Abstract
This study presents a practice-based inquiry into the development, implementation, and assessment of an International Student Success Model at a R1 private research university in the United States. Grounded in Tinto's interactionalist theory of student departure and Berger and Braxton's organizational attributes model, the study addresses two research questions: why international student success is a critical priority for higher education institutions, and how international undergraduate students perceive the effectiveness of advising strategies and programmatic initiatives designed to facilitate their academic and career success. Drawing on two complementary data sources, a 2022 global survey of 255 academic advisors conducted in partnership with NACADA: The global community for academic advising, and five-year longitudinal program assessment data collected from 2020 to 2024, the study documents both the national need for structured advising frameworks and the measurable outcomes of a five-pillar success model, including improved student retention, academic performance, and career readiness.
Keywords
A total of 6.9% of students are studying outside their home country, according to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and the number has tripled since 2000 (UNESCO, 2025). In 2023/2024, the total number of international students in the United States grew by 7% to a record high of 1,126,690 students, accounting for 5.9% of the total U.S. higher-education student population (Institute of International Education, 2025). The number of students studying abroad for higher education is projected to reach nearly 9 million by 2030 (ICEF, 2025). Students’ study destination preferences may change due to evolving geopolitical turmoil, but mobility is projected to remain strong according to the OECD's and the Institute of International Education's data modeling.
A large body of literature investigates how to support international students in higher education in the United States and elsewhere. Nevertheless, most of the existing literature focuses on how students adapt to the host country's culture, campus life, and learning environment and the challenges they encounter (Korobova & Starobin, 2015). In contrast, the issue of how to facilitate academic success for international students is rarely addressed, and a data-informed and structured international student success framework has yet to be proposed. This area has been overlooked for too long by higher-education institutions and professional organizations worldwide.
ACE's Mapping Internationalization on U.S. Campuses: 2022 (Soler et al., 2022) states that the top priority between 2016 and 2020 for U.S. higher education institutions was to recruit international students. U.S. institutions continue to prioritize having international students on their campuses, making comprehensive and ongoing support services for students essential. The results of the survey suggest a steady expansion of support services for international students in the past 10 years, with “orientation to the institution or the U.S. classroom” (75%) as the top response, followed by “individualized academic support services” (66%), “orientation to the U.S. and the local community” (66%), and others. Mentions of support for student academic success in the survey results are limited; the respondents indicated that “individualized academic support services” emphasize flexibility for international students during the pandemic.
Evidently, a gap remains in the support provided to international students. Furthermore, many higher education institutions advocate for more support for international students but still employ the traditional approaches to these activities, such as visa services, instructional language improvement, and social support. To build a sustainable model for enrolling and retaining international students in a challenging and competitive recruitment market, higher education institutions in the world must proactively invest time and effort in defining and delivering outcomes related to the academic and career success of international students.
As of 2025, the only published model of international student success is taken from ACE's International Student Monograph (Glass et al., 2021), which proposes the Model for International Student Inclusion and Success. Its vision for international student success highlights inclusion and equity and promotes a more sustainable and human-centered approach. However, the monograph does not cover academic learning. Yet academic integration or engagement is key to increasing student success, persistence, and retention (Schaffling, 2018). Academic advising is at the very core of education and student support. It serves as the “hub of the wheel” by providing essential academic connections to students and helping them integrate into the campus community.
In 2022, RU, a R1 private research university in the United States, took the first step towards addressing this long-overlooked area in international student support. RU collaborated with the National Academic Advising Association (NACADA), the Global Community of Academic Advising, to conduct a global survey of academic advisors’ experiences of working with international students worldwide. The findings reveal that only 21% of the respondents felt confident in advising international students based on their unique characteristics. Only 40% believed that their institutions successfully supported international students in their academic transition, and a mere 19% thought that their institutions successfully accompanied these students in their postgraduation transitions. Relatedly, 96% of respondents voiced a need for professional development opportunities related to advising international students.
In light of these gaps, this study presents a practice-based research inquiry into the development, implementation, and assessment of an international student success model. Drawing on two complementary data sources, the study addresses both the national need for structured academic advising approaches for international students and the measurable outcomes of one institution's five-year effort to fill that gap. The first data source, a global survey of academic advisors conducted in partnership with NACADA in 2022, provides empirical evidence of widespread institutional unpreparedness and professional demand for change. The second data source, longitudinal program assessment data collected annually at RU, a R1 private research university, from 2020 to 2024, documents the iterative development and student-level outcomes of RU's International Student Success Model. Together, these two strands of evidence address the urgent question of how higher education institutions can build sustainable, academically centered support for international students. Two research questions guide this inquiry:
Why is international student success a critical priority for higher education institutions and their advising professionals? How do international undergraduate students perceive the effectiveness of advising strategies and programmatic initiatives designed to facilitate their academic and career success?
