kingdom, 25% in Canada, 94% in Australia, 99% in New Zealand, and 57%
in Singapore” (p. 447). The decrease in the United States results not only from the
stricter restriction on student visas; it is also a representation of the fact that other
English-speaking countries may have better nationwide strategies to attract foreign
students.
Mazzarol (1998) states that, from a marketing point of view, the urgent need
is for institutions to design various activities in order to successfully attract
4
prospective international students. One of the factors that has contributed to the
success of “education institutions operating in international markets” (p. 166) is
innovation. Mazzarol (1998) points out that, while organizational culture has its own
values and beliefs regarding recruitment strategies, organizations should be flexible
in encouraging innovation. Mazzarol (1998) also indicates that “the ability of culture
to provide a source of competitive advantage is also linked to its ability to generate
strategically valuable innovation via the process of organizational learning” (p. 167).
Generally speaking, institutions needed to consider innovation as a means to survive
in this global competition. Morris, Kuratko, and Covin (2008) point out that
innovation and organizational ability to compete globally and proactively are the two
factors that determine organizational performance in this fast-paced global market.
Christiansen, Johnson, and Horn (2008) indicate that innovation is what institutions
should implement regularly in order to renovate existing value or generate innovative
practices, to improve overall institutional performance for their survival
(Christiansen, 2008).
Institutions need to be aware that, although innovation in teaching and
learning might have been implemented across the curriculum (e.g., team teaching,
distance learning, international experiences) (Brewer & Tierney, 2011), the
increasing competition of globalization calls for institutions to not only focus on
perfecting teaching methods or learning techniques for better student performance,
but also to emphasize student recruitment and retention strategies that relate to
students’ academic as well as social development. As previously stated, Mazzarol
5
(1998) indicates the importance of succeeding in the competitive market, and that the
importance of recruitment and retention needs to be addressed, because of the
existing competition between institutions nationwide, as well as institutions in other
English-speaking countries. Brewer and Tierney (2011) state that U.S. higher
education needs to develop “creative and innovative ways to transform…to meet the
changing realities of the twenty-first century…to maintain its preeminence” (p. 32).
Thus, the purpose of this study was to look at the benefits of successful and
innovative social support programs that potentially benefit the recruitment and
retention of international students by U.S. institutions.
Statement of the Problem
The increasing number of ESL international students in the United States for
higher education alone has helped the growth of the U.S. economy significantly.
Despite the high cost of tuition and cost of living, along with the stress and
frustration, home-sickness, and loneliness students may face in the pursuit of a
degree, many international students still choose the U.S. as their primary destination
of study, because most of them want to gain a degree, increase their cross-cultural
learning experiences, and improve their English proficiency. However, America is
not the only country that gains economic benefits from international students. Hence,
succeeding in the competition between English-speaking countries for international
student recruitment and retention has become one of the institutional objectives.
Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia are the three main English-
speaking countries that want a share of the benefits from international enrollment,
6
aside from the United States; thus, the recruitment and retention strategies of various
institutions in different countries are changing in order to increase international
student enrollment. According to Schneider (2000), Canada, the UK, and Australia
have set nationwide strategies to increase international recruitment. For example,
educators in Australia indicate that some institutions have lowered the standard for
English proficiency, in order to increase international student enrollment. Although,
according to Bretag (2004), such a standard is being criticized as “barely adequate”
for succeeding academically in English-speaking universities, the strategy of
lowering the standard has helped increase international recruitment. However, what
has been done here in the United States for international student recruitment and
retention?
In order to increase international student recruitment and retention,
institutions tend to focus on international students’ educational needs more than
other aspects of their development. Taylor, Rizvi and Linguard (1997) indicate that
some institutions have failed to meet students’ socio-cultural needs, because offering
social support systems is not being treated as a priority, compared to academic
assistance for students. The reason why institutions focus more on academic
development of students is that the better students’ learning outcomes are, the more
likely they are going to persist. Thus, international students provide continuous
financial benefits to institutions, so long as the students are enrolled and retained. In
other words, the main goal of institutions is to increase international student
enrollment, and to ensure that students persist until they have completed their
7
academic goals. According to Bretag (2004), financial viability and market reach
determine the feasibility of institutional initiatives. Therefore, if academic
achievement is attained, and institutions gain financial benefits from international
students, initiatives concerning the students’ socio-cultural development may be
ignored, or considered not as urgent.
International students actually play a vital role in intercultural learning,
because they help increase the understanding of diverse cultures for both
international students and native English-speaking students. According to Bretag
(2004), there is an increasing need for intercultural understanding and education for
both international students and local English-speaking students in the U.S. However,
even though international students are considered as a source of intercultural
learning, meeting international students’ socio-cultural needs is not considered as a
priority. What institutions do not realize, is that social cultural development can
influence students’ academic performance. Gass and Selinker (2001) state that ESL
students’ achievement in language acquisition is highly affected by acculturation
from social interaction, because acculturation “initiates a chain reaction (of learning)
including contact in the middle and acquisition as its outcome” (p. 332).
Therefore, it is important for institutions to encourage or engage students in
daily interactions, which can help students gain intercultural understanding. The
challenge is to initiate conversations in English with native English-speaking peers
or teachers, because it can be quite intimidating for some students from certain
cultures — particularly Asian cultures. Thus, in order to achieve equity, institutions
8
could create integrated programs that help international students engage in social
activities, because, according to Gass and Selinker (2001), students are more
motivated when they are actively engaging in school activities.
Not much research focusing on international students’ socio-cultural
development and social adjustment, and student retention, has been conducted and
discussed in detail. Much research is still needed in order to analyze the correlation
between ESL students’ socio-cultural development and academic achievement. More
importantly, researchers need to investigate the possible correlation between
recruitment and student satisfaction in programs that emphasize not only academic,
but also social-cultural development of students.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to examine whether implementing successful
and innovative social support programs would benefit the recruitment and retention
of international students within U.S. institutions. Although there are other factors
that influence the recruitment and retention of international students (e.g., location,
tuition, academic performance, etc.), little research had been done to discuss the
benefits of social support programs in relation to aspects other than students’ social
development. If successful implementation of social support programs could be
proven to be helpful in attracting prospective students and retaining current students,
an administration would be more motivated to encourage the diffusion of innovation
in social support programs for international students.
9
The study looked at the antecedents and barriers that institutions have
between the social support programs that the institutions offer, in order to seek the
connections between the programs that benefit recruitment and retention of
international students. In addition, via discovering the barriers for innovation,
solutions for how to conquer the obstacles when innovations are implemented could
be found. This research focused on investigating the overall antecedents of the
institutions, in two different sections including institutional support and leadership.
The study focused on the following research questions:
1. What role does institutional support play in implementing innovation on
enhancing recruitment and retention of international students in U.S.
higher education institutions?
2. What role does leadership play in implementing innovation that meets the
needs of international students in U.S. higher education institutions?
Significance of the Study
Upon the completion of the study, the hope is that the results can be
influential in encouraging institutions to open up to innovation, and support the
design and implementation of innovations towards social support programs, as well
as strategies for recruiting and retaining international students in U.S. higher
education institutions.
10
Limitations, Delimitations, Assumptions
Assumptions
The following assumptions were made for this study: (a) participants
understood the questions during the interview and survey, and had insights on their
perceptions towards the relationship between social support programs and the
recruitment and retention of international students; (b) participants provided
straightforward and honest responses in English without confusion; (c) the
methodology used was reliable and valid; and (d) the analysis or interpretation of the
data was accurate in capturing participants’ responses from the interview and survey.
Limitations
There were three limitations to this study. The first limitation of the study
was that the study focused solely on collecting data from interviews with
administrators and faculty members of International Student Services (ISS), as well
as international students, on their perceptions of social support programs in relation
to the recruitment and retention of international students. The second limitation was
that the amount of data retrieved would be determined by the number of interviews
successfully conducted during the data collection period. Third, the study was
limited to data collected from international students and staff members in two
universities.
Both higher education institutions serve international students from all over
the world; yet, according to the differences in general student demographics, as well
as geographic differences, ISS offices in both institutions offered different services
11
and programs, as well as workshops, according to individual student need. Therefore,
due to all of the differences amongst both institutions, the findings of this study may
not be considered generalizable to universities in other states.
Definitions
Throughout this dissertation, several terms and acronyms have been used.
The following definitions or descriptions are given below in order to offer assistance
in understanding the terminology used in the literature.
ESL – English as a Second Language.
IS – International Students.
ISS – International Student Services.
ISA – International Student Association.
Organization of the Study
The organization of the study focused on answering the following two
research questions:
1. What role does institutional support play in innovation on enhancing
recruitment and retention of international students in U.S. higher
education institutions?
2. What role does leadership play in implementing innovation that meets the
needs of international students in U.S. higher education institutions?
The goal of the study was to explore the challenges that institutions have
regarding the recruitment and retention of international students (IS) in post-
secondary institutions, and to discover whether developing a concrete and systematic
12
social support program for prospective and current IS would help increase
recruitment, as well as retention. Chapter One provided the background of the issue
and the statement of the problem, which in turn led to the research questions, as well
as the purpose of the study. The significance of the study, as well as its assumptions
and limitations, became an anchor towards the research design.
Chapter Two is the literature review for the study. This chapter discusses the
literature concerning the relationship between successful social support programs for
international students and the recruitment and retention of the students.
Chapter Three offers details of the methodology used in the study, including
research design, sampling and population measures, and instrumentation. The
chapter concludes with data collection and data analysis procedures.
Data collected from the interviews are provided in Chapter Four, categorized
under individual research questions, along with analyses. Finally, Chapter Five
provides discussion and analysis of the study, including recommendations for
practice and research, as well as the limitations that were encountered in the study.
13
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
In the school year of 2004-2005 alone, about 565,000 international students
enrolled in U.S. universities and colleges (U.S. Department of Education, 2006).
Those students’ contributions to the United States are not only to the U.S. economy;
they also brought diversity to the institutions and created employment opportunities
(Mazzarol, 1998). In addition to previously mentioned benefits, international
students also represent potential human capital that could benefit the U.S. in the long
run (Chellaraj et al., 2008). Thus, U.S. higher education institutions are seeking
various innovative approaches to attract prospective international students and retain
current international students (Mazzarol, 1998). However, the enrollment of
international students has dropped significantly since the attacks on September 11,
2001. As previously mentioned, this decrease in enrollment is related to stricter
regulations on visa issuance, and longer processing times. Prospective students from
China and some Muslim countries in particular are facing hardships with respect to
visa approval. In addition, the U.S. is competing with other English-speaking
countries, which also want to gain economic benefits from international student
enrollment.
Why Innovate?
In this rapidly changing world, Assink (2006) suggests that the key to gaining
a competitive advantage is innovation. Indeed, increasing competition between
institutions — as well as between nations — requires each institution to re-consider
14
the importance of strategic plans in order to recruit more international students. Such
competition also suggests the need for institutions to design innovative recruitment
and retention strategies, particularly customized for prospective and current
international students. Andrade (2006) states that several countries, including the
United States, have created plans and strategies for international recruitment.
However, while this competition continues, there will be no unified national
standards and strategies within U.S. higher education, which could provide a general
guideline for international recruitment for post-secondary institutions across the
board.
In order to succeed in this competitive environment, Russell (2005) suggests
that an appropriate marketing plan includes creating a good campus environment,
identifying student needs, and developing the ability to meet those needs. According
to Mazzarol (1998), while developing strategic plans for recruiting international
students, organizations need to be aware that contact between prospective students
and school representatives needs to be “client-oriented,” and requires multicultural
awareness, in order to avoid miscommunication. In other words, if student support
service begins at the time of contact, institutions need to develop a plan that is
coordinated carefully to meet the needs of both students and institutions (Russell,
2005).
In addition, from the point of view of marketing, Russell (2005) points out
that the quality of service that students perceive has a direct relation to student
satisfaction, which in turn affects “customer loyalty and relationship commitment”
15
(p. 67). In other words, in the higher education setting, international students are
more likely to remain in school and persist through the pursuit of their degrees if
they are satisfied with the services provided by institutions. Similarly, Tinto’s (1987)
Model of Institutional Departure also suggests that student retention by institutions is
correlated to the students’ overall experience with the institutions. For example, if
students have any negative experiences towards the environment, the institutional
culture, or even with their peers, they are more likely to withdraw from their peers,
professors, and finally from the institutions (Tinto, 1987). Tinto (1987) states that,
based on research, faculty-student relations can significantly motivate and challenge
students to learn and stay in school.
Since student experiences and satisfaction consequently affect the
profitability of an institution, administrators could focus on strategies to help
increase student satisfaction before and after enrollment. One major factor that
influences student satisfaction, as previously mentioned, is socio-cultural interaction
with peers and faculty, which in turn affects motivation to persist in school (Tinto,
1987). Institutions cannot expect students to figure out how to increase socio-cultural
interaction in their new life in a new country, and to adapt to studying in a different
educational system, without sufficient programming and support (Andrade, 2006).
According to Andrade (2006), international ESL students exhibit more frustration,
disappointment, stress, and anxiety during their degree-pursuing journey, and they
need to expend more effort in order to adjust and overcome those difficulties, than
domestic students. Thus, institutions need to develop innovative social support
16
systems that stimulate interaction between international students and domestic
students — as well as faculty — in order to increase intercultural learning for all, and
help international ESL students adapt to their lives in a new country.
The complexity of all of the factors that may adversely affect international
students’ academic and social development does not make implementing innovation
easier. In addition to the complexity of the cultural adjustment issue for international
students, Assink (2006) states that innovation creates uncertainty as well as market
pressure for institutions. Assink (2006) continues to state that:
the more radical the innovation, the more difficult it is to estimate its market
acceptance and potential. The increasing complexity and market dynamics
create a substantial knowledge gap between theory and practice. (p. 217)

