i Strategic Reinvestment

This research found that all dimensions of the international student experience (Arrival, Learning, Living, and Support Services) influenced institutional satisfaction and

recommendation. It therefore supports the argument that the international student experience can be a driver for recruiting and retaining talented students, and for advancing an institution’s diversity and internationalization efforts. Having international students on campus can also serve as indicators for developing global and intercultural competence of domestic students, faculty and staff via interactions in the classroom and engagement in other extra-curricular activities (Banjong & Olson, 2016; Shideh Hanassab, 2006; Lee & Rice, 2007). However, for these

benefits to exist, institutions must be strategic in incorporating the student experience perspective at all levels of their operations, such as their service mission, faculty engagement, organizational leadership structure, and assessment priorities, so that adequate support services and

interventions can be implemented to support such initiatives.

The concept of strategic reinvestment in higher education, which relates to setting aside a portion of tuition and other revenues towards overall academic and student support programs, has become a priority for some institutions as they develop their strategic and budget plans (Toner, 2018). However, reinvestment into international education or international student support is quite rare. As the competition to recruit talented international students in a shrinking

market share increases, institutions must intentionally funnel some of the funding obtained from tuition back into the student experience. This includes a range of services addressing the social, academic, cultural, and career needs of international students such as student advising and support resources, career exploration and guidance, navigating academic concepts and research, and internationalizing residential and dining services. Doing so requires cross-training student affairs and faculty to ensure that they can include the global perspective for students, whether local or international.

Steyn (2003) defines strategy, in general terms, as the thinking behind the operations and the positioning of values for future use. From an internationalization of higher education

perspective, strategic planning is described as “a defining feature of all universities,

encompassing organizational change, curriculum innovation, staff development and student mobility, for the purposes of achieving excellence in teaching and research” (Rudzki, 1995, p.

421). This definition involves resource planning and allocation, organizational structure to ensure effectiveness in functions and decision-making processes, and the role of faculty, staff, and students in designing operational procedures that support these institutional strategies. In developing a comprehensive internationalization plan, strategic planning needs to happen at several levels, both from a big picture and practical approach, including the defined purpose, priorities, frameworks, direction, and intended outcomes (de Wit, 1995).

Institutions must recognize that international students are a valuable educational and cultural resource that is too often underutilized and overlooked. International educators widely agree that bringing people of different cultural backgrounds into contact with each other can be educationally positive and life changing if done with the right structure. Building an inclusive community and a welcoming environment in which its members feel connected, safe, and

engaged can be a powerful instrument that impacts students’ sense of belonging, experience, and success. If intercultural programming is important to a campus’ diversity goals, it becomes a missed opportunity not to make the international student community engaged as a more actively utilized resource. Hence, institutions must be intentional at developing strategic partnerships with key units within the organization, such as admissions and recruitment, international student services, student affairs, academic departments, and alumni relations, in optimizing the

experience of their international students on campus. Higher administration must also be

committed to supporting designated service units through adequate staffing, funding, resources, training, and professional development opportunities so that they can in turn enable programs and services that enhance the international student experience.

The Culturally Engaging Campus Environments (CECE) model, derived from several qualitative and quantitative studies in higher education, examines the experiences and outcomes of diverse colleges students and measures the extent to which campus environments are

culturally engaging (Museus, 2014). The model’s indicators, listed in Table 5.1, are categorized in two groups: 1) Cultural relevance indicators, which focuses on the ways that campus

environments are relevant to the cultural backgrounds and communities of diverse college students, and 2) Cultural responsiveness, which points to the ways in which campus

environments respond to the norms and needs of diverse students. These indicators can be used as benchmarks for postsecondary institutions to assess the extent to which culturally engaging campus environments exist on their respective campuses; to identify where these environments can be improved; and to strategically develop plans for transforming environments to maximize success among their diverse student populations more effectively.

Table 5.1 The Culturally Engaging Campus Environments (CECE) indicators Cultural Relevance

Indicator 1 Cultural Familiarity Campus spaces for undergraduates to connect with faculty, staff, and peers who understand their cultural backgrounds, identities, and experiences.

Indicator 2 Culturally Relevant Knowledge

Opportunities for students to learn about their own cultural.

Indicator 3 Cultural Community Service

Opportunities for students to give back to and positively transform their home communities.

Indicator 4 Meaningful Cross- Cultural Engagement

Programs and practices that facilitate educationally

meaningful cross-cultural interactions among their students that focus on solving real social and political problems.

Indicator 5 Cultural Validation Campus cultures that validate the cultural backgrounds, knowledge, and identities of diverse students.

Cultural Responsiveness

Indicator 1 Collectivist Cultural Orientations

Campus cultures that emphasize a collectivist, rather than individualistic, cultural orientation that is characterized by teamwork and pursuit of mutual success.

Indicator 2 Humanized Educational Environments

Availability of opportunities for students to develop meaningful relationships with faculty and staff members who care about and are committed to their success.

Indicator 3 Proactive Philosophies Proactive philosophies that lead faculty, administrators, and staff to proactively bring important information,

opportunities, and support services to students, rather than waiting for students to seek them out on their own.

Indicator 4 Holistic Support Students' access to at least one faculty or staff member that they are confident will provide the information they need, offer the help they seek, or connect them with the

information or support that they require.