Literature Review
Challenges of International Student Success
Before exploring the implications of student retention theories in international student success, the academic persona of international students must be considered. According to Tinto (1975), academic and social integration issues are the fundamental causes of college student success. International students are not only concerned by these issues, but they also encounter a unique type of challenge. Because international students grow up and receive education in various cultures, they hold different expectations of U.S. higher education. For example, international students may underestimate academic preparation for college or overestimate the availability of jobs, scholarships, and financial aid (Choudaha & Schulmann, 2014). Most international students hesitate to approach faculty members to ask academic and research questions, in part because of intercultural communication barriers or because they are unsure how to do so appropriately.
Some international students also experience exclusion from group discussions in classes or being largely ignored by faculty members, based on researchers’ conversations with international students over decades of work practice. Faculty members report some academically detrimental behaviors of international students, such as not participating in class, not asking faculty for clarification, sitting and studying only with international students, and academic dishonesty (Tompson & Tompson, 1996, as cited in Smith, 2016). At the same time, international students pointed out social isolation and language skills as among the most challenging adjustment areas. Many international students are not involved in their classes, partially because they are afraid to make mistakes or are not familiar with transformative and interactive learning experiences.
Institutions that are not fully aware of the challenges encountered by international students or do not take proactive measures to create a supportive environment will face negative feedback from students, which may lead to low retention. As Choudaha and Schulmann (2014) argue, “poor retention is symptomatic of the mismatch between expectations of students prior to enrollment and the actual experience of students once they are on campus” (p. 3). Yet, ACE (2012) points out that “while efforts to recruit international students are on the rise, the data do not show a commensurate increase in support services for these students” (p. 22). Many universities attempt to provide services to international students, but these are often limited to transactional functions, such as visa documents, English-language conversation, and community and campus navigation, which only address the surface and fail to meet students’ real needs (Bista & Foster, 2011).
NAFSA's (2014) retention study indicates that international students underestimate the academic preparedness required to succeed in U.S. institutions, and U.S. institutions underestimate international students’ needs for career outcomes and financial assistance. There is also a mismatch between the reasons international undergraduate students give for leaving institutions and those that these institutions identify: the latter believe the top three reasons for international students’ departure to be the school's reputation, finances, and academic matters, whereas students report that their decision to leave depends primarily on finances (e.g., jobs/internships, affordability, and scholarships). It is imperative that institutions understand the true needs of international students and invest in their academic and career success. So, how should institutions support international student success? And what does international student success mean?
Recent scholarship underscores the relationship between student engagement and academic outcomes more broadly. Bilir Koca and Karadağ (2025) found that student engagement predicted academic success and the desire to continue at their university, suggesting that proactive institutional efforts to increase engagement carry direct implications for both retention and student satisfaction. Similarly, Gonçalves et al. (2024), in a systematic review of 125 retention studies, identified academic advising, tutoring, and structured academic support programs as among the most effective institutional activities for promoting student retention, precisely the categories of intervention that RU's International Student Success Model was designed to address.
Defining International Student Success
Definitions of international student success vary, with some highlighting particular types of higher education institutions, specific academic disciplines, or international students’ backgrounds and commitment. For example, obtaining a degree is generally considered the most important indicator of academic success for many international students. Empirically examining international students’ learning experiences, Li et al. (2010) observed that “the perceived importance of learning success to family, English writing ability and social communication with their compatriots are significant predictors for all international students” (p. 389). For higher education administrators, the international student retention rate is regarded as the primary success indicator (Fischer, 2014; Smith, 2016). Many factors influence international student retention, including proficiency in English, study discipline, finances, cultural adjustment, social support, self-confidence, community service, and understanding of racism (Smith, 2016).
The multifaceted framework generated based on the ACE Model for International Student Inclusion and Success (ACE, 2012) allows diverse outcomes for international students. Glass et al. (2021) proposed a model presenting a vision for international student success that emphasizes inclusion and equity and promotes a more sustainable and human-centered approach. This monograph focuses on three phases of the international student lifecycle (before, during, and after), in a holistic paradigm. Glass et al. (2021) identified five tenets underlying the phases of the lifecycle: sustainability, responsiveness, network, humanism, and equity. This model was envisioned and developed based on ACE's Model for Comprehensive Internationalization, a “strategic, coordinated framework that integrates policies, programs, initiatives, and individuals to make colleges and universities more globally oriented and internationally connected” (ACE, 2012).