Figure 1. Assink’s (2006) analysis of innovation and market dynamics
17
The figure above shows the relationship between innovation and market
acceptance (Assink, 2006). Basically, the newer the concept and the target market,
the higher the risk of implementing innovation. Student involvement theory, as well
as student integration theory, is nothing new in higher education settings; yet, to
innovate the existing concept of student social support systems for international
students does result in disruption.
Innovation in social support systems is crucial, because social support
directly relates to student involvement, which affects student development as well as
persistence. Astin’s (1975) student involvement theory has been a prominent theory
that connects student involvement with their development and persistence. Over the
years, Astin’s (1975) theory has proven to be a strong conceptualization that
connects the impact of the various factors that influence student learning outcome.
Astin’s (1975) theory also applies to the diversified demographics of the students
currently in U.S. higher education. Similarly, Tinto (1997) points out that students’
social integration and involvement at school promotes positive student learning
outcomes. For international students, student persistence is also related to student
satisfaction (Russell, 2005). Thus, a thorough strategic program needs to be
integrated into students’ campus life in order to enhance international students’
overall development.
If the concept of student involvement is not new — which, according to
Assink (2006), lowers the risk of implementation of innovation — then what is
hindering implementation? Some antecedents and barriers (e.g., institutional support)
18
in the development of social support programs for international students may be at
fault. According to Stanton-Salazar (1997), although institutional resources are
communicated on the basis of objective criteria and procedures, resources can also
be allocated according to interpersonal histories and subjective biases. In other
words, some institutional resources may not be given to support innovation if such
innovation is perceived via personal biases.
One factor that hinders the innovation of international student social support
systems may relate to the foundation of all problems that international students have:
language. Andrade (2006) states that most international students, in general, had
more problems in academic and social adjustment than domestic students. Research
has shown that most international students consider the main adjustment difficulty
resulted from the language barrier (Andrade, 2006). In other words, if the main
concern is perceived as a language issue, institutions are more likely to allocate
appropriate resources to academic support programs, rather than socio-cultural
support programs for students.
The other factor that hinders innovation could be related to the complexity of
the cultural adjustment issues that international students have. Yoon and Jepsen
(2008) believe that international students’ individual development of cultural
knowledge is the determining factor that can help them overcome cultural barriers
and narrow the cultural gap (Yoon & Jepsen, 2008). In other words, institutions need
to develop culturally responsive social support services, in order to meet the unique
needs of international students (Yoon & Jepsen, 2008) from different countries.
19
Thus, social support programs should be designed to help international students
adjust to American culture, while developing multicultural competence. According
to Pope and Reynolds (1997), the attributes of multicultural competence include
multicultural knowledge, interactional skills with people from different cultures, and
awareness or attitudes towards various beliefs or values of others. Therefore,
multicultural awareness and understanding may increase the difficulty in
implementing innovation in social support programs.
In addition to the previous two factors that hinder innovation, another
challenge that institutions tend to have derives from a failure to successfully
communicate with international students about social support programs that are
offered by the institutions. Yoon and Jepsen (2008) point out the importance of
developing efficient strategies to advertise support programs, because often the
reason why international students have not reached out for assistance is that they are
not aware of available support services and resources on campus.
Therefore, there is a need to innovate current social support systems for
international students in higher education. However, the language barrier, and the
difficulty and complexity of enhancing cultural competency, as well as
communication issues, make it difficult for institutions to implement innovation.
This does not mean that the problem of international student social adjustment issues
can wait until an administration figures out how to solve the problem by offering
social support. Those issues will also not get any easier, because the competition for
20
international enrollment does not only exist in the U.S.; it is a competition between
all English-speaking countries.

Figure 2. The relationship between student social support system and student
recruitment and retention

Innovation
What is Innovation?
Sawyer (2009) defines innovation as “the emergence of a viable product or
service that has an impact on the world” (p. 296). Rogers (1995) defines innovation
as an idea or a concept, or practice that is considered new by individuals. Rogers
(1995) also indicates that the “newness” within an innovation can be new knowledge
21
or a new decision to adopt. The “linear model innovation” that Sawyer (2009) has
created in relation to linear creativity can further explain how innovation works.
According to Sawyer’s (2009) linear creativity, there is a three-step process in
innovation: inspiration, selection, and development. Sawyer (2009) points out the
importance of intellectual property in the development of any innovation, because
without intellectual property no new idea can be created. In addition, Sawyer (2009)
points out that, in order to be creative and innovative, collaborative effort in the
interactions between individuals involved in the innovation process is indispensible,
as well in their contributions.
The Complex Challenges Towards Innovation
As previously mentioned, competition between English-speaking countries
has become the driving force for institutions to seek innovation in various aspects;
this, according to Mitchell (2001), is an example of a forced disruption that
externally affects organizations. Mitchell (2001) points out four forced disruptions
that can affect organizational innovation:
1. Societal change;
2. Globalization;
3. Commercial change;
4. The convergence of sciences and technologies. (p. 60)
Therefore, all four factors need to be investigated before the implementation of an
innovation, in order to understand the external environment, with the goal of
preventing possible disruptions during the implementation.
22
According to Christensen, Baumann, Ruggles, and Sadtler (2006), various
organizations can utilize resources to “grow, refine, and revitalize their current
valuable offerings, and investing in sustaining innovations can certainly advance
social goals” (p. 7). The competition between English-speaking countries becomes a
main source of stress for institutions, as they seek changes in order to conquer the
unique challenges faced by international students in adjusting to American culture.
Rubdy (2008) elaborates on Henrichsen’s (1989) idea of how cultural differences
cannot be assumed to be easily overcome without rejections or questions. Students
may have a hard time adjusting to a new program or approach, simply due to their
learning preferences.
According to Yoon and Jepsen (2008), those challenges in cultural
adjustment for students are mainly derived from their “language barriers, different
educational systems, financial hardships, lack of social support systems, cultural
adjustment needs, and racial discrimination” (p. 116). Interestingly, with increased
international enrollment, international students who face incremented challenges in
cultural adjustment are less willing to utilize counseling services provided on campus
than their native English-speaking peers. Yoon and Jepsen (2008) quote Nilsson et
al.’s (2004) study which points out that only 2.6% of students who utilized
counseling services in the year the study was conducted were international students.
Yoon and Jepsen (2008) infer that international students are rather uncomfortable
with seeking counseling services, or any similar professional assistance.
23
According to Yoon and Jepsen (2008), the augmented challenge results from
difficulties in transitioning from their home culture to the U.S. Therefore,
investigation of international students’ underutilization of counseling services needs
to be done, in order to discover if better support systems can fit individuals’ needs.
According to Stanton-Salazar (1997), this relates to Phelan’s (1993) multiple world
study, and indicates four barriers: sociocultural barriers, socioeconomic barriers,
linguistic barriers, and structural barriers. Similarly, Lau (2003) suggests that a
student’s inability to manage school, or adjust to the institutional culture, can be a
factor. Gass and Selinker (2001) state also that non-language influences, such as
language shock, cultural shock, and motivation, play an important role in
international students’ development. Therefore, cultural and language barriers will be
discussed, in order to further investigate the external environment factors that affect
international students’ utilization of support systems.
A student’s home culture is an important factor in any teaching and learning
environment (Ladson-Billings, 2000). Research suggests that learning cannot take
place in the school setting when students experience a discontinuity or a mismatch
between their classroom and home cultures (Gay, 2000). The current teaching force,
which is predominantly white, middle-class, and female, has been shaped by their
own life experiences and cultures, and may suggest a disconnect between their own
experiences and those of their students (Whitfield, Klug, & Whitney, 2007). Tinto's
Model of Institutional Departure (1987) suggests that the retention of students at the
institutional level depends upon students’ overall experiences with an institution. For
24
example, students who have a negative attitude, or have experienced a negative
environment, will begin to withdraw from their peers, professors, and finally the
institution itself (Tinto, 1987).
Duff (2001) indicates that the frustration and failure that students encounter
at school is a possible factor in dropout rates. In addition, Stanton-Salazar (1997)
states that academic success is not a simple matter of learning and gaining
competencies in technical skills, but also, more fundamentally, a matter of “decoding
the system” (p. 13), which can pose a possible threat to ESL students’ comfort zone,
since the system is culturally different. Also, in order for such decoding to
commence, basic language competency is required. Thus, the stress that comes with
having to converse in another language becomes a reason for ESL students to feel
intimidated about approaching counseling services available on campus (Yoon &
Jepsen, 2008). However, Tinto (1987) believes that faculty-student relations can
significantly motivate and challenge students to learn and stay in school. Thus, it
behooves teachers to learn about the difficulties of students, in order to create a
positive learning environment for all students.
Inevitably, there are barriers between ESL students, the mainstream native
English-speaking students, and faculty. Such barriers may not necessary disempower
students, but they might affect their “successful integration within mainstream
institutional settings and… problematize [students’] access to social capital and
institutional resources” (Stanton-Salazar, 1997, pp. 23-24). Yoon and Jepsen (2008)
state that international students — particularly Asian students — have different
25
attitudes towards services, compared to native students in the U.S. Most of them find
it uncomfortable to seek help from counselors. Some students — notably Asian male
students — have a particular problem seeking support services, because they link
seeking assistance to inferiority. As a result, instead of seeking professional
assistance, they seek help or comfort from peers or friends of a similar cultural
background (Angelpoulos & Catano, 1993). Asian students in particular have been
reported to have more issues in social adjustment than students from other countries
(Joon & Jepsen, 2008). Yet, while some students find it difficult to meet with
counselors, other students still prefer the authority figure in support programs, and
the directive counseling style (Joon & Jepsen, 2008).
The difficulty for international students to adjust to the “foreign” external
environment, and the complexity of the situation, does not make creating innovation
in social support programs any easier for the institutions and the leaders who are
trying to implement change. However, the difficulty and complexity of the situation
should not stop innovation from being planned and implemented. The competition
for international enrollment amongst English-speaking countries makes it necessary
for institutions to address the difficulties, and to consider innovations within
institutions in order to succeed in this competition.
Forms of Innovation
Sawyer (2009) discusses two forms of innovation: “conceptual combination”
and “conceptual elaboration.” Conceptual combination represents innovative
concepts or ideas that are developed by combining existing concepts. Sawyer (2009)
26
points out that there are four types of combinations that can generate innovation. The
first is simply to combine two concepts together. The second, “property mapping,”
involves transferring a single value from one concept to another concept. The third
type is to find a relation between two concepts. Lastly, the fourth type, “structure
mapping” — which is also the most creative type — requires individuals to
restructure one concept according to the structure of another concept. Sawyer (2009)
concludes that innovation requires a more systemic structure than a linear process.
The second form of innovation, “conceptual elaboration,” represents the
unique and useful ideas that result from the cognitive processes of individuals
(Sawyer, 2009). According to Sawyer (2009), innovation through conceptual
elaboration involves modifying an existing concept in order to create a new concept.
Sawyer (2009) believes that innovation is also the result of a collaborative web,
which might be a community within an organization. Such a collaborative web can
also stimulate synergy, which is a “combination of many small ideas” (p. 313).
Sawyer (2009) indicates that each individual innovation is built on a “long history of
prior innovations” (p. 313). In other words, past innovations, whether successful or
not, contribute to the emergence of synergy, which in turn generates future
innovation. Within a collaborative web, interactions between all members of the
network are crucial (Sawyer, 2009).
Characteristics of Innovative Behavior
Rogers (1995) identifies five attributes of innovation: relative advantage,
compatibility, trialability, observability, and complexity. According to Rogers
27
(1995), each of the five attributes of innovation is related to the others; yet, all five
are conceptually different. The importance of these five attributes is that they affect
the rate of innovation adoption. Relative advantage represents the economic
profitability of an innovation for an organization (Rogers, 1995). Measuring relative
advantage can provide information on whether an innovation is cost-effective and
relevant to the program or organization. In addition, increasing the relative advantage
of an innovation can decrease the uncertainty about the innovation for individuals
who are involved in the diffusion of innovation (Rogers, 1995).
Compatibility is determined by how compatible an innovation is with the
values and needs of an organization. According to Rogers (1995), three aspects of
the compatibility of an innovation need to be investigated: “(1) sociocultural values
and beliefs, (2) previously introduced ideas, and or (3) client needs for the
innovation” (p. 240). Without compatibility, the adoption of an innovation is more
likely to be blocked. Rogers (1995) states that the more compatible an innovation is
with an organization, the faster the adoption process can be (Rogers, 1995). In
addition, the rate of adoption of an innovation also can be faster if the needs of
clients are met (Rogers, 1995).
Trialability refers to an organization’s ability to experiment with an
innovation under certain conditions (Rogers, 1995). Some innovations will present
more difficulties during a trial period than others. Rogers (1995) also states that if the
trialability of an innovation is high, its adoption rate can be more rapid. In other
words, the more rapidly an innovation can be tried, the more changes can be made in
28
order to customize the innovation to better fit the needs of an organization. Thus,
trialability is important to the diffusion of innovation, because changes can be
applied during a trial period to help an organization find out the relative advantage
and compatibility of an innovation.
The last two attributes are the observability and complexity of an innovation.
Observability refers to the visibility of the results of an innovation (Rogers, 1995).
According to Rogers (1995), the observability of an innovation is “positively related
to its rate of adoption” (p. 258). So, the likelihood of an innovation being adopted
depends on how easy it is for individuals within an organization to see the results of
the innovation (Rogers, 1995). Complexity refers to the degree of difficulty
perceived by individuals involved in the innovation (Rogers, 1995). Rogers (1995)
believes that the more complex an innovation is, the slower the innovation can be
adopted.
Aside from the attributes described above, various other characteristics can
also affect innovation. According to Brewer and Tierney (2011), “types of
institution, institution size, market niche, and resources can also influence the
innovation” (p. 22). Additionally, the environment where an organization operates
plays an important role in rewarding innovation and experimentation (Brewer &
Tierney, 2011). Therefore, the organizational and leadership antecedents of an
innovation in international student social support systems are determining factors
that may assist or hinder the implementation of innovation.
29

Figure 3. Antecedents affecting international student recruitment and retention

Organizational Antecedents and Innovation
Innovation in organizations is becoming a worldwide trend, as they fight to
survive within the global competition for international student enrollment. According
to Mitchell (2001), with different focus, goals and determination, organizations
“transform, adapt, emerge, and collapse due to IP-based technologies and new
commercial models” (p. 60). Higher education institutions are more likely to be
affected by the overall institutionalized value and accountability that makes
transformation and modernization more complex (Mitchell, 2001); yet, the necessity
to implement innovation is also higher.
30
Mitchell’s (2001) model of modernization also indicates that, in addition to
external forces (i.e., societal, commercial, technology convergence, and
globalization), the disruptive drive towards the implementation of innovation can be
self-imposed within organizations as well. According to Mitchell (2001), there are
four categories of embraced disruption that come from within organizations:
1. The creation and upholding of instruments and law;
2. Political drive and barriers;
3. Models of governance — the process by which institutions, organizations,
companies and societies ‘guide’ themselves; and
4. The creation and upholding of international protocols. (p. 60)

Figure 4. Mitchell’s (2001) model of the forces of modernization
31
From the figure above, Mitchell (2001) explains that organizational
antecedents can also disrupt implementation of innovation. Thus, it is crucial to look
into those organizational factors that hinder innovation. Mitchell (2001) then
suggests that because there are pressures for organizations to seek advancement in
social and economic aspects, radical innovation is necessary. The solution to
competing internationally, according to Mitchell (2001), is “doing things differently,
seeking inspiration from unexpected and diverse sources” (p. 61); in other words,
organizations need to innovate. There are a few things that institutions should take
into consideration when implementing innovation.
First of all, institutions should be clear what the goals of innovation are.
Anthony, Johnson, and Sinfield (2008) state that the goal of an organization needs to
be articulated clearly to all faculty and staff members, so that everyone in the
organization gets to work towards the same objectives. An organization also needs to
take into consideration the two crucial components in the creation of any innovation:
“a separate screening and development process that focuses on reducing the level of
uncertainty, and an innovation structure managed by a new growth board that helps
oversee highly uncertain projects” (p. 48). Anthony et al. (2008) state that innovation
does not entail discarding current innovation processes. In other words, innovation
does not imply a complete change of any process or beliefs. At different stages of
implementation, alternative paths can be taken for certain innovations, as long as the
desired outcome is reached (Anthony et al., 2008).
32
Therefore, Anthony et al. (2008) believe that in order to succeed in
implementing innovation, organizations need to consider external perspectives
within the innovation process:
This involves having well-defined ways to interact routinely and repeatedly
with their core clients, learn from noncustomers, monitor ongoing industry
experiments, scan for emerging technologies and import ideas from other
industries. (p. 52)