ACE's internationalization model consists of six interconnected components: institutional commitment and policy, leadership and structure, curriculum and cocurriculum, faculty and staff support, mobility, and partnerships. International students fall under the mobility component, but international student success requires collaborative efforts across all six components (Glass et al., 2021). The international student success model proposed by Glass et al. (2021) is so far the most normative and structured framework relevant to international student success and was designed through the lens of comprehensive internationalization. However, the model does not emphasize academic learning or career development. At RU, international student success is understood as encompassing academic persistence, career readiness, well-being, and belonging. In this research, we investigate the success of international students based on the theories and framework of college student retention.
Research Trends in International Student Success
Most of the literature on international students focuses on how these students adapt to their host country's culture, campus life, and learning environment and the challenges they encounter (Korobova & Starobin, 2015). Meanwhile, few studies have been conducted on international students’ academic achievement and career development. According to Korobova and Starobin (2015), improving international students’ academic success might be an effective way to boost their confidence and engagement on campus. Korobova and Starobin (2015) identify five factors impacting international students’ academic success, as measured by the grade point average (GPA): the level of academic challenge, student–faculty interactions, enriching educational experiences, a supportive campus environment/quality of relationships, and a supportive campus environment/institutional emphasis. Smith (2016) also examines the factors affecting international student success and singles out eight causes, which integrate both academic and nonacademic items: language challenges, exclusion from group discussions, culture-related learning differences, academic support issues, adjustment to a new educational system, cultural adjustment, social issues, and finances.
The benefits of structured peer mentoring programs have received growing empirical attention in recent years. Le et al. (2024), in a systematic review of peer mentoring research published between 2013 and 2023, identified four fundamental categories of benefit: academic performance, retention rates, emotional and psychological well-being, and social development, outcomes that align directly with RU's definition of international student success as encompassing academic persistence, career readiness, well-being, and belonging.
The empirical literature specifically examining international student retention remains nascent. This study contributes to an emerging body of scholarship by offering the first longitudinal practice-based assessment of a structured international student success model. The existing literature on international students heavily focuses on students’ social and cultural adjustment experiences in the host institutions, with little attention paid to students’ academic and career success. In addition, many studies were conducted in silos and are not directly connected to the greater contextual framework of international student success (Doucette, 2019). Accordingly, there is an urgent need for a holistic and cohesive international student success model that addresses the ultimate purpose for which international students study outside of their home countries. To conclude, this study proposes a conceptual framework based on Tinto's evolving theory of student retention.
Conceptual Framework
In 1975, Tinto's interactionalist theory of student departure emerged, building on the enhanced Spady model and other resources (Berger et al., 2005). It has since become the best-known and most cited theory of student retention. Tinto's interactionist theory claims that college students bring individual attributes, diverse family background, precollege education, and a commitment to college education to an institution. How well an individual student integrates into the academic and social systems of the institution directly affects the student's continuance and college completion, and this integration must be “normative and structural” (Tinto, 1975, p. 96). Berger et al. (2005) trace the historical development of the concept and theories of student retention and their evolution and propose future directions for studying retention. According to Berger et al. (2005), the issue of student retention did not draw critical review until recent decades, when demographics and the economy saw major shifts such as economic prosperity or recession, rising tuition, and declining birth rates. It was not until the early 1970s, when the golden days of peak enrollment started to fade, and a decrease in enrollment was expected, that student retention became a major focus of educators, researchers, and higher education institutions.
In 1998, Berger and Braxton assessed and revised Tinto's interactionalist theory by examining the role of organizational attributes in the student persistence process (Berger et al., 2005). Berger and Braxton's empirical results indicate that organizational attributes directly affect student social integration on campus and indirectly impact students’ intent to reenroll. This finding emphasizes the necessity of proactive and intentional programs, policies, and procedures from institutional leadership that communicate with students, especially first-year students, effectively and clearly, and involve them in the decision-making process. RU's journey of developing the international student success model started with Tinto's student retention theory as the guiding principle and led to the generation of strategies and programs. A recent systematic review by Gonçalves et al. (2024) affirms the continued relevance of Tinto's foundational framework, demonstrating that the most effective retention activities identified across 125 empirical studies are those that address academic integration and social support simultaneously, the dual focus that animates RU's five-pillar model.
Institutional Context
RU is an R1 private research university on the East Coast of the United States. RU has a total enrollment of 22,000 students, among whom 15,000 are undergraduates, and 6,000 are graduates. Student–faculty ratio is 15:1. The international student ratio was around 15% before 2025. Students can choose from more than 200 majors, 100 minors, and 200 advanced degree programs across the University's 13 colleges and schools. RU has historically been committed to offering a diverse, equitable, and accessible learning environment for students from all around the world. Educational excellence and student success are two of the three pillars of RU's core academic mission. RU embeds the values of internationalization and the academic success of international students into its teaching, learning, research, and services. Inclusion, innovation, and global vision are the university's core principles. RU promotes human thriving and cultivates a sense of belonging in the campus community. It prioritizes having international students on campus, which makes the availability of comprehensive and ongoing support services for international students essential.
In 2019, amidst the rise in international undergraduate enrollment, RU's College of Arts and Sciences and Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs (CAS/MAX) faced the challenge of facilitating a successful academic transition for international students. A gap was identified in academic support for over 1,000 students from more than 60 countries enrolled in CAS/MAX, representing 40% of RU's international undergraduate population. In January 2020, RU's Office of Academic and Career Advising (now the Office of Student Success) began to develop and implement strategies targeting this group of undergraduates, including direct academic support and intentional programming. After a five-year learning curve, which included a pandemic, RU has seen positive results. Notably, the international student retention rate for the cohort of Fall 2021 first-year students at RU's College of Arts and Sciences was 91.5%, the highest level since 2010 and the second highest on record, 10% higher than the cohort of Fall 2020.
Developing the International Student Success Model
RU's international student success proposal conceptualized programmatic high-impact practices embedded in academic and career advising. This differed from how international student support is traditionally implemented, namely, via visa services, English as a second language, and social activities, among others. A two-pronged approach was to be taken, including both student academic success programming and programming aiming to develop, grow, and enhance the advising services. The initiative started with a wide range of assessments through meetings with various stakeholders, including students, faculty, staff, and academic and career advisors, to identify challenges and opportunities. Based on the findings of these assessments, a mission statement, student learning outcomes, and pilot initiatives were developed.
From March 2020 to January 2021, in addition to pilot initiatives such as onboarding academic support, a weekly academic forum, and peer mentoring, RU implemented novel online academic support for current international students who had returned to their home countries and those who could not receive a student visa to attend RU due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In May 2021, the first cohort of international students began to receive structured academic support. To collect timely feedback from students and advisors, RU has conducted a comprehensive survey on first-year international students, returning international students, and advisors every fall semester since 2020. With inspiring and positive assessment results, in 2022, RU examined the main initiatives, solidified them into five pillars, and constructed an international student success model that can be applied to various types of higher education institutions and officially introduced into the academic advising profession (LeBeau & Schaffling, 2023). The five pillars are (1) prearrival academic coaching, (2) peer mentoring, (3) advisor training, (4) academic intervention, and (5) communication. RU's International Student Success Model presents a vision for student success by changing the narrative of international student support and, most importantly, bringing together academic advising and international education. It begins by answering the question of “why” (Figure 1).
The international student success model (LeBeau & Schaffling, 2023).
Five Pillars of the International Student Success Model.
There was a critical parallel initiative during the development process of RU's international student success model. While RU was exploring and conceptualizing the success framework, RU's researchers noted that the 37 advising communities in NACADA, a professional association serving over 14,000 academic advisors worldwide, support a wide range of student populations, but none focus on international students. In the meantime, NAFSA's International Student and Scholar Services Knowledge Community, the largest professional association of international education in the world, supports international students mainly by focusing on visa services, English-language improvement, and social support, but offers limited help on academic success. In this context, the researchers submitted a proposal to NACADA to establish an International Student Success Advising Community, aiming to enhance international students’ educational attainment globally. Following NACADA's guidance, in 2022, RU conducted a global survey to inquire about academic advisors’ experiences of working with international students.
With convincing survey results and anecdotes from NACADA's 2022 annual conference, the NACADA Board of Directors officially approved the establishment of the International Student Success Advising Community in March 2023. The establishment of the International Student Success Advising Community affirmed the essence of RU's initiatives. One of the objectives of the International Student Success AC is to develop the success model. These two initiatives support the foundation and establishment of the international student success model.