Applying those concepts to an academic setting, then, will involve considering
perspectives from prospective students and current students, as well as outsiders,
including parents, local tutor services, and counseling services, etc. (i.e., to interact
regularly with students, learn from non-students, and monitor ongoing experiments
or activities in guiding students). In addition to external perspectives, Brewer and
Tierney (2011) indicate that organizations need to apply a reward system, which is
needed in order to encourage the emergence of innovation. Organizations also need
to come up with a framework that regulates and supports innovation (Brewer &
Tierney, 2011).
Thus, institutions should be aware of their administrative responsibility to be
concerned about students’ academic as well as social development. With the cultural
and ethnical diversity on campus, international students face different challenges
than their native English-speaking peers, because of the fundamental differences
between their cultures. In addition, King and Magolda (2005) point out the
importance of institutional efforts towards campus diversity, and state that the issue
of diversity should be:
33
...grounded in fundamental collegiate purposes, linking the attainment of
diversity knowledge and skills to broader educational goals and in ways that
enable students to apply their skills in new and unforeseen contexts. (p. 101)

Christensen, Horn, and Johnson (2008) indicate that most of the innovations
have a common purpose: that is, to help U.S. institutions compete in the current
market. Therefore, it is crucial for institutions to develop programs that consider the
social and cultural development of international ESL students with a culturally
responsive approach (Yoon & Jepsen, 2008). In addition, it is crucial for institutions
to provide innovative services in order to compete with other institutions nationwide,
as well in other English-speaking countries, even if there are some challenges within
institutions that administrators or program designers need to take into consideration
in advance.
One consideration is that institutions need to understand that the social
development of international students is as important as the social development of
domestic students. Students’ social development requires a top-down institutional
effort to develop a culturally competent social support program for international
students. According to Cole (2010), institutions need to commit to diversity, in order
to offer a well-developed support program for students. Similarly, Joon and Jepsen
(2008) state that a newly-developed program should be constituted of a group of
counselors who show multilingual and multicultural competency, in order to meet
the individual needs of the international students within the support program. The
counselors also need to coordinate, develop, and continuously evaluate and improve
the program (Yoon & Jepsen, 2008). In addition, Mazzarol (1998) suggests that, in
34
order to promote ongoing improvement of the support program, institutions need to
make an effort to study student participation and learning processes, because those
two elements determine the success of the program.
In addition to the social development of international students, institutions
need to be sensitive to the institutional culture, and make sure that the existing
faculty and counselors do not feel unappreciated or devalued because of any
diffusion of innovation (Rubdy, 2008). The institutions need to consider any
innovation as a change in the organizational culture. Bolman and Deal (2008) cite
Schein’s (1992) definition of organizational culture, which indicates the:
pattern of shared basic assumptions that a group learned as it solved its
problems of external adaptation and integration, that has worked well enough
to be considered valid and therefore to be taught to new members as the
correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems. (p. 269)

In other words, the unique culture of each organization, which develops over
time, defines the common values and beliefs of the members within the organization,
and an organization needs to carefully plan innovation prior to its implementation.
According to Paap and Katz (2004), the challenge of implementing innovative
activities is that such implementation is often considered by faculty members as a
threat to their current practice and priorities, as well as their values and beliefs.
If administrators have known over the years that providing training for
faculty, and a support system for international students, are keys to increasing
enrollment and retaining students, why are institutions still struggling with the
recruitment and retention of international students? Oster (2010) talks about
35
“organizational priorities,” which are the list of priorities — or the “to-do list” — for
an organization. The order of priority depends on the “functionality, cost, quality, or
margins” (p. 567) of the matter. Similar to Roger’s (1995) compatibility, the success
of innovation is determined by how compatible it is with the values and needs of an
organization. Oster (2010) indicates that, although innovators and administrators are
aware of the need to implement change, an organization’s functionality and funding,
as well as resource allocation, quality and margins, determine the execution of
innovation. Thus, when a proposed innovative idea is often rejected or postponed,
innovators’ motivations towards generating innovation are affected.
In addition to the priority of institutions, Oster (2010) states that the difficulty
of proving the potential improvement of the market does not help the diffusion of
innovation. Some innovations take days to implement, while others may take months
or even years to implement successfully (Oster, 2010). Due to this variation in the
duration of the process, if future benefit, or the potential of the innovation, cannot be
predicted, it is hard for administrators to set the priority of an innovation higher than
other housekeeping items. By the same token, Paap and Katz (2004) point out the
challenges for institutions to allocate resources according to the specific needs of
each innovation. They state that it is hard for decision makers included in the
innovation process to come to an agreement about resource allocation, on top of the
everyday requirements and demands that they also need to focus on.
In addition, Paap and Katz (2004) indicate that organizations tend to
implement those innovations that provide immediate benefits, rather than those that
36
need to be proved to be important over time. They also indicate that the leaders in
organizations need to become innovation pioneers in order to gain a competitive
advantage. Because innovation requires an awareness of both technical and
marketing aspects, changes in technology, consumer needs and market conditions
need to be taken into consideration when decisions concerning innovation are made.
Leadership Antecedents and Innovation
Leadership and innovation seem to be inseparable. According to Scott and
Bruce (1994), the combination of leadership with “support for innovation,
managerial role expectations, career stage, and systematic problem-solving style” (p.
600) affects the individual innovative behavior significantly. However, it is
sometimes difficult for innovators to meet the needs of individual “customers.” In
order to make other faculty members buy in, leaders should carefully consider the
institutional culture, and implement innovation with strategic planning. After all, in
order to be creative and innovative, the contribution of various individuals, and the
collaborative interaction between individuals, is crucial to the innovation
implementation process (Sawyer, 2009).
Osten (2010) points out the importance of leadership in the diffusion of
emergent innovation, because leadership plays a significant role in identifying and
promoting the implementation of methodologies that are familiar to current
employees (Osten, 2010). Those methodologies might constitute innovative ideas
that are “recycled” from parts of previous or current innovations (Osten, 2010).
37
While the ideas are “re-generated,” innovators make the internal environment more
agreeable to what they have achieved.
Brewer and Tierney (2011) believe that institutional leaders need to be
willing to “take risks” when it comes to implementing innovation. Organizations
need to “reframe the concepts of risk and failure, promote to all employees the
importance of innovation and the methods acquired from invisible innovators and
develop institutional learning systems to capture ideas for future discussion and
development” (Osten, 2010, p. 566). Zuengler and Miller (2006) point out that,
although there are innovative employees (or faculty members in the academic
setting) with qualities that promote the implementation of innovation, there are
others that pose challenges to change. A strong leader is needed when there are
faculty members who are afraid of thinking outside of the box or of doing things
differently, and who become challenges for the leader who intends to implement
innovation.
Rubdy (2008) states that resistance from faculty can become a barrier to
educational innovation, especially if the philosophy of the innovation does not
correspond perfectly to faculty beliefs. Thus, leaders need to be aware that
institutional culture can support, or become the negative force towards, the diffusion
of innovation, because changing the way faculty members usually do things in
institutions can create resistance towards innovation (Rubdy, 2008). In addition,
leaders should be aware that individuals have a tendency to resist change — even if
educators or counselors are expected to be open to change (Rubdy, 2008).
38
Cole (2010) states that faculty contact has positively affected students’
“intellectual development, GPA, learning, educational satisfaction, retention and
persistence.” Although faculty contact with students from diverse cultural
backgrounds has not yet been thoroughly studied, Cole (2010) still believes that
students’ experience with faculty helps determine educational outcome. Cole (2010)
also points out Astin’s (1993) point of view, and emphasizes the direct correlation
between student-faculty interaction and student development. Such interaction can
enhance students’ social capital, which, according to Stanton-Salazar (1997),
represents their “relationship with institutional agents and the networks that weave
these relationships into units” (p. 8). Once the interpersonal relationships are
structured, those relationships enable students to achieve their academic goals or
solve problems they encounter in school (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Stanton-Salazar
(1997) concludes that support from institutional agents is important for social
development and school success.
Thus, if there is a direct correlation between student-faculty interaction and
student development, the interaction between outreaching agents or advisors and
prospective students outside of an institution, as well as the interaction between
current ESL students and faculty members within an institution, may very well
influence international student recruitment and retention. Yet, the current concern
amongst institutions is faculty’s lack of cultural understanding, which results in a
cultural disconnect between faculty and students. According to Sogunro (2001), the
concerns nowadays is the decreasing competence of today’s monocultural and
39
monolingual faculty, which has negatively impacted institutions that are “culturally,
racially, and linguistically diverse” (p. 19), because lack of cultural competency and
skills negatively affects faculty’s ability to reach out to all students (Sogunro, 2001;
Garmon, 2005).
Similarly, Ladson-Billings (1995, 2000), Cazden (2001), and Sleeter (2001)
argue that a cultural mismatch or disconnection between students and faculty
produces misunderstandings that can negatively affect student performance and
learning. Such cultural disconnection, according to Ladson-Billings (2000), mainly
results from faculty’s lack of cultural knowledge — which also includes a lack of
experience with individuals from diverse racial/ethnic backgrounds. Irvine (2003)
calls this kind of disconnection “cultural discontinuity,” which can produce negative
faculty-student interactions and reinforce stereotypes and prejudices of each other.
Irvine (2003) further notes that faculty members who experience cultural
discontinuity tend to ignore and essentially devalue students’ ethnic identities,
unique cultural beliefs, perceptions, values, and views, as well as their individual
needs. Consequently, cultural discontinuity negatively affects students’ learning
outcomes and satisfaction with an institution.
As Berger and Milem (1999) suggest, students are more likely to be retained
and persist in school, and have more positive experiences, when their cultural
“values, norms, and established patterns of behavior” are congruent with the
dominant culture within the campus. Berger and Milem (1999) also point out that
positive interaction between students and their peers, as well as with faculty, benefits
40
the students — first-year students in particular. Although conducting student
satisfaction surveys is common in institutions nowadays, Berger and Milem (1999)
state that such measures should be taken as means for “suggesting policies and
practices that may be used to improve retention on specific campuses” (p. 662).
More importantly, leaders should take the results of the student satisfaction surveys
as a compass for innovation in services and policies to help increase the recruitment
and retention of institutions.
Therefore, leaders of ISS should help faculty and counselors to develop
multiple roles (e.g., mentor, advisor, etc.), and be flexible in the changing of roles, in
order to support international students in different circumstances. King and Magolda
(2005) state that the educator (in this case, counselor) needs to become a student’s
model, who can demonstrate the characteristics of intercultural competence.
Similarly, according to Stanton-Salazar (1997), institutional faculty should perform
as role models and provide emotional support, feedback, and guidance in order to
help students build their social capital (i.e., instrumental or supportive relationships
with institutional agents). Cole (2010) believes that when faculty or counselors are
approachable and helpful, students tend to be more engaged in learning or
discussion. Counselors also need to reach out to students using different methods that
make students feel support naturally, instead of feeling that support is being forced
upon them (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Counselors need to attain cross-cultural
competency, either through previous experiences or through ongoing institutional
training.
41
Another challenge for leaders is the increasing number of international
students. Increasing international enrollment makes it harder for counselors to reach
out to every student and meet the diverse needs of all. In addition to the increasing
number of students, Joon and Jepsen (2008) believe that due to students’ diverse
culture, international students have different expectations of counseling services.
Therefore, leaders need to include specific training for prospective and current
faculty, in order to stimulate their awareness of cultural plurality, which includes
understanding the usage of appropriate socio-cultural context through the existing
literature and theories. Such training should provide a strategic framework, as
suggested by Kumaravadivelu (2003), which allows trainees to become strategic
thinkers who put their time and effort to:
reflect on the specific needs, wants, situations, and processes of learning and
teaching; to stretch their knowledge, skill, and attitude to stay informed and
involved; to design and use appropriate microstrategies to maximize learning
potential in the classroom; and to monitor and evaluate their ability to react to
myriad situations in meaningful ways. (pp. 42-43)

Therefore, consistent with what Kumaravadivelu (2003) suggests, when
developing faculty training programs leaders should offer prospective and practicing
faculty members the necessary knowledge, skill, authority, and autonomy to
construct their own personal pedagogic knowledge, in order to cope with cultural
diversity and to prevent cultural discontinuity. In order to gain multicultural
competence, leaders need to put forth a strategic learning system to help faculty
members understand the existing theories. Subsequently, faculty members have to
put knowledge into practice, and create further experiences in interacting with
42
international students. In addition to training for faculty, leaders should also include
follow-up programs such as evaluation of faculty and counselors, not only to ensure
the quality of the system, but also to ensure the continuity of improvement.
Summary
The literature presented in this chapter points out the importance of a
complete social support system for international ESL students, which offers a
strategic plan to enhance their overall development. International students may
benefit from social support programs that aim to build a concrete student-faculty
relationship, from the moment students contact institutional agents concerning
possible enrollment, to the moment they graduate. As previously mentioned, faculty
contact can positively affect students’ educational satisfaction, educational outcome,
retention, as well as persistence (Cole, 2010). Similarly, Stanton-Salazar (1997)
states that the interpersonal relationships between faculty and students enable
students to achieve their academic goals or solve problems they encounter in school
(Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
The literature also describes that organizational and leadership antecedents
may aid or hinder the implementation of innovation. With respect to organizational
antecedents, institutional support, the existing institutional culture and values, as well
as training for faculty members’ multicultural competence, were identified as
significant for the effectiveness of innovation. Finally, with respect to leadership
antecedents, support of leadership towards innovation, leaders’ ability to identify the
43
needs of students, and leaders’ help for developing training programs for faculty
members, were all discussed as significant for innovation.
44
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY
In order to gain an advantage in the nationwide — as well as international —
competition for international enrollment, institutions in the U.S. need to re-evaluate
other possible strategies in order to recruit and retain international students,
especially because the U.S. is not the only English-speaking country competing for
the economic benefits of international students. Indeed, the U.S. is only one of many
countries that offer post-secondary degrees. Thus, in order to regain and sustain the
leading role in higher education international enrollment, innovation in social
support systems may be an opportunity for success.
The purpose of this study was to examine whether implementing successful
and innovative social support programs would benefit the recruitment and retention
of international students in higher education in the U.S. After understanding how
organizational and leadership antecedents influence the implementation of
innovation, institutions might need to develop an innovative social support system
that is geared towards better enrollment and retention of international students.
The two main research questions for this study were:
1. What role does institutional support play in implementing innovation on
enhancing recruitment and retention of international students in U.S.
higher education institutions?
2. What role does leadership play in implementing innovation that meets the
needs of international students in U.S. higher education institutions?
45
Research Design
Qualitative research was designed to gather information that provides
answers for a specific purpose and a targeted audience. According to McEwan and
McEwan (2003), the qualitative method is at its best when evaluating innovation,
because qualitative studies can best describe the process. In addition, Patton (2002)
emphasizes the importance of the qualitative method, and of looking at formal as
well as informal interactional patterns within the program while conducting the
qualitative research.
Therefore, a qualitative study was conducted, with a focus on the perceptions
of the stakeholders: the administrators and advisors of ISS, the ESL student advisors
of the ESL institute on campus, as well as international students who are currently
enrolled in the participating institutions. The main instrument for the qualitative
research was a series of interviews with the staff members of the participating
institutions, in order to further investigate their perceptions of: the relationship
between effective social support programs and the recruitment and retention of
international students; and the effect of the antecedents of an organization, as well as
its leadership, on the implementation of innovation in order to meet the needs of
international students.
Collection of qualitative data for international students, on the other hand,
focused on current international students’ perceptions and impression of, as well as
satisfaction with, the social support system that is already built into the program.
Students’ impressions of and satisfaction with the institution, both before and after
46
enrollment, were also investigated, in order to see whether the social support system
offered by an individual institution served its function, aligned with the mission
statement — i.e., to meet the needs of international students. In addition, the data
from international students were treated as supplemental evidence for whether the
services provided by ISS align with their objectives, and whether those services
successfully create the expected outcomes, as perceived by the program
administrators, advisors, and ESL student advisors.
Sample and Population
Two higher education institutions were included in the study: Institution One,
a private research university located in the state of California; and Institution Two, a
public research university in the state of Hawaii. Institution One’s mission is to
develop “human beings and society as a whole.” Institution One enrolls more
international students than many other American universities. The goal of the study
was to look at the effectiveness of different strategies or programs that were
implemented in both institutions specifically to support international student
enrollment and retention. Institution Two has 10 campuses throughout the entire
university system, which provide academic offerings including certificates and
degree programs. Although each campus offers different degree programs, the
common mission throughout the system is to prepare the future workforce for the
economic growth of the U.S., as well as stimulating local employment.
In the qualitative data collection step, criterion sampling was utilized for this
study to ensure the quality of the information given by individuals, and that it meets
47
the predetermined criteria (Patton, 2002). The criteria for individuals (ESL student
advisors, ISS advisors, and ISS administrative faculty members) participating in the
interview were that they needed to be currently working at Institution One and/or
Institution Two, and have experience working with international students.
Interviews were conducted with two ESL student advisors from each of the two
universities — a total of four student advisors. Interviews were also conducted with a
total of two staff members (counselors or advisors) from ISS in both institutions.
Two administrative-level staff members of ISS from both institutions were also
interviewed. Thus, a total of 8-12 interviewees participated in the study.
Criterion sampling was also applied to the selection of schools that
participated in this study. Both participating schools are four-year research
universities that have international students who need the assistance of ISS on a
regular basis. The administrators of ISS were contacted for permission to schedule
interviews with each of the administrators. The administrator of ISS at both
universities recommended other counselors or advisors that might be willing to be
interviewed. The ESL student advisors of each institution that were included in the
study were recommended by ISS personnel, or by the ESL language institute of both
universities.
As for the interviews that were conducted with international students from
both universities, random sampling was applied in order to avoid preferences in
nationality, level of proficiency, or gender, due to the nature of the study. A total of
10 interviews were expected to be collected from both Institution One and Institution
48
Two, in order to examine student perceptions and impressions, as well as their
satisfaction with the social support programs and services offered on campus.
Instrumentation
The four instruments that were used for this study included: 1) an interview
protocol for ISS administrators; 2) an interview protocol for ISS counselors or
advisors; 3) an interview protocol for ESL student advisors; and finally 4) an
interview protocol for current international students in both participating institutions.
Details of those four instruments follow.
Four different questionnaires were used for ISS directors, counselors or
advisors, ESL student advisors, and international students. The interview protocol for
directors included questions that focused on how their leadership role affected
innovation for international student support and organizational support for
innovation, and their perceptions of the student support system and student
recruitment and retention. The interview protocol for counselors and advisors
included questions related to their perceptions of administrative decisions for student
support services, and the goals of social support systems for international students.
The interview protocol for ESL student advisors, on the other hand, contained
questions that related to their perceptions of innovation for international students,
and how they think such services may have helped international student development
(see Appendices A-C).
The interview protocol for current international students at both participating
institutions included questions about their perceptions of each institution, and ISS as
49
a whole, as well as individual segments of the ISS, including administration,
counselors, and ESL program advisors. In addition, the protocol included questions
concerning their impressions of, and satisfaction with, each university’s innovative
student support services, and whether those services influence their persistence at
school (see Appendix D).
Data Collection
Prior to conducting the data collection for the study, the Institutional Review
Board (IRB) process was submitted in August 2011 for both Institution One and
Institution Two. Prior to conducting the interviews at both institutions, document
analysis took place. In addition, the Eligibility Report on the Electronic
Comprehensive Student Support System (eCSSS) for each university was collected
for document analysis, at the beginning of the Fall semester of 2011. The data were
used to gain an overview of the international student population within each school.
Interviews were conducted with individuals that fit the criteria. For
qualitative data sets, focus groups of interviewees included ISS administrators, ISS
counselors, and ESL student advisors who currently work at the ISS and have
experience working with international students, as well as experience of introducing
innovative services to international students. Interviews were conducted with the
focus groups from each university during September to December 2011. The length
of interviews was expected to be between thirty and forty-five minutes, in order to
obtain in-depth information from the interviewees. For Institution Two, the
50
interviews took place in Hawaii, while the interviews for Institution One
interviewees were conducted via phone or video conference calls.

Table 1
Data Collection Timeline
Timeline Tasks
August 2011 Complete IRB process for both institutions
August – September 2011 Document analysis:
School Status and set up interview times for the focus
groups.
September – December
2011
Interviews:
Administrators
Advisors
ESL student advisors
Current International students of both institutions

Data Analysis
Once collected, the data were reviewed and organized for analysis. The data
were coded according to common themes under the organizational and leadership
antecedents. The first step after data collection was to transcribe the interviews. After
the raw data were transcribed, the transcripts were read thoroughly in order to
determine the themes for coding purposes. According to Patton (2002), “developing
some manageable classification or coding scheme is the first step of analysis” (p.
463), in order to prevent confusion. Thus, after reading the transcriptions, and
51
creating the themes for each research question, an additional separate document was
created in order to collect sections of the transcriptions needed for each theme. After
the document with sections of transcription was done for every theme, each section
was reorganized in order for the data to be easily understood.
In addition to coding the data, methodological triangulation was used to
analyze the data — which meant that multiple methods were utilized in order to
study the program. Triangulation, according to Patton (2002), is ideal for evaluating
a program, because multiple perspectives can be brought together. Thus, in each
theme, perceptions from both institutional agents and students were provided, in
order to look at each theme in an objective way.
52
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to determine whether a social support system
for international students positively impacts their recruitment and retention in U.S.
higher education. If a social support system does have a positive impact on student
recruitment and retention, institutions could look into improving current social
support systems in order to meet the needs of international students. Perceptions of
each individual interviewee were described and analyzed to determine if the current
social support system benefits international students. Also, perceptions of
institutional agents and students were compared to help evaluate the existing
programs and activities, and identify and analyze the differences in perceptions, so
that institutions could look into possible improvements in social support systems for
international students. Results for the following research questions are presented:
1. What role does institutional support play in implementing innovation on
enhancing recruitment and retention of international students in U.S.
higher education institutions?
2. What role does leadership play in implementing innovation that meet the
needs of international students in U.S. higher education institutions?
The results are presented in the order of these research questions, with common
emergent themes. Data are categorized and analyzed according to each theme.
53
Site Descriptions
The following section is a brief description of the two universities that were
included in the study. Information on international student population and ISS
offices is included.
The first targeted higher education institution (Institution One), located in
California, is one of the elite private research universities in the United States that
many international students apply to each year. According to the report from the ISS
of the institution, a total of 6,944 international students were enrolled in the
institution in Fall 2010. The international enrollment of Institution One has increased
continuously over the past 10 years; in just the previous school year, the number of
international students increased by 5.45%. The international students in Institution
One represent 19% of the institution’s total student enrollment. With such large
enrollment, Institution One generated significant revenue from international students;
yet, it was also due to the large international enrollment that the 10 advisors in the
institution’s ISS described finding it difficult to reach out to each international
student to ensure successful student transition into U.S. culture and the U.S.
classroom.
ISS counselors in Institution One offer assistance on visa or immigration
issues. Other common efforts that staff members in ISS have to manage on a regular
basis include designing or supervising activities or workshops provided for
international students, policy decision making, as well as other programmatic efforts.
With issues with their visa, or other problems, international students usually have to
54
make an appointment with a counselor, in order to talk in person about specific
issues. Most of the counselors can also be contacted through email.
ISS staff members in Institution One are also responsible for the design,
implementation, and evaluation of the activities. Most of the ideas for activities are
brainstormed during staff meetings, and staff members recruit volunteers to work at
workshops and activities. After each activity is completed, evaluations are given to
the participating students to solicit suggestions for improvement. Most of the
activities offered by ISS in Institution One focus on assisting students in improving
language proficiency and enhancing multi-cultural understanding, in order to help
students adjust to American culture. Each workshop also has specific topics and
objectives that assist international students in contextualizing daily situations, such
as health care, U.S. culture and values, or even dating and relationships in the U.S.
Other workshops offered by ISS target current academic advisors, in order to help
them understand the mismatches between different cultures and how to decode
cultural differences without misunderstanding international students.
Activities and workshops are offered throughout the school year — according
to the nature of the activities — to help international students navigate American
culture better. On Institution One’s ISS website, detailed information about
workshops, events, and programs is clearly presented, listed in a calendar format
under the “Workshops and Events” section. Forms that needed to be filled out for
activities are also attached under each page. The main method of communication
55
used by ISS in Institution One to contact international students is e-mail, which is
used to inform students of upcoming activities.
The second participating university (Institution Two) is a public research
university in the state of Hawai’i. The total international enrollment in Institution
Two for Fall 2011 was 1,209, which represents 5.9% of the total enrollment.
However, according to the Fact Sheet of Institution Two, international student
enrollment has decreased by 27.6% since the Fall 2008 semester. In addition,
Institution Two has a smaller percentage of international students on campus than
Institution One. The ISS office has two counselors on board, and the director and
assistant director also provide counseling services to students when needed.
Similar to Institution One, ISS counselors at Institution Two also offer
assistance in visa or immigration issues, policy decision-making, as well as other
programmatic efforts. However, unlike at Institution One, the ISS staff members at
Institution Two are not responsible for the design, implementation, and evaluation of
most of the workshops and activities for international students. ISS staff members
only assist and supervise the International Student Association (ISA) in the design,
implementation, and evaluation of the activities. ISS still offers and runs some
services, such as large group orientation, as well as the mandatory small group
orientations that are intended to create more interaction between staff and students,
and to reduce students’ fear of asking questions in front of a large group of people.
Yet, with regard to the design, implementation, and evaluation of activities
56
throughout the semester, ISA is the organization that actively and continuously puts
in effort.
Unlike at Institution One, the themes of the activities that ISA provides at
Institution Two are not specifically designed. Instead, ISA at Institution Two
provides local activities that focus more on creating connections as well as
interactions between international students and the community. For example, recent
activities include whale watching, a welcome party (for the Year of the Dragon), as
well as International Night, which is the biggest event of the semester. Students are
free to sign up for any activity, through the website or in person. International
students who are interested in attending programs, workshops, or events sponsored
by ISS at Institution Two can also find information on the ISS website — although
the font used by the website appears to be a little smaller. International students at
Institution Two can also follow ISS on Twitter to get instant “tweets” of upcoming
activities, and they can also find useful information about ISA via the ISS website.
Profiles of the Participants
A total of nine participants were used for data collection: five ISS staff
members from both institutions, and four international students from both
institutions.
Valerie is an ISS staff member at Institution One. She is responsible for visa
issuance issues and is the coordinator of most of the workshops and activities for
international students. Danielle is the ESL student advisor at Institution One who
oversees students’ academics, as well as social development. Ruth, an ISS staff
57
member at Institution Two, also assists students with visa issuance issues, in addition
to assisting ISA in the design and implementation of activities for international
students. Xander also works for ISS at Institution Two; his daily tasks revolve more
around coping with student visa issues and providing programmatic support. Clifton,
on the other hand, is one of the “informal advisors” in the ESL program of Institution
Two. Due to the fact that there is no designated student advisor in the ESL program,
Clifton is one of the “informal advisors” — comprised of the program director and
ESL teachers. All of the staff members who participated in the study have substantial
experience in interacting with and assisting international students at their institution.
The four international students that participated in the study include
Christopher, Jonathan, Travis, and Emilia. Christopher is a doctoral student at
Institution One, who is obtaining his degree in a satellite campus outside of the main
campus in California. Jonathan and Travis are two undergraduate students at
Institution Two, who are active members of the International Student Association
(ISA). Both Jonathan and Travis have high involvement with the ISS and the
institution. Emilia, who is a doctoral student at Institution Two, has less desire than
Jonathan and Travis to get involved in social activities, because her focus is on
degree completion.
Results of Research Question One
The goal of this section is to present the results from Research Question One,
which asked: What role does institutional support play in implementing innovation
on enhancing recruitment and retention of international students in U.S. higher
58
education institutions? The aim of this inquiry was to examine whether institutional
support plays an important role in the innovation implementation process. For ISS in
both institutions, institutional support seemed to influence innovation, because
institutions are aware of the benefits of a student social support system, and tend to
be supportive of the implementation of innovation. For international students,
institutional support stimulates student involvement, which consequently affects
student development.
Thus, the responses to Research Question One echoed the importance of
institutional support in the implementation of innovation in social support programs
by ISS in order to increase student involvement. According to the data, three themes
emerged:
1. Student involvement is closely related to student retention;
2. The number of international students matters in implementing innovation;
and
3. The quality of activities cannot be the sole reason that determines whether
they successfully assist students’ social development and enhance
retention.
In the following sections, each theme will be discussed in detail, with reference to
the literature, as well as supportive data.
59
Theme One: Student Involvement, Which is Closely Related to Student
Retention, Comes From Sufficient Institutional Support
The first theme reflects on Astin’s (1975) student involvement theory,
because student involvement has a direct correlation with student development, as
well as student persistence. Tinto (1997) also indicates that the better students’ social
integration and involvement are at school, the more positive student learning
outcome will be. In addition, Berger and Milem (1999) suggest that students who
have more positive experiences are more likely to be retained and to persist in
school. In other words, when students’ cultural values and established cultural
patterns of behavior are congruent with, or respected by, the dominant culture within
the campus, students are more likely to feel more comfortable and less stressed on
campus (Berger & Milem, 1999). Berger and Milem (1999) also point out that
positive interaction between students and their peers, as well as with faculty, will
benefit them.
Therefore, in order to improve student involvement, it is important for
institutions to create a sense of family, so that students feel comfortable at school.
Institutions are under pressure to provide student social support, not only because
institutions want to increase student involvement, but also because student
satisfaction is crucial. Clifton, an ESL student advisor at Institution Two, pointed out
the importance of providing high quality services in higher education institution,
stating that: “if not, students will be wondering why are we [students] wasting our
time and money for this [service or program].” The way that institutions assist social
60
support programs, as Ruth, an ISS staff member at Institution Two pointed out, is
that the ISA “gets a lot of support from Campus Center Board” when it needs a
venue or funding for activities.
The reason why institutions support student associations such as ISA in
promoting student involvement is that students who have high involvement in school
are more active on campus, in class, as well as in social activities. Students who are
involved more in school tend to have better academic development. Thus, some of
those students who are active in school may join ISA, or individual student
organizations for students from the same country, so that they can create connections
and build friendships. The sense of “family” comes not only from friendly staff or
faculty members from the institution; it is also generated from the interactions and
relationships students build with peers. Ruth, an ISS staff member at Institution Two,
pointed out the importance of the sense of family:
The ISA, because of all that they do together, how hard they work, how much
they accomplish, it’s so satisfying to help other students that are very
appreciative. They [ISA members] remember how hard it is when they were
new students… they want to give back, but because they are all in this
together, they create the “ohana” [family] to support each other.