Research Method
Study Design
This study employs a practice-based research design to document the iterative development and assessment of an institutional international student success model. Consistent with utilization-focused evaluation frameworks (Patton, 2008), this approach treats program data as a primary source of evidence for understanding whether and how an intervention produces meaningful outcomes for its intended beneficiaries. Similarly, Upcraft and Schuh (1996) argue that rigorous assessment in student affairs contexts requires practitioners to systematically collect, analyze, and interpret data to determine whether programs and services are achieving their goals, precisely the methodological stance taken in this study. This approach is appropriate given the study's dual aim: to establish the national need for a new advising paradigm and to evaluate the outcomes of a specific programmatic response to that need. The study is not a controlled experimental study; rather, it documents a naturalistic program development process informed by ongoing data collection. Two sources of data were collected and analyzed, each serving a distinct function in addressing the study's research questions. Survey instruments are available upon request.
Data Source 1: NACADA Global Advisor Survey (Research Question 1)
To establish the need for structured academic advising resources for international students at the national and global level, RU researchers collaborated with NACADA to design and distribute a survey to its membership worldwide in August 2022. The survey was administered as part of NACADA's formal process for approving a proposed new advising community and was distributed by NACADA to its full membership. A total of 255 academic advisors from institutions across the United States and internationally completed the survey. Survey items included Likert-scale questions about advisors’ confidence in working with international students, their perceptions of institutional support, and their professional development needs, as well as open-ended items inviting qualitative responses. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all closed-ended items. Open-ended responses and public remarks gathered at the NACADA annual conferences in 2022 and 2023 were reviewed and organized thematically to identify recurring concerns and areas of consensus. These findings are used in this study to address Research Question 1 by demonstrating the scope and urgency of the need for a new professional framework for advising international students.
Data Source 2: RU Longitudinal Program Assessment Surveys (Research Question 2)
To assess the development and outcomes of RU's International Student Success Model, RU researchers administered annual online surveys to three populations each fall semester since 2020: incoming first-year international students, returning international students, and academic advisors. Following Upcraft and Schuh's (1996) framework for student affairs assessment, survey items were designed to measure outcomes directly aligned with the program's stated goals, in this case, the five pillars of the success model: prearrival academic coaching, peer mentoring, advisor training, academic intervention, and communication. Questions remained largely consistent across years to enable longitudinal comparison, with targeted revisions made annually based on program feedback. Participation was voluntary.
Data analysis consisted of descriptive statistics across years, with year-over-year comparisons used to identify trends in student engagement, program utilization, and self-reported learning outcomes. For the peer mentoring component, average GPA was compared between students who reported engaging with their peer mentor “most of the time” versus those who reported engaging “rarely,” to assess the relationship between program participation and academic performance. This comparison is descriptive and correlational; no causal claims are made. As Patton (2008) notes, the value of utilization-focused evaluation lies not in establishing experimental causality but in generating actionable, credible evidence that practitioners and stakeholders can use to improve programs and inform decision-making. These findings are used to address Research Question 2 by documenting the advising strategies and programmatic initiatives that comprise RU's model and tracking their impact over time.
Results
The findings are presented in two parts, corresponding to the study's two data sources. The first part reports results from the 2022 NACADA global advisor survey and selected qualitative remarks gathered at the NACADA annual conferences in 2022 and 2023, addressing Research Question 1. The second part presents longitudinal program assessment data collected at RU from 2020 to 2024, addressing Research Question 2.
Advisor Workload With International Students and Reflection on Working With Them
The majority of survey respondents work with a relatively small international student population: 54.8% advise cohorts in which fewer than 10% of students are international, while only 11.5% work with populations in which international students represent more than half. Despite this distribution, 60.8% of respondents expressed at least some confidence in advising international students on their unique academic characteristics, while 39% reported persistent uncertainty about their ability to do so effectively.
Confidence levels varied markedly across advising topics. Respondents reported the highest confidence in advising on academic standing matters: dropping below 12 credits (52.4% very confident), academic integrity (50.6%), and academic probation and suspension (51.2%). By contrast, advisors reported notable uncertainty in areas directly tied to international students’ immigration status and interpersonal integration: F-1 visa requirements (45.4% very or somewhat unconfident), F-1 I-20 forms (46.6% very unconfident), communication barriers with course instructors (18.4% very unconfident), and supporting students experiencing social isolation (addressed with confidence by only 39.9% of respondents).