In addition, Valerie, an ISS staff member at Institution Two, supported the
importance of student involvement from the point of view of globalization. She
believes that student social involvement is important because it increases
intercultural understanding and communication, which is crucial for international
students because “being global is incredibly important professionally or personally,
to have that skill set.”
61
Staff members at both institutions agreed that if students actively seek out
support, they tend to be more successful in their academic and social development.
Xander, another staff member at the ISS at Institution Two, agreed, stating: “students
who actively seek support from others tend to do better socially and academically.”
Jonathan, a student at Institution Two, said that he actively seeks assistance from
people around him, including ISS staff and friends, whenever he has a problem with
school or peers:
I usually go to my friends or my senior for advice…about what class to take.
But if there is no one around I will ask the director of ISS for advice…they
[ISS staff] will tell me which office to go to for it [problem], and refer me to
those office for more assistance.

He also agreed that support from peers and school officials (including ISS
staff members and academic advisors) is crucial for his development.
The ISS staff members, ESL student advisors, and international students at
both institutions all agreed that one of the challenges international students face is
the lack of support from family or friends at home. Without such support, students
find it hard to persist in school (as supported by advisors). Feeling lonely or
unsupported in a foreign country is tough enough for the students. The language
barrier, as well as differences in campus and classroom culture, make it that much
more difficult when it comes to student adjustment, as well as involvement. Danielle,
the ESL student advisor from Institution One, shared her thoughts on the student
support system and how it affects students’ academic development:
Whenever I contact a student that has a problem, in their academic programs
or their courses, a lot of times, there’s another factor that comes into play,
62
that’s affecting them in their academic settings. For example, roommate
problems or missing their family…I always point out the positives, saying
that time goes by very fast, and bringing my studying abroad experience, and
reminding the bigger picture of why they are here…that they are here
because they want more experience and opportunity for the future.

In other words, Danielle believes that when students face challenges in
school, sometimes the cause is more than simply the language barrier, or a resistance
to American classroom culture. Instead, it is usually a combination of problems that
might stem from lack of social support from family or friends, which consequently
affects their academic performances. Similar to Danielle’s point of view, Clifton, the
ESL program director at Institution Two, stated that some of the students’ struggles
arise from a combination of homesickness and culture shock. In addition, students
tend to struggle with the differences in classroom culture. Clifton stated that:
Because of the culture that the students come from, they may not be used to
the autonomy that an American university expects. And so we don’t want
them to be thrown into that [American classroom culture] immediately…so if
they started to struggle a little, we want to help them.

Therefore, in order to help international students transition into American culture,
institutions — as well as the programs themselves — need to provide assistance to
the students.
Travis, an international student at Institution Two, also stated his point of
view regarding the difficulties that students face, and indicated that there are other
factors that negatively influence student development:
Sometimes it’s not just the social support [that affects student recruitment and
retention]; it’s how the personality of the student doesn’t match the lifestyle
of the peers there [as around the campus or within the university] and some
people give up. But it is still crucial to have friends and peers for support. It’s
63
not only one thing [that affects retention], I think it’s a mix of many things
together. Like peers are crucial, I guess your future [goal], like I know if I
don’t study harder I will fail.

However, regarding the lack of social support for students, Danielle, an ESL
student advisor at Institution Two, believes that social support does not have to come
from peers or school officials. She believes that what really matters is whether
students take advantage of any kind of available social support:
To have a support system is important for anyone. When it comes to
retention, as long as they have made a clear choice to utilize the support
system that they have whether is local or from their home country.

In other words, even if international students are not receiving sufficient support
from institutional agents or student organizations, they can still build a support
system from peers around them, or friends and family at home.
Although most of the participants agreed with the correlation between student
involvement and student retention, most do not think that student involvement
directly affects recruitment. Staff members did not specifically relate recruitment to
students’ social support, since there was no research that had been done to support
such a hypothesis or assumption. Ruth, an ISS staff member at Institution Two,
supported the correlation between social support system and international student
retention, and stated: “I believe that there is a positive connection between that
[social support system] and the [international student] retention, but I cannot say that
it [social support system] has any effect on recruitment.” For participating students
from both institutions, factors such as school reputation or ranking mattered more in
their selection of school than the social support system in the institution. For
64
example, Jonathan, a student at Institution Two, described his point of view
regarding the factors that affected his choice of school, stating that social support
system was not the only reason:
It [student social support system] is important, but it’s not the main reason
why I chose this school. ISA helped me a lot of help when I got in the school
especially when I became part of them, but it’s not the only reason why I
chose this school.

Theme Two: The Number of International Students Matters in Implementing
Innovation
The second theme relevant to Research Question One was that the number of
international students at an institution plays an important role in the implementation
of innovation in social support programs — the number of international students
could either positively or negatively affect the implementation of social support
services offered by the ISS. For example, Institution One was experiencing
difficulties dealing with a very large number of international enrollments, with only
10 counselors on board, whereas in Institution Two, the number of international
students was much smaller and more manageable for ISS. As mentioned in Chapter
Two, enrollment affects student services because each student has their own
perceptions of the counseling services provided by institutions, due to the diversity
of their cultures (Joon & Jepsen, 2008).
Interestingly, the attendance of international students in activities did not
directly correlate to the international student population, nor did it directly correlate
to the success of the social support system within an institution. Although in
65
Institution One, ISS staff members sent out emails informing every student about the
latest social support activities and workshops, the attendance at each activity
remained an average of about forty people. On the other hand, at Institution Two,
there were more than two methods to advertise the activities: posting flyers at the
student center and ISS office, as well as through direct communication between ISA
members and students. As a result of frequent advertisement all over the campus, the
attendance of activities at Institution Two could range from forty to hundreds of
people. It appeared as though the more students there were, the harder it was to have
them all attend any workshop or activity provided. The activities and workshops at
both institutions could be just as well planned, and just as helpful to the students who
participated, regardless of the student attendance.
Valerie, an ISS staff member at Institution One, expressed the difficulty with
reaching out to every student in the institution: “the number of students that
responded to the activities posted on each email differs each time.” She also pointed
out other factors that increased the difficulty for the institution or the ISS to reach out
to students, and how the number of international students affected the
implementation of services:
Depending on the school, the size of the staff and resources, I do not feel we
provide much support for our international students, not because of the lack
of desire [for advisors to assist students]; it’s the fact of sheer numbers. It’s a
very, very small percentage [of students] that we see, or even get to know.

Valerie’s personal experience at another institution that had fewer international
students was that she was able to build a closer relationship with each international
66
student because “we were there when each of them [international students] arrived
and the staffs were able to assist each one of them [international students].”
However, with such a large international enrollment at Institution One, it is close to
impossible for 10 staff members to build a close connection with almost 7,000
students.
In addition, Valerie, an ISS staff member at Institution One, believes that a
social support system might be more important for undergraduate than graduate
international students. She thinks that with different program lengths, undergraduate
international students might have more interaction with their local English-speaking
peers; thus, they may need more assistance with social and cultural adjustment.
Conversely, graduate international students, who spend two years on average in the
United States, tend to focus more on achieving their academic goals than on
enhancing social development. Hence, Valerie pointed out the differences between
undergraduate and graduate international students:
You have to separate out between grads and undergrads. Grad[uate] students
come in at three years, in and out, most of the time they are just trying to
“survive” academically…because they are mostly in engineering major, they
have very little interaction with the Americans. So I wouldn’t say overall they
have the need to culturally shift, toward the environment, where they are
dealing with that. Now, undergrads are living with Americans, they got
Americans in the classes and so it’s a much different experience for them.

According to the International Student Report from Institution One, in the
semester of Fall 2010 the number of graduate international students was at
least twice as large as the number of undergraduate international students.
Thus, if what Valerie said is valid, there were close to 5000 international
67
students focusing more on enhancing academic development than developing
social support at school.
Theme Three: The Quality of Activities Cannot Be the Sole Reason that
Determines Whether They Successfully Assist Students’ Social Development
and Enhance Retention
The third theme emerges as ISSs face challenges with respect to developing
student involvement and student attendance at activities: the quality of social support
programs cannot be the determining factor that affects student retention. As Yoon
and Jepsen (2008) state, one of the challenges for international students to adjust to
an American university setting is the lack of social support. In addition, Russell
(2005) points out that the quality of service that students perceive affects student
satisfaction, which in turn influences student persistence. However, because of the
number of international students enrolled in an institution, versus the number of
students who have utilized services, determining the quality of a social support
program can be difficult and over-generalizing. Valerie, an ISS staff member from
Institution One, stated that “it is hard to justify if social support is provided from the
quality of the activity from the 40 students who have attended the event, while there
are thousands of others who did not participate in the events at all.”
Thus, even though retention ties closely to student involvement, other factors
such as school size and structure also affect student retention in an institution. As
previously stated, when the student number is larger, it is hard for ISS staff members
to reach out to each student, build closer connections, and create enough activity
68
sessions to house all of the students. Valerie, an ISS staff member at Institution One,
agreed that other institutional differences could also influence student retention:
Depending on what the actual needs are…The retention comes through the
academic advisors, the retention comes through the academic departments,
and having stake holders, and institutional agents and all of these area who
have them [students] on the radar. Again, the school is so massive, if the
school would be less than 1500 students, I would say yes, that [social
support] would help [retention]…but that’s not the case. When you’re
looking at the retention of the international students you really have to take
into account what is the actual structure of the university, not just the
population, but also the staffing of the international office and use that to
form opinions on the effectiveness of the program, because it varies widely.

Even if funding is under the control of institutions and does not pose a
problem for ISS in creating activities for international students, it is still hard to
ensure that all students attend activities. In Institution One, funding from the
institution ensures that activities and programs offered by ISS can be larger in scale;
yet, the scale of the activities and workshops does not have a direct correlation with
student attendance. Thus, student attendance presented a problem for the ISS to
evaluate the activities and programs tailored for international students. Valerie, an
ISS staff member at Institution One, pointed out that “the average number of
international students who attended any activity is forty,” which means that the ratio
of attendees to the total number of international students in Institution One can reach
1:200, whereas in Institution Two the ratio can be 1:6. Thus, the result of evaluation
may present student satisfaction towards ISS services or activities as better in
Institution Two than Institution One.
69
In addition, although the activities at Institution One are designed and
tailored to meet students’ needs, because of the low ratio of attendees it is hard to
define whether activities are directly correlated to student retention. Although the
school is trying to study the relationship between the social support program and
international student retention, the study risks overgeneralizing from those 40
attendees’ situations, and failing to represent the other 6860 students who did not
participate. In the end, social development may not be as important for most
students; rather, academic achievement matters more to most of the students, due to
the amount of money they have invested in the degree, as well as family
expectations.
Summary of Research Question One
The evidence above demonstrates that institutional support plays an
important role in the implementation of a social support system for international
students. Institutions push the ISS to implement supportive activities or workshops,
because student involvement positively influences student development, as well as
student retention. Although there might be a direct correlation between a social
support system and student retention, other factors, such as student number and
institutional structure, also influence the implementation of a social support system.
In addition, when looking at the implementation of a social support system, the
evaluation of the social support system cannot be the determining factor that defines
the quality of workshops and activities, and how successful these were in enhancing
student development.
70
Results of Research Question Two
This section presents the results of Research Question Two, which asked:
What role does leadership play in implementing innovation that meets the needs of
international students in U.S. higher education institutions? A total of four themes
emerged after data collection. The responses to Research Question Two generally
support the importance of leadership in innovation. As stated in Chapter Two,
leadership and innovation are inseparable. Scott and Bruce (1994) state that one of
the main factors that influences individual innovative behavior is leadership. The
responses to Research Question Two echo the importance of leadership in the
implementation of innovation in social support programs from International Student
Services (ISS), in order to increase student involvement as well as retention. Four
themes emerged from the data:
1. Leadership matters in the collaboration for innovative services;
2. Student autonomy can benefit ISS in assisting with the student social
support system;
3. Leader supervision and evaluation is crucial in innovation; and
4. Despite a leader’s desire for innovation, there are limitations that hinder
innovation.
In the following sections, each theme will be discussed in detail, with reference to
literature as well as supporting data.
71
Theme One: Leadership Matters in the Collaboration for Innovation
The first theme supports the importance of leadership in the creation or
implementation of innovation. Osten (2010) indicates the importance of leadership in
the diffusion of innovation, stating that leadership is crucial in identifying and
promoting the implementation of methodologies that are familiar to current
employees (Osten, 2010). In addition, leaders need to be aware of the institutional
culture while implementing innovation strategically. As Sawyer (2009) states,
leaders need to be aware of the importance of collaborative effort in every
individual’s contribution towards the diffusion of innovation.
Leaders in both institutions are aware of the importance of multicultural
sensitivity, ongoing training, and professional development for counselors and ISS
staff members. For example, Xander, an ISS staff member at Institution Two, stated
that ISS offers resources and professional development for counselors:
ISS has the professional development activities so I can attend conferences,
both in Hawaii and on the Mainland… and trainings, through webinar and
seminars, and conferences on our campus. In terms of the resources to assist
students, it’s the facilities in which to assist students.

At Institution One, ISS not only provides professional development for ISS
staff members, but also for academic advisors in other departments. The innovation
at Institution One is that ISS looks at the importance of building the multicultural
competence of academic advisors, professors, and any other institutional agents who
have a need to interact with international students. Thus, in Institution One, recently
implemented innovative workshops focus on “understanding the perceptions and
72
misunderstandings” from different points of view. Valerie, an ISS staff member at
Institution One, stated that ISS is working with:
Departments who are trying to contextualize the information to be more
accessible or more understandable for the international students; for example,
if they [departments] want to do career advices, how do they explain how that
works to someone from China? I do presentations to academic advisors [of
different departments] to help them understand cultural behavior that might
happen, that they interpret in a certain way that is not accurate or they don’t
have the most successful interactions in how to help them to have more
helpful and successful interactions for what their intent is.

Such collaboration between ISS and academic departments can be through
workshops or presentations for academic advisors, or professors in academic
departments, that focus on enhancing their multicultural awareness and sensitivity. In
that aspect, Valerie revealed Institution One’s innovative workshops that help
academic advisors and Teaching Assistants (TAs) develop multicultural awareness:
What we are doing here that is innovative here,… is that we are actually
developing resources and training for the faculty and TAs to be able
to…basically because of our international population, many of them are
coming from a very…their educational environment is very much of the
“professors at front, or the teacher, and they sit there quietly, and they are
given the information, and they are tested on it.” It’s not participatory; it’s not
equal; it’s not like you discuss things, so they are coming to a system in
which it’s high participation: raise your hands; give your opinion; critique
other people; critique the teacher; all of these educational, cultural mandates
that are the opposite of what they believe the educational environment would
be like, and yet they are judged on it for educational success.

Additionally, Valerie pointed out another common issue that faculty members have
with international students, which results from the language barrier:
And you have another layer of language issues: they [students] are
embarrassed to say anything in class, they can’t say it perfectly, or by the
time they translated in their head and have answers, the topic’s already
passed…so what we are trying to develop is on both ends, because there are
73
always these assumptions on both sides of what is expected, or what is
normal… but as far as longer term, it’s actually working with the faculty and
staff, and troubleshooting…help them understand and restructure the
pedagogy and the environment, to assist students to be more successful, and
more engaged…You have to work with the entire system of educational
construct in order for it to be accessible and understandable.

The objective of the collaboration between ISS and academic departments is
to close the cultural gap between academic advisors and other institutional agents,
and students. The objective of the workshop for academic advisors is to assist
institutional agents to better contextualize the information they intend to share with
students. Valerie at Institution One supports this idea, and believes that there is:
the collaboration across departments where you have expertise and
knowledge, but you may not have the contextualization of translated the
concept of information so that international students can access and actually
understand it.

She believes that with better understanding of how to explain certain concepts to
students, institutional agents and students could minimize mismatches with each
other that may occur during the information sharing process.
At Institution Two, ISS are not only working with international students who
are in need of assistance in their social development, but also with local English-
speaking students, trying to build their multicultural competence. Ruth, an ISS staff
member at Institution Two, pointed out that the ISS welcomes the involvement of
local students of Institution Two in activities for international students, in order to
promote mutual cross-cultural learning for all participating students. Some students
who went abroad and gained their own experience of being a foreign student
understand how hard it is for international students in the United States. For these
74
American students, the motivation to get involved in activities is simply the
willingness to help international students in the U.S. adjust better. Ruth brought up
an example of the involvement of a local student who had been through foreign
exchange programs:
She [the local student who went on an exchange program] found out about
the “Coffee Hours,” and in fact she’s the one that started and volunteered to
help set up the Coffee Hours. She just wanted to help, and meet other
students. She said, when you come back from a study abroad experience, she
wanted to continue the feeling of the interest she has in learning about others,
and talking to other students who had gone through the same feeling, same
experiences, that she had gone through in trying to adjust to a new culture, a
new society, and a new way of education…It’s [willingness to help] coming
from inside the students…and the most important thing that we [ISS] can do,
is to support any kind of endeavor that simply creates the opportunity for
students to come together and meet each other.

Similar to the student autonomy of ISA, and the voluntary assistance from
current students at Institution Two, some students at Institution One organized a
mentor/mentee program in order to provide both academic and social support for the
new students — which might be difficult for students to obtain who are enrolled in
programs outside of the main campus. Christopher, an international student in the
new cohort of Institution One, appreciated the help from peers and the support he has
been given:
I like the program. Yes. I think they help a lot because they know what to do
and I learn from them. I think they are more helpful than my advisor, to be
honest.

75
Theme Two: Student Autonomy Can Benefit ISS in Assisting with the Student
Social Support System
Leadership, according to Scott and Bruce (1994), lies in a leader’s ability to
support innovation. Trialability, on the other hand, represents an organization’s
ability to experiment with innovation under certain conditions (Rogers, 1995).
Leadership and trialability are the two key factors that make student autonomy
special. During the data collection process, the second theme arose from an
interesting finding from Institution Two, where student autonomy became the
solution to ISS. At Institution Two, understaffing has been an issue with regard to
activity design and implementation. However, ISS at Institution Two decided to
cooperate with the International Student Association, and thus both parties benefit
from this mutual cooperation. Smaller international enrollment resulted in ISS in
Institution Two offering more student autonomy towards the creation and
implementation of workshops and activities with the ISA.
The members of ISA have the liberty to create any activity to include
international students (member or non-member). An ISA member who creates an
activity is obligated to create a detailed plan and submit the plan to the ISS director
for approval. Most of the activities do not have a specific focus — unlike those at
Institution One. The main goal for the ISA activities is for students to make
connections and get to know each other; in other words, the main goal of these
activities is to make friends and simply have fun. Thus, at Institution Two, leadership
76
is the key to creating student autonomy, as well as student leadership opportunities
that enhance the creation or implementation of innovation.
Thus, at Institution Two, this innovation by ISS staff members in the student
social support system lies in the cooperative relationship between the ISS and the
ISA. The ISS at Institution Two promotes student autonomy for ISA, in creating
innovative activities that enhance the social development of the international
students. Therefore, instead of hiring, or having an ISS staff member responsible for
programming activities and workshops, the ISA at Institution Two took over the task
and created several activities for all international students each semester, in order to
help international students create “a sense of family” on campus. In other words, at
Institution Two, student autonomy became a solution to ISS funding issues.
Although the ISS at Institution Two does not have a programming staff, the ISA
takes over the creation and implementation of the activities. Ruth, an ISS staff
member at Institution Two, points out that:
ISA helps with welcome activities, and activities throughout the semester. I
have no dedicated full-time programming staff, and that is the reason why we
[ISS] work very closely with the ISA. It creates this win-win situation: the
international students win; we win, because we don’t have programming
staff; and students in ISA win, because they learn TLC [Teamwork,
Leadership, Communication].

The ISS at Institution Two believes that student autonomy also promotes
student leadership opportunities for ISA members. Ruth at Institution Two pointed
out that those “student generated, student driven” activities not only benefit ISS, but
also give the ISA members leadership opportunities:
77
... [the activities] also offer opportunities for student members, student
leaders [of ISA] to speak to a smaller group, speak to a larger group, and to
gain experiences creating activities, planning, implementing, evaluating, and
working on a committee, learning that cross-cultural communication,
…learning how to run a meeting, how to create agenda.

In response to the leadership opportunity, Jonathan, an international student in
Institution Two, pointed out the benefits of student autonomy:
ISA help me a lot in develop leadership skills, cross cultural communication
skills, and teamwork experiences. I think if I didn’t join ISA, I won’t have
any friends. And on the other hand, I learn a lot on how to overcome the
cultural differences, in working with people from anywhere in the world,
because we have different background and they have different styles…it was
hard in the beginning to work with them, but later on when you get used to it
[different cultural styles], you develop better way to deal with different
situations.

The student leadership opportunities that are generated from student
autonomy may lead to employment opportunities for ISA members post-graduation.
According to Ruth, an ISS staff member of Institution Two, international students
who have shown outstanding performance in their time participating in the ISA may
obtain a job opportunity as an international student advisor after graduation. Ruth
stated:
Usually, after they [international students] had been retired from the [ISA]
president position, we [ISS] ask them if they want to be advisors. We find it
very good to have advisors who are like their [international students] age, and
then can lend us, on the advisor level, their perspective.

Therefore, although Institution Two may not have as much revenue from the
enrollment of international students as Institution One, it has managed to provide
student autonomy to the ISA, which not only helps with funding and understaffing
issues, but also promotes leadership opportunities for students of the institution.
78
Theme Three: Leader Supervision and Evaluation is Crucial in Innovation
Theme three explains the importance of leader supervision and evaluation. In
other words, to successfully implement innovation, leaders could supervise the
process and carefully monitor each step of the innovation. As Mazzarol (1998)
states, understanding student involvement, and the student learning process, are the
two main factors that determine the success of the program. Keeping track with
evaluation, in order to improve services, is also important for leaders in institutions.
As Joon and Jepsen (2008) suggest, ongoing evaluation and improvement depend on
all of the counselors coordinating in order to maximize improvement. Similarly,
Kumaravadivelu (2003) believes that ongoing evaluation of faculty members and
counselors is crucial. Kumaravadivelu (2003) states that having an ongoing
evaluation not only ensures the quality of programs, but also ensures continuous
program improvement.
At both institutions, one of the forms of evaluation of the ISS depends on the
student satisfaction survey at the end of the semester. The results are presented in a
staff meeting, and affect programmatic changes and decision making in the
following semester. From the results of the evaluations, leaders look back at the
existing services and seek innovative improvement. Xander, an ISS staff member at
Institution Two, indicated that the “student evaluation, which is the primary
evaluation” is ‘how do the customers feel’, basically.”
Thus, depending on the “customer satisfaction”, the ISS staff members of
Institution Two decided to modify the way international student orientations were
79
presented, due to previous results from evaluations concerning the orientations. For a
long time, international student orientations used to be a large group activity, which
students tried to attend all at the same time to go over regulations and general school
information. In 2011, the ISS of Institution Two decided to change the orientation
into two types of groups: a set of smaller groups, with mandatory check-in session,
and one large group orientation. Ruth, an ISS staff member at Institution Two,
believes that in a smaller group, it is easier to eliminate the students’ fear of raising
their hands and asking questions, and the responses from the students are more
positive than ever:
Small groups of students, and comments we [ISS] got from their evaluation,
is that they felt more comfortable when ask the questions, and we have that
big orientation, …and we felt that the attendance this year is larger than
usual. Maybe it’s because of those smaller group check-in sessions that make
them felt the need to…[attend].

In addition, Ruth pointed out that in a smaller group it is easier for the group
leader(s) to do a more detailed explanation, or provide clarification for questions
asked, and also easier for the leader(s) to guide the group on a campus tour.
However, the small-group orientations require more staff members to assist each
group at a different time, which means that more human resources, planning, and
funding are necessary. But the hard work paid off, because students are less likely to
have problems getting involved in the orientation process.
In addition to the leader’s supervision through evaluation, at Institution Two
the ISS also supervises the ISA when it comes to the design and the execution of
activities. Although student autonomy generated successful programs that stimulate
80
student interaction, the ISS at Institution Two looked into ways to provide
institutional support as well as supervision of ISA activities. The ISA members can
only do so much on their own; without support and supervision things can get out of
control, and sometimes guidance is still necessary if, for example, safety may be an
issue. For example, Ruth, an ISS staff member at Institution Two, stated that the ISA
“wanted to do a pillow fight that includes enough people to break the world record.”
The director had to come forward and stop the ISA from going too far with
creativity. She made the executive decision that the pillow fight could not happen,
because of safety issues.
Theme Four: Despite a Leader’s Desire for Innovation, There are Limitations
that Hinder Innovation
The fourth theme for Research Question Two is that even though leaders
have ideas or motivation towards creating innovation, there are some limitations that
may prohibit them from implementing the innovation. Although Brewer and Tierney
(2011) believe that leaders should be willing to take risks regarding innovation,
limitations or resistance from institutions can sometimes prohibit the implementation
of innovation. Such institutional resistance can derive from the organizational
culture, or even institutional priorities. Oster (2010) points out that “organizational
priorities” depend on cost and functionality, as well as the quality of the services or
programs (Oster, 2010). Thus, even if leaders are aware of the institutional need for
innovation, the organizational priority of the innovation may not be perceived by the
81
institution to be as crucial as the leaders want the innovation to be. In this case,
institutional decision determines the execution or termination of the innovation.
One institutional limitation results from the various means of instruction that
institutions offer. For example, Institution One offers courses not only on campus,
but also in other cities, as well as online. International students who are enrolled
outside of the main campus face a social connection problem, because they cannot
attend orientation, activities, or even visit the ISS in person. Christopher, an
international student at Institution One, who is currently enrolled in the cohort
outside of main campus, stated his frustration with connecting with the
administration on main campus:
I feel they don’t want to talk to me. Sometime I email and they don’t respond
fast and when they do they are not really helpful…they asked me to go to
main campus for orientation but I can’t, and no one is helping me out…I talk
to my advisor but she didn’t help me much. I don’t know. It’s…frustrating.

If other universities have the same issue, the ISS needs to consider approaching
students with alternative methods to assist them with the transitioning process.
Valerie, an ISS staff member at Institution One, provided her point of view on this
limitation caused by institutional priority:
We would, of course, provide assistance to international students as much as
we could. But because of the volume of the students, we cannot provide
specific, tailored program for a couple of students who are not on the main
campus. It does not mean that there’s a lack of care, but the reality is that we
[ISS] are understaffed, and the money and human resource that need to be put
in…to put together an alternative program for one or two students outside of
main campus…it’s just impossible.

82
Thus, although ISS staff members, as well as the directors, may have the ambition to
create innovative services for international students, institutional limitations such as
staffing, funding, or even functionality issues, can hinder innovation.
In addition to institutional limitations, students’ unwillingness to participate
in social support activities also presents a limitation to innovation in social support
systems. Although ISS usually works directly with international students who
actively seek assistance, and expects that students desire successful social
development and cultural adjustment, there are students out there that simply focus
more on academic than social development. Since all of the activities are voluntary
for students, social support programs are not as important for those students whose
main goal is to achieve academic development and degree completion. For example,
an international student at Institution Two, Emilia, revealed that her goal is to “finish
as soon as possible so I can return to my family and friends at home sooner.” Emilia
decided to take as many classes as she could, which led to a lack of time for social
involvement. She found social life rather irrelevant compared to her academic
achievement. Emilia said:
I will attend social or academic events that are required by the scholarship
program, but other than that, my interaction is limited to talking to dorm
mates while we are cooking in the kitchen.