Institutional Academic Support for International Students
Advisors’ responses indicate that institutional support for international students remains inconsistent across the field. Fewer than four in 10 respondents (39.8%) believed their institution successfully supports new international students in their academic transition, while 51.8% were uncertain. Postgraduation support was even less prevalent: only 18.9% of respondents believed their institution adequately prepares international students for life after graduation, with 53.1% unsure and 28.1% indicating their institution does not do so. Only 44% reported the existence of specific onboarding programs designed for new international students.
Advisors identified the most common challenges international students face through their direct professional observations. The leading challenges were adjustment to a new academic environment (14.1%), unfamiliar communication norms in English (12.5%), difficulty navigating academic resources (11.8%), unfamiliar teaching styles (11.5%), English language proficiency (11.4%), and mental health concerns (10.9%). Open-ended responses further revealed practical barriers, including housing affordability, transportation, food insecurity, cultural adjustment, family obligations, and financial hardship.
When international students do seek advising appointments, advisors reported that students most frequently raise the following concerns: core and general education requirements (17.1%), credit transfer (11.3%), communication barriers with course instructors (8.7%), risk of dropping below 12 credits (8.4%), and Curricular Practical Training and Optional Practical Training questions (7.2%).
Advisors’ Professional Development Needs
The need for professional development in international student advising was expressed by 95.8% of respondents, representing a near-unanimous consensus across the survey sample. The most frequently requested forms of professional development were workshops focused on understanding international students’ characteristics and challenges (33.4%), intercultural communication training (31.1%), and advising models specifically designed to support international student success (30.8%). Additional requests included training on visa and immigration requirements, international education systems, and strategies for connecting students to campus and community resources.
Regarding prior training, 51.2% of respondents reported having received some form of preparation related to advising international students, while 48.8% had received none. Among those with prior training, 48.4% received it from their own institution, 18.8% from NAFSA, 17.2% from NACADA, and 15.6% from other sources, such as graduate programs or prior international student services experience. These findings indicate that institutional training is the predominant, and often the sole, source of preparation in this area, and that nearly half of practicing advisors enter this work without any formal preparation.
Taken together, the NACADA survey findings reveal that while advisors demonstrate commitment to supporting international students, systemic gaps in preparation, institutional infrastructure, and access to specialized knowledge constitute significant barriers to effective practice. The high demand for professional development and the strong interest in a dedicated advising community reflect a field that recognizes these gaps and is positioned for change.
Qualitative Remarks from NACADA Annual Conferences
In addition to the quantitative survey findings, qualitative data were gathered from an open meeting of the proposed International Student Success Advising Community held during the 2022 NACADA annual conference. Twenty participants representing 15 higher education institutions attended. Selected remarks illustrate the breadth and urgency of the concerns expressed. Examples are “Finally, someone is paying attention to international student success beyond immigration regulations and English language training”; “NAFSA and NACADA need to collaborate to address the gap for international student success”; “In addition to academic advising, we need to address how to help international students with career outcomes”; and “As an experienced previous international education leader and current professional in academic advising, I am thrilled to see the ISS AC is being created. This is a gap that has existed for too long” (personal communication, October 25, 2022). One participant stated: I am the only person on campus working with international students on academic success. I cannot find resources or support from either NAFSA or NACADA. NAFSA's international student division only focuses on compliance and English language. NACADA's advising resources are rarely related to international students. (personal communication, October 25, 2022)
These responses corroborate the quantitative findings and underscore the professional community's recognition of a long-standing, under-addressed need. The survey results and conference feedback collectively provided the evidence base that informed NACADA's Board of Directors’ decision to officially approve the establishment of the International Student Success Advising Community in March 2023.
Impact of the International Student Success Model
Beginning in Fall 2020, RU researchers administered annual online surveys to three populations each semester: incoming first-year international students, returning international students, and academic advisors. These formative assessments were designed to measure the impact of program initiatives on first-year academic transition, student well-being, peer mentorship outcomes, and advisors’ knowledge and skills in working with international students. The findings presented below are drawn from four cohorts of first-year students starting in Fall 2021, Fall 2022, Fall 2023, and Fall 2024, and address Research Question 2.
International Student Success Catapult Program
The Catapult Program, an asynchronous online course delivered through Blackboard and comprising the core component of the first pillar (Pre-Arrival Onboarding Academic Coaching), demonstrated strong and consistent engagement across the three-year period. The proportion of students who reviewed the Catapult Program was 69% for the cohort of Fall 2021, 69% for the cohort of Fall 2022, 68% for the cohort of Fall 2023, and 71% for the cohort of Fall 2024, indicating stable utilization with modest improvement.
Students’ self-reported ratings of the program's usefulness showed stable improvement over this period (see Table 2). The percentage of students rating the program as “extremely useful” and “useful” remain stabilized: 100% for the cohort of Fall 2021, 99% for the cohort of Fall 2022, 94% for the cohort of Fall 2023, and 100% for the cohort of Fall 2024.
International Student Feedback to the Catapult Program in Blackboard.
Participation in the prearrival weekly academic training sessions similarly remained high and stable: 67% for the cohort of Fall 2021, 70% for the cohort of Fall 2022, 76% for the cohort of Fall 2023, and 75% for the cohort of Fall 2024, indicating that the program consistently reached approximately three-quarters of incoming international students. As with the Catapult Program, student ratings showed stable improvement over this period (see Table 3), suggesting that iterative program refinements have increased the training's perceived impact.
International Student Feedback on Weekly Academic Coaching.
Peer Mentor Program
RU's peer mentoring program outcomes are consistent with the broader empirical literature on peer mentoring effectiveness in higher education. Gehreke (2024), in a systematic review of 72 studies, found that peer mentoring during the first year of university produces favorable impacts across social and academic integration, career benefits, and emotional well-being. Le et al. (2024) similarly documented that peer mentoring benefits cluster around academic performance, retention rates, psychological well-being, and social development. Boutakidis et al. (2024), employing a matched control group design, found that peer mentor program participation improved four-year graduation rates among underrepresented students. González-Ortiz-de-Zárate et al. (2025), in a five-year quasi-experimental study, demonstrated lower dropout rates and higher academic performance among mentees compared to controls, and found that academic performance mediated the relationship between peer mentoring and dropout. These findings provide important comparative context for RU's longitudinal peer mentoring outcomes reported below.
Student satisfaction with the peer mentorship program was high across all four cohorts and showed consistent year-over-year improvement. The proportion of students reporting the highest level of satisfaction with their assigned peer mentor increased from 38% for the cohort of Fall 2021, 64% for the cohort of Fall 2022, 72% for the cohort of Fall 2023, to 87% for the cohort of Fall 2024. No students reported dissatisfaction across any of the four cohort years, a finding that reflects both the quality of mentor selection and training and the sustained commitment to program refinement.
RU researchers also examined the relationship between peer mentor engagement and academic performance by comparing average GPAs of students who reported engaging with their peer mentor “most of the time” and “about half of the time” versus those who reported “rarely.” The GPA comparison started for the cohort of Fall 2022 students, not Fall 2021. Students who engaged actively with peer mentors maintained average GPAs in the B + to A− range across all 3 years: 3.34 in Fall 2022 (n = 16), 3.42 in Fall 2023 (n = 52), and 3.48 in Fall 2024 (n = 14), reflecting a modest upward trajectory. Students in the low-engagement group showed more variable performance, with average GPAs of 3.07 in Fall 2022 (n = 24), 2.88 in Fall 2023 (n = 28), and 3.09 in Fall 2024 (n = 12). Actively engaged students outperformed their less engaged counterparts by 0.27–0.54 grade points across the 3 years, with the largest gap observed in Fall 2023.
The variation in sample sizes across years reflects both a decline in international student enrollment in Fall 2024 and differences in voluntary survey response rates across cohorts (39% in Fall 2022, 42% in Fall 2023, and 29% in Fall 2024), rather than changes in engagement measurement criteria. It should be noted that sample sizes, particularly in Fall 2024, are small, which limits the generalizability of year-over-year comparisons. These findings are descriptive and correlational; differences in prior academic preparation between groups may account for some portion of the observed GPA gap, and no causal relationship between peer mentor engagement and academic performance should be inferred. Nevertheless, the consistency of the pattern across all three years is noteworthy and warrants further investigation with larger samples.
Academic Success Compass
The Academic Success Compass, a structured advising resource developed as part of the Academic Intervention pillar, showed consistent improvement across all measured student learning outcomes from 2021 to 2024. Notable gains included: students’ ability to identify academic degree requirements and navigate Degree Works increased from 72% to 100%; awareness of academic support services such as the tutoring and writing centers increased from 74% to 100%; creation of a profile in the Handshake career platform increased from 62% to 89%; resume creation or updating increased from 55% to 79%; creation of a LinkedIn profile increased from 48% to 79%; engagement in searching for summer employment or internship opportunities increased from 35% to 68%; and visiting course instructors during office hours at least once per semester increased from 62% to 84%. These gains span both academic foundation skills and early career preparation behaviors, reflecting the model's dual emphasis on academic persistence and career readiness.
Across all measured dimensions, the longitudinal assessment data indicate consistent improvement in student engagement, program utilization, and self-reported learning outcomes from 2021 to 2024. The convergence of high satisfaction rates, near-universal mastery of foundational academic skills, and a sustained GPA advantage among actively engaged peer mentees provides meaningful evidence of program effectiveness. Areas identified for continued development include further increasing student engagement with career-readiness activities and sustaining participation rates in later program stages. These findings informed the conceptualization and formalization of RU's International Student Success Model (LeBeau & Schaffling, 2023) and provide an empirical foundation for its proposed application across institutional contexts.
Implications
The results of the NACADA survey respond to Research Question 1: Why is international student success a critical priority for higher education institutions and their advising professionals? The convincing results demonstrate the urgent need and demand for advising strategies and professional development resources for professional and faculty advisors who work with international students. The findings of RU's five-year longitudinal research on international student success initiatives respond to Research Question 2: How do international undergraduate students perceive the effectiveness of advising strategies and programmatic initiatives designed to facilitate their academic and career success? RU's research and initiatives spearhead this new critical area of student success and advising, international student academic and career success. RU's research results demonstrate that the structured and normative framework is associated with meaningful improvements in student academic outcomes, pointing to the critical role of the “normative and structural” (Tinto, 1975) integration of academic and social systems in student persistence. Organizational attributes, such as proactive and intentional advising approaches like those taken by RU, lead to positive outcomes for students.
These findings also resonate with recent scholarship on belonging and engagement as drivers of student persistence. Kelly et al. (2024) demonstrated that a sense of belonging at university is linked to students’ perseverance, motivation, emotional engagement, and academic performance, outcomes that RU's Communication pillar and peer mentoring program are specifically designed to cultivate. Bilir Koca and Karadağ (2025) similarly found that as students’ level of engagement increases, their academic success and desire to remain at their institution increase correspondingly, reinforcing the theoretical logic underlying RU's proactive and intentional advising approach.
RU's International Student Success Model demonstrates how a structural integration of academic and social initiatives is associated with positive outcomes for international students across multiple dimensions: academic persistence, career readiness, well-being, and belonging. The model established here is designed with scalability in mind and is generally applicable to various types of institutions with contextual adjustments. It is important to acknowledge, however, that the definition of international student success itself carries complexity. While some may argue that retention and graduation rates are the only valid criteria for measuring success, this study's findings, including evidence of voluntary departure among high-achieving students, suggest that a broader, more nuanced conception of success is both warranted and necessary.
Limitations
Several limitations of this study warrant acknowledgment. First, the present study is situated within a single R1 private research university in the northeastern United States. While the International Student Success Model is designed with scalability in mind and its five pillars are intended to be adaptable across institutional types, the outcomes reported here reflect one specific institutional context, with its own resource levels, student demographics, and organizational culture. Readers are encouraged to interpret the findings as illustrative of one evidence-informed approach rather than as generalizable outcomes.
Second, the annual assessment surveys relied on voluntary student participation, and response rates varied across cohorts (25% for the cohort of Fall 2021, 39% for Fall 2022, 42% for Fall 2023, and 29% for Fall 2024). Students who chose to respond may differ systematically from nonrespondents, particularly in their level of engagement with program initiatives, which could introduce self-selection bias into the reported outcomes.
Third, GPA comparisons between students who were engaged actively with peer mentors and those who were engaged rarely are descriptive and correlational in nature. These comparisons do not account for preexisting academic differences between student groups, and no causal relationship between peer mentor engagement and academic performance should be inferred. Additionally, sample sizes, particularly in Fall 2024 (n = 14 and n = 12, respectively), are small, which limits the generalizability of year-over-year comparisons. The variation in sample sizes across years reflects both a decline in international student enrollment in Fall 2024 and differences in voluntary survey response rates across cohorts, rather than changes in engagement measurement criteria.
Fourth, the researchers are practitioners at RU who designed and implemented the program under study. While this insider knowledge provides invaluable contextual depth and enables the kind of longitudinal institutional commitment that this research requires, it also carries the risk of confirmation bias in data collection, interpretation, and reporting. We have endeavored to present the data transparently and to acknowledge areas of the program that continue to require development.
Fifth, this study lacks a formal comparison group of international students who did not participate in the International Student Success Model initiatives, which limits the causal claims that can be made regarding the model's effect on retention. This limitation is shared by much of the peer mentoring literature. Boutakidis