Indeed, some students similar to Emilia may not even be aware of the importance of
“making American friends.” Rather, Emilia, at Institution Two, believes that as long
as she is achieving her academic goals at school, nothing else really matters.
83
In addition to an unwillingness to participate in social support activities,
advanced technology means that seeking support from family and friends back in the
home country is not so difficult or expensive any more. Thus, Emilia, at Institution
Two, indicated that “even though I miss my family and friends at home dearly, I find
time to video chat with them every night.” Even if it is not the same as talking to
them in person, she said that “it helps a lot to talk to them via Skype when I feel
frustrated, stressed, or lonely.” Thus, she built her own social support system, which
derives from her own family and friends at home, with the help of technology instead
of seeking local social support from Institution Two or ISS.
Summary of Research Question Two
As the four themes above suggest, leadership plays an important role in the
diffusion of innovation. Leaders need to look into innovations not only within the
department or office where they work, but also need to think outside of the box and
see beyond this possibility, to collaboration with other departments as needed in
order to provide assistance to international students. Leaders must also not forget that
it is crucial to supervise as innovation proceeds. Supervision and evaluation are
needed in order to seek improvements to innovation, so that innovation can benefit
international students even more. Lastly, leaders need to be aware of institutional
priorities, and know the limitations they present to innovation.
Summary of Results
In Chapter Four, the results of Research Questions One and Two were
presented in detail. For Research Question One, the results have proven importance
84
to international student involvement and how that impacts student development, as
well as retention. In order to successfully implement a student support system,
institutional support is crucial, because the better student involvement is, the better
student development and retention will be. Other factors such as student number and
institutional structure also come into play within the implementation of a social
support system, and can positively or negatively affect the implementation of
innovation. In addition, the quality of the social support system cannot be the sole
factor that determines how successful workshops and activities are in enhancing
student engagement.
In response to Research Question Two, leadership is believed to be an
important part of innovation. There are four themes that needed the leaders’ attention
for the success of innovation. Leaders need to look not only within their own
workplace for opportunities for innovation, but also to other departments or offices
for cooperative opportunities that may enhance student involvement. Additionally,
leaders need to keep in mind the importance of supervision during the
implementation of innovation, because leader supervision and program evaluation
are two methods of improvement which help innovation to meet international
students’ needs. Finally, leaders need to be aware of the limitations which work
against innovation, and do what they can to seek innovation opportunities, rather
than giving up on innovation.
85
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
For decades, the United States has been the country with the largest
international enrollment in higher education. Yet, the attack on September 11, 2001,
changed the perceptions of students towards the safety of living in the U.S., and
regulations and restrictions on visa issuance became common problems for
international students with respect to their choice of country for study. Thus, the
competition between English-speaking countries for international student recruitment
has become a driving force for innovation in the United States. In order to enhance
the recruitment and retention of international students in higher education,
innovations in institutions are necessary.
The purpose of this study was to determine whether successful social support
systems for international students could positively impact student recruitment and
retention in higher education. The premise was that if successful implementation of
social support programs is helpful in recruiting prospective international students and
retaining current students, institutions should be more supportive and more
encouraged to invest institutional resources into innovations for social support
programs for international students. The research questions for this study were as
follows:
1. What role does institutional support play in implementing innovation on
enhancing recruitment and retention of international students in U.S.
higher education institutions?
86
2. What role does leadership play in implementing innovation that meets the
needs of international students in U.S. higher education institutions?
Qualitative research was used to gather information that provides answers for
a specific purpose and the targeted audience. Interviews with staff members of ISS,
ESL advisors, and international students at both institutions were conducted in order
to examine their perceptions of how the social support system impacts student
recruitment and retention. In this chapter, the findings, limitations of research,
implications for practice, and recommendations for research will be discussed.
Finally, the conclusion of the dissertation is presented.
Summary of Findings
There were a total of 7 findings from the data collection. For Research
Question One, there were 3 findings:
1. Student involvement is closely related to student retention.
2. The number of international students matters in implementing innovation.
3. The quality of activities cannot be the sole reason that determines whether
they successfully assist students’ social development and enhance
retention.
These findings reinforce the importance of institutional support for innovation in
developing and implementing a social support system for international students. If
student involvement directly affects student development, as well as student
persistence (Astin, 1975), and student involvement relates to student learning
outcome (Tinto, 1997), institutions should find ways to overcome the issues of
87
student numbers and communication, and to evaluate activities with different
methods, in order to decide if they help students persist at school.
In response to Research Question Two, four findings emerged from the
study:
1. Leadership matters in creating innovative services.
2. Student autonomy can benefit ISS in assisting with the student social
support system.
3. Leader supervision and evaluation is crucial in innovation.
4. Despite a leader’s desire for innovation, there are limitations that hinder
innovation.
These four findings support the importance of leadership in the innovation of a social
support system for international students. Osten (2010) points out the importance of
leadership in the identification and promotion of familiar methods with respect to
implementation of innovation for employees. In addition, Joon and Jepsen (2008)
suggest the importance of ongoing evaluation and improvement. Similarly,
Kumaravadivelu (2003) states that ongoing evaluation helps to ensure the quality of
the programs, and promote continuous improvement.
In the following sections, implications from the findings for practice and
future research will be discussed.
Limitations
Several limitations that were not anticipated in Chapter One occurred during
the data collection process. First of all, some staff members did not participate in the
88
study, due to their availability, and believed that information from other ISS staff
members would be sufficient for the study. Indeed, counselors are the practitioners
of the activities, and are closer to where the “actions” are; yet, it would have been
beneficial if all staff members could have provided insight on the issues from an
administrator’s perspective.
Another limitation was location, which made connection with the
interviewees more difficult. For example, because Institution One is located in a
different state, email and phone calls were the main methods used to contact
interviewees there. In addition to the geographical challenge, the time difference also
made it harder to schedule contact with students, as well as staff members.
Third, although random sampling applies to the research methodology, the
student participants all appeared to be from Southeast Asian countries. Hence, the
results cannot represent all international students from other countries. The
participating students’ level of studies also range from undergraduate sophomore to
graduate Ph.D. As indicated in Chapter Four, Valerie, the ISS staff member at
Institution One, believes that graduate students tend to have less desire towards
enhancing their social development. In other words, the graduate students do not
think social support is as important for them (which is true according to the data
collected for this study). However, the participating undergraduate students spoke
highly of the social support system, and think that such support helps them persist.
Thus, whether students’ academic goals and levels of study affect their willingness
(or lack of) to participate in social support activities is still unknown.
89
Implications for Practice
Since the common perception is that a successful social support system for
international students can impact student retention positively, the implications for
practice will focus on the execution and evaluation of the social support activities.
There are six implications for practice that follow from the data collection process:
use of a personable and effective communication method; continuous professional
training in multicultural competence for faculty and staff members; continuous
improvement in programs and activities; provision of institutional support to assist
and supervise student autonomy; use of technology as an alternative method for
students to participate in activities; and cooperation and coordination between ISS
and the institutional recruitment office.
First of all, one of the execution issues is the limitation of the contact method
between ISS and international students. The more students there are in an institution,
the less personal the communication becomes. For example, Institution One has
nearly six times as many international students as Institution Two. The main method
for ISS staff members of Institution One to contact international students about
upcoming activities is via email. The number of international students at Institution
Two is much smaller, and the ISS depends on the ISA for contacting other
international students and informing them about upcoming activities. ISA members
usually spread the word themselves, and try to tell their friends to bring their friends
to activities, which makes the communication more personal.
90
In addition to the challenge presented by a large international enrollment,
institutions also face challenges to reach out to students who are enrolled in other
satellite campuses (i.e., in other cities or states), or in distance-learning programs
(i.e., online degree seeking programs). For example, international students who are
currently enrolled in Institution One outside of the state of California, as well as
those who are enrolled in their online Master’s degree program who reside outside of
the country, do not necessarily obtain sufficient institutional support from ISS, and
find it difficult to connect with the institution for important information.
Thus, the implication for practice is for the ISS to create a more personable
and effective approach to reach out to students in order to promote an international
student support system. As pointed out in Chapter Two, Yoon and Jepsen (2008)
emphasize the importance of developing efficient strategies to advertise support
programs. Currently, the most common method is email; yet, in Institution Two, the
more personal approach or connection between the ISS, ISA, and the international
students, results in higher attendance at activities at Institution Two than at
Institution One, even though the international student number is substantially less
than that of Institution One.
According to Brewer and Tierney (2011), as indicated in Chapter Two,
institution size and availability of resources are two of the influences towards
innovation. Thus, if the number of international students presents a difficulty for
communication between ISS and students, which affects the attendance of programs
or activities, institutions should look into alternative methods of communication. In
91
other words, innovation in communication methods needs to be taken into
consideration by institutions in order to improve the faculty-student connection.
After all, the goal of improving communication is to maximize the interaction
between institutions and international students, and to increase international student
involvement, which consequently affects student development as well as persistence
(Astin, 1975; Tinto, 1987; Cole, 2010).
The second implication for practice is that institutions need to look into
improving faculty and staff members’ multicultural competence and sensitivity.
Similar to what Institution One has been implementing, workshops focused on
building faculty members’ multicultural competence could be beneficial in
eliminating misunderstandings in the faculty-student relationship. Since
misunderstandings following from cultural stereotypes or misperceptions could be
mutual, and often common, students, advisors, and professors can all create
misunderstandings from lack of understanding of the others’ cultures. This notion
echoes the literature in Chapter Two, that while international students are trying to
adjust and adapt to a brand new culture, the cultural mismatch and disconnection
within the faculty-student relationship can negatively affect student development
(Ladson-Billings, 1995; Ladson-Billings, 2000; Cazden, 2001; Sleeter, 2001).
Therefore, institutions could offer prospective and current faculty members
training programs that create the knowledge, skill, authority, and autonomy to
construct personal knowledge to help cope with cultural diversity and prevent
cultural mismatches (Kumaravadivelu, 2003). If interpersonal relationships between
92
faculty and students improve, such well-established faculty-student relationships
could enable students to achieve and to solve problems at school, and benefit their
persistence (Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Cole, 2010).
The third implication for practice is to seek continuous improvement for ISS
workshops and activities through results from evaluation. In both institutions,
although leader supervision and evaluation are well implemented in the innovation
process, whether continuous improvement is implemented remains unknown. Yoon
and Jepsen (2008) point out the need for counselors to coordinate, develop,
continuously evaluate and improve the program. Without continuous supervision and
implementation of improvement, it is hard to tell whether any failure is due to
activities failing to provide social support, or students failing to buy into the
assistance.
The fourth implication is the value of looking into institutional support for
student autonomy. The mentor/mentee programs in both institutions seem to have
positive influences on student involvement. However, they do not receive sufficient
institutional support and resources in order to undergo continuous improvement. In
addition, leader supervision may be necessary in order to support and improve the
activities. Thus, leaders should look into possible assistance or opportunities to
create innovation that can benefit international students as well as local students in
their social development. Leaders should also coordinate with the institution in order
to create efficient strategies for assisting student autonomy, in order to implement
activities and programs successfully.
93
The fifth implication is that technology may be a solution to the limitations
on innovation. Rather than fighting against institutional priorities, and struggling for
funding and resources, there might be other methods to implement social support
workshops or activities for international students who are busy, or not on the main
campus. If the large number of students presents a difficulty for ISS to reach out,
alternative methods of providing services might be considered, or even trialed, to see
if they can provide assistance to international students. With the technology currently
available, attending activities or workshops via video conference call would not be
difficult for students who are outside of the main campus. Although this would not
be the same as attending personally, important information can still be passed on
through a video call, and may assist students in areas with which they have trouble.
Last but not least, cooperation and coordination between ISS and the
Recruitment or Admissions office of an institution would be beneficial for overall
international recruitment. With such coordination, institutions can look into
providing more detailed and satisfying student support as early as first contact is
made between the institution and the student. For example, Institution One has
Student Alumni Association offices overseas that assist the institution with
recruitment. The ISS in Institution One can coordinate with the Alumni Association,
and see if they can provide programs or events that promote student satisfaction. If,
upon first contact, a prospective student is provided with sufficient support, and is
satisfied with what they have experienced, this may assist them in choosing the
institution that provides better support.
94
Even taking into account all of the above implications, leaders and
institutions still need to be aware that innovation is not an easy task. After all,
innovation can be treated as a threat to existing programs, because any innovative
idea might force a program, office, and department to reinnovate, requiring the
involvement of additional funding and human resources. In addition, with the critical
mass of international enrollment in each institution, and the number of student
subgroups that are included, the difficulty of satisfying each individual subgroup is
higher, because each subgroup may have different needs from ISS, and may have
different expectations of the social support system at an individual institution.
Therefore, ISS members, or institutions as a whole, need to be more sophisticated in
accomplishing such a multi-dimensional task, and ISS staff members need to have
the ability to multitask, in order to cope with students from different subgroups.
Implications for Research
A few areas emerged for future research from this study. First of all, there
might be differences between student perceptions towards the importance of the
social support system depending on their level of study (undergraduate, graduate).
While some students and staff members in ISS believe that the social support system
positively affects student development, for other students obtaining social support
from school is not as crucial as their academic development during their study. In
addition, students who do not consider social support from ISS or ISA to be crucial
might find that their own social support system does not have to come from school,
but can derive from peers or friends of peers locally, or from friends and family at
95
home. Hence, major, level of study, and country of origin of students might also be
viable research topics to see if those factors affect the importance of the social
support system, as well as student retention.
The second recommendation for research lies in the connection between the
social support system and its impact on student recruitment. During the data
collection period, most of the ISS staff members and ESL advisors did not directly
relate social support of international students to recruitment. Similarly, the
international students who participated in the study indicated that they believe there
is a positive correlation between a successful social support system and persistence,
but think that social support was not significant in their choice of school. ISS staff
members at both institutions also believe that the social support system can
positively impact student retention; however, there is no research that has been
conducted to provide evidence to support this assumption. At Institution One,
according to the international student report, the number of international students has
increased continuously over the past 10 years. However, whether this increase is
related to the student social support system remains unknown. In order for
institutions to investigate whether the relationship and interaction between the
institutional agent and a prospective student affects student recruitment, research
needs to be done starting at this first point of contact, and following through until the
student is enrolled in the institution.
96
Conclusion
The recruitment and retention of international students in higher education is
still an issue that institutions need to investigate. The reason why the U.S. wants to
improve overall recruitment in higher education mainly derives from the high
revenue and job opportunities that international students can bring in for the
institutions. Yet, with global competition, other English-speaking countries are also
fighting for a share of revenue, which puts U.S. recruitment and retention of
international students in line with other issues the institutions have.
Because of the global competition, institutions in the U.S. need to discover
ways to promote and increase recruitment and retention of international students,
particularly when other English-speaking countries have national strategies to help
attract international students. Thus, innovation in recruitment, as well as retention, is
needed for institutions. Similar to what Linden (1990) said, innovation is the key to
survival in this global competition, and institutions need to generate more
“variations” through innovation in order to create better opportunities for survival.
One strategy lies in increasing student involvement, since it is important to
have an efficient social support system. The premise is that if a social support system
is successful, international students are more likely to persist at school. In addition, if
the social support system starts at the moment the institutional agent makes contact
with a prospective student, recruitment can also be improved by the social support
system.
97
Factors such as leadership and institutional support affect student recruitment
and retention. Each element affects students differently; yet leadership, institutional
support, and student recruitment and retention seem to be closely correlated with
each other. Although the perception is that student recruitment and retention are
linked to the social support system, this study shows that there are other relevant
factors, such as students’ level of study, age, etc. Both institutions in this study show
a positive attitude towards their social support system. Yet implementation,
supervision, and evaluation also play a role in the social support system. In addition
to the leadership’s influence, institutional support (or lack of support) definitely
constitutes another challenge for ISS in creating innovative services for international
students.
Therefore, this study met its goal of looking at the relationship between social
support system and student recruitment and retention in an innovative manner — no
research of the same nature has been conducted recently which investigates the
relationship and provides possible improvements. This research was conducted with
a qualitative approach. To conclude: there is no research or number to support the
idea; also, there are other factors that may play an important role in affecting student
recruitment and retention. The lesson of the findings of this research is to look at the
gap and see if researchers can work on closing the gap one day. This study served as
an initiative for researchers to look at ways to improve international student
recruitment and retention in the United States.
98
REFERENCES
Andrade M. S. (2006). International Students in English-speaking Universities:
Adjustment Factors. Journal of Research in International Education, 5(2),
131-154.

Angelopoulos, M., & Catano, V. M. (1993). International and Canadian students’
choice of helping source: it depends on the problem. Journal of College
student Development, 34, 377-378.

Anthony, S. D., Johnson, M. W., & Sinfield J. V. (2008). Institutionalizing
Innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(2), 45-53.

Assink, M. (2006). Inhibitors of Disruptive Innovation Capability: A Conceptual
Model. European Journal of Innovation Management, 9(2), 215-233.

Astin, A. W. (1975). Preventing Students from Dropping Out. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Berger J. B., & Milem, J. F. (1999). The Role of Student Involvement and
Perceptions of Integration in a Causal Model of Student Persistence.
Research in Higher Education, 40(6), 641-664.

Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2008). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice and
Leadership. 5th Edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bretag, T. (2004). Using Action Research to Support International ESL Students in
Information Systems Courses. International Education Journal, 5(4), 531-
539.

Brewer, D. J., & Tierney, W. G. (2010). Barriers to Innovation in U.S. Higher
Education. Reinventing the American University: The Promise of Innovation
in Higher Education (pp. 1-35). Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise
Institute Conference.

Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom Discourse. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Chellaraj, G., Maskus, K. E., & Mattoo, A. (2008). The Contribution of International
Graduate Students to U.S. Innovation. Review of International Economics,
16(3), 444-462.

Christensen, C. M., Baumann, H., Ruggles, R., & Sadtler, T. (2006). Disruptive
Innovation for Social Change. Harvard Business Review.
99
Christensen, C., Horn, M. B., & Johnson, C. (2008). Disrupting Class: How
Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns. McGraw-Hill,
Columbus, OH.

Cole, D. (2010). Introduction: The Role of Faculty Contact on Minority Students’
Educational Gains. The Journal of the Professoriate, 3(2), 1-16.

Duff, P. A. (2001). Language, Literacy, Content, and (Pop) Culture: Challenges for
ESL students in Mainstream Courses. The Canadian Modern Language
Review, 58(1), 103-132.

Garmon, M. A. (2005). Six Key Factors for Changing Preservice Teachers’
Attitudes/Beliefs about Diversity. Educational Studies, 38(3), 275-286.

Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2001). Second Language Acquisition: an Introductory
Course. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gay, G. (2000). Multicultural Teacher Education for the 21st Century, Teacher
Educator, 36(1), 1–16.

Henrichsen, L. E. (1989). Diffusion of Innovations in English Language Teaching:
The ELEC Effort in Japan. New York: Greenwood Press.

Irvine, J. J. (2003). Educating Teachers for Diversity: Seeing with a Cultural Eye.
New York: Teachers College Press.

King, P. M., & Baxter Magolda, M. (2005). A developmental model of intercultural
maturity. Journal of College Student Development, 46, 571-592.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond Methods: Macrostrategies for Language
Teaching. New Haven and London, England: Yale University Press.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2000). Reading Between the Lines and Beyond the Pages: A
Cultural Relevant Approach to Literacy Teaching. In M. A. Gallego & S.
Hollingsworth (Eds.), What Counts as Literacy: Challenging the School
Standard (pp. 139-152). New York: Teachers College Press.

Lau, L. K. (2003). Institutional Factors Affecting Student Retention. Education,
124, 126-136.

Mazzarol, T. (1998). Critical Success Factors for International Education Marketing.
International Journal of Educational management, 12(4), 163-175.
100
McEwan, E., & McEwan, P. (2003). Making Sense of Research: What’s Good,
What’s Not, and How to Tell the Difference. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press,
Inc.

Mitchell, A. (2001). Radical Innovation. BT Technology Journal, 19(4), 60-64.

Morris, M. H., Kuratko, D. F., & Covin, J. G. (2008). Corporate Entrepreneurship
and Innovation. Mason, OH: Thomson Learning, Inc.

Oster, G. (2010). Characteristics of Emergent Innovation. Journal of Management
Development, 29(6), 565-574.

Paap, J., & Katz, R. (2004). Anticipating Disruptive Innovation. Research
Technology Management, 47(5), 13-22.

Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (Third ed).
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Pope, R. L., & Reynolds, A. L. (1997). Student affairs core competencies:
Integrating multicultural awareness, knowledge, and skills. Journal of
College Student Development, 38, 266-275.

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovation. New York, NY: Free Press.

Rubdy, R. (2008). Diffusion of Innovation: A Plea for Indigenous Models. TESL-EJ,
12(3).

Russell, M. (2005). Marketing Education: A Review of Service Quality Perceptions
among International Students. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 17(1), 65-77.

Sawyer, K. (2009). The Collaborative Nature of Innovation. Journal of Law and
Policy, 30(293), 293-324.

Schneider, M. (2000). ‘Others’ Open Doors. How Other Nations Attract
International Students: Implications for U.S. Educational Exchange.
Available at http://exchanges.state.gov/iep/execsummary.pdf (accessed 7
January 2011).

Scott, S., & Bruce, R. (1994). Determinants of Innovative Behavior: A Path Model
of Individual Innovation in the Workplace. Academy of Management Journal,
580-607.
101
Sleeter, C. (2001). Preparing Teachers for Culturally Diverse Schools: Research and
the Overwhelming Presence of Whiteness. Journal of Teacher Education, 52,
94-106.

Sogunro, O. A. (2001). Toward Multiculturalism: Implications of Multicultural
Education for Schools. Multicultural Perspectives, 3(3), 19-33.

Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A Social Capital Framework for Understanding the
Socialization of Racial Minority Youth. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1),
1-40.

Taylor, S., Rizvi, F., & Linguard, B. (1997). Educational Policy and the Politics of
Change. London, New York: Routledge.

Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving College: Rethinking the causes and cures of student
attrition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Tinto, V. (1997). Colleges as communities: Exploring the educational character of
student persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 68, 599-623.

U.S. Department of Education (2006). Digest of Education Statistics. Washington,
D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics.

Whitfield, P., Klug, B. J., Whitney, P. (2007). ‘Situative cognition’: barrier to
teaching across cultures. Intercultural Education, 18(3), 259-264.

Yoon, E., & Jepsen, D. A. (2008). Expectations of and Attitudes towards
Counseling: A Comparison of Asian International and U.S. Graduate
Students. International Journals of Advanced Counseling, 30(2008), 116-
127.

Zuengler, J., & Miller, E. R. (2006). Cognitive and Sociocultural Perspectives: Two
Parallel SLA Worlds? TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 35-58.
102
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR ISS ADMINISTRATION
1. How many years have you been in leadership for the ISS?

2. Can you give me a rough rundown on what a school year looks like for you?

3. Please describe your relationship with advisors and other faculty members of
ISS.

4. As a leader, how do you support advisors as well as other faculty members of
ISS in order to meet the needs of international students as well as the
institution?

5. Can you describe how the ISS supports international students’ academic as
well as social development? (Workshop? Activities?)

6. Are there innovative programs or workshops from ISS that have been offered
to international students recently? If yes, can you give me some examples?

7. How are those innovative programs or workshops created? Is there a standard
procedure on how that is going to happen?

8. What are your views on those innovative programs or workshops?

9. I see from the International Student Enrollment Report that there is a
continuous increase on international student enrollment over the past 15
years. Do you think those innovative services or workshops help recruit and
retain the international students? Why/why not? Is there any data collected
(for example, student retention and/or recruitment) to show that the programs
or workshops positively affect retention and/or recruitment?

10. How are those programs or workshops evaluated?

11. Please describe your interactions or relationship with the institution
concerning International student (attendance? Performance?). Is that one of
the focuses that OIS needs to report to the institution?

12. Please describe your interactions with other departments including the
institution’s ESL program concerning International student performance.

103
13. When it comes to the innovative services, was the institution supportive of
the implementation of those services or programs? If yes, in what way? If no,
what can the institution help assist those ISS provide better services?

14. In what ways were other departments supportive of the programs or services
from International student Services?
104
APPENDIX B
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR INTERNATIONAL SERVICES COUNSELORS
OR ADVISORS
1. How many years have you been working with international students?

2. Can you briefly describe your job duty in response to the administrator of the
program?

3. Please briefly describe what a school year looks like to you.

4. What are the common incidents where the international students approach
you?

5. From those common incidents and your experience with international
students, can you identify some common factors that prohibit the
international students in their overall development?

6. When identified those factors that are apparent on a student, what does the
ISS do? What is the procedure like?

7. Can you give me some examples of the innovative services ISS has offered
recently? What are the main objectives?

8. Do you think those innovative services or workshops help retain the
international students? Why/why not? Is there any data collected (for
example, student retention and/or recruitment) to show that the programs or
workshops positively affect retention and/or recruitment?

9. Describe the resources that are offered to you by ISS.

10. Describe in what specific way can the institution or ISS do to help you do
your job better (institutional support? Program support?)

11. How frequently do you participate in decisions on new rules, policies, and
procedures?

12. How often do you participate in decisions on the new programs?

13. How often do you participate in evaluation of your program?
105
APPENDIX C
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR ESL PROGRAM ADVISORS
1. Can you briefly talk about the mission of ESL Program?

2. How many staff or faculty members are there in ESL Program?

3. Can you briefly describe your job duty as a director at ESL Program?

4. Just curious, are those ESL students only taking class in ESL Program, or do
they have other GE classes they are taking at the same time?

5. Are all students expected to continue their study at the institution? Or are
there cases where students were transferred out to other higher education
institutions? Is there data that shows the retention of ESL Program?

6. Describe what a typical school year looks like to you.

7. Does ESL Program cooperate with International Student Services, or even
International Student Association in providing services to international
students? If yes, in what way?

8. Do you receive any support from ISS or the institution in regards of students’
development? If yes, can you give me some examples?

9. (If with cooperation: so what do you think the importance of the relationship
between ESL Program and ISS would be to the students and to the
institution?)

10. From your experience with international students, can you identify some
common factors that prohibit the international students in their overall
development?

11. For those students who had struggled but stayed, what do you think was the
reason that helped them persist in school?

12. When identified those factors that are hindering student performance, what
do you do? What is the procedure like?

13. Do you think that students’ social development plays an important role in
their development as well as retention at ESL Program or the institution in
general? If yes, in what way do you think their social development matters?
106
14. Are there innovative programs or workshops (from ESL Program or ISS) that
have been implemented to enhance international students’ academic as well
as social development? If yes, can you give me some examples?

15. How are the outcomes of those programs or workshops? Do you think they
serve the intended purpose?

16. How are those programs or workshops evaluated?

17. Do you participate in evaluation of any new programs that are implemented?

18. Have you participated in those new programs that are implemented?

19. Do you think those innovative programs or workshops help retain the
international students in a long run?

20. Do those innovative programs or workshops in any way affect your job in
ESL Program? If yes, can you describe your experience? Was it positive or
negative? How is it positive/negative?
107
APPENDIX D
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR CURRENT INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS
1. How many years have you been studying in the institution?

2. Your country of origin?

3. Are you a freshman/sophomore/junior/senior?

4. What is your impression of the institution? Do you like the school so far?

5. Are you satisfied with classes you have been taking? Any difficulty so far?

6. Have you ever been to ISS in person? How did you contact them?

7. If yes, what did you go there for?

8. How satisfied were you with the faculty members that were helping you at
ISS?

9. How satisfied were your experiences with ISS? Can you give me a
memorable experience you have with ISS?

10. When you encounter problems at school or with your peers, who/where do
you go to for assistance?

11. Have you attend any workshop or programs offered by the instituiton, your
department, or ISS? Can you give me an example of the type of services or
workshops that have helped do better academically and socially? (or your
favorite activity?)

12. How often do you participate the activities offered by the institution?

13. Are you satisfied with the services and activities that are offered by the
institution?

14. Do you think those activities you have participated help you do better at
school? If yes, in what way?

15. Do you think those activities you have participated help you interact with
your peers? If yes, in what way?

108
16. (If no, what do you think the school can do to help you with school and the
relationship with your peers?)

17. Do you think ISS can create some new activities or workshops to help you
overcome the difficulties you have with school or with your peers? If yes, can
you give an example of a good activity or workshop that will help you in
school?

18. How often do you participate giving suggestions, evaluations, or feedback to
the services, activities or workshops provided by the institution?

19. Was International student social support system something important to you
before you applied to the institution?

20. Was International student support something important to you when it comes
to your persistence in school?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract As the notion of globalization becomes more and more important, students from all over the world decide to study abroad in order to gain multicultural experiences. The United States has always been the leading country, with the most international enrollment

Conceptually similar

PDF

Perception and use of instructional technology: teacher candidates as adopters of innovation

PDF

Evaluating the effects of diversity courses and student diversity experiences on undergraduate students' democratic values at a private urban research institution

PDF

The impact of diversity courses on students' critical thinking skills

PDF

Creating a climate for innovation in education: Reframing structure, culture, and leadership practices

PDF

Resource allocation strategies and educational adequacy: an examination of an academic & financial plan used to allocate resources to strategies that promote student achievement in Hawaii

PDF

Internationalization of higher education: a case study of three Korean private universities

PDF

Teacher perception on coaching and effective professional development implementation

PDF

Innovation in meeting the needs of students with disabilities

PDF

Effective professional development strategies to support the advancement of women into senior student affairs officer positions

PDF

An examination of resource allocation strategies and finance adequacy: case studies of American Samoa Department of Education secondary schools

PDF

Enhancing professional development aimed at changing teachers' perceptions of Micronesian students

PDF

Whiteness: a narrative analysis on student affairs professionals, race, identity, and multicultural competency

PDF

The Ph.D. as a contested intellectual site: a critical race analysis of the personal and institutional factors that influence the persistence and retention of academically successful Black doctor...

PDF

Factors inhibiting application for financial aid by low-income students at the University of Hawaii at Manoa

PDF

A study of Pacific Islander scholarship football players and their institutional experience in higher education

PDF

Values and beliefs related to diversity amongst students being prepared as teachers

PDF

The at-risk student perspective of education in an alternative education program

PDF

Self-efficacy beliefs and intentions to persist of Native Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian science, technology, engineering, and mathematics majors

PDF

Community college students in STEM: a quantitative study investigating the academic beliefs of students enrolled in online and on campus information technology courses

PDF

An examination of resource allocation strategies that promote student achievement: case studies of rural elementary schools in Hawaii

Asset Metadata

Creator Lee, Chen-Han (author)

Core Title Innovative social support systems and the recruitment and retention of international students in U.S. higher education

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/16/2012

Defense Date 02/25/2012

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Education,ESL students,Higher education,international students,OAI-PMH Harvest,recruitment,retention,social support

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Brewer, Dominic J. (committee chair), Cole, Darnell G. (committee member), Sundt, Melora A. (committee member)

Creator Email chenhanl@usc.edu,hannahan822@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-6050

Unique identifier UC1113354

Identifier usctheses-c3-6050 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-LeeChenHan-608.pdf

Dmrecord 6050

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Lee, Chen-Han

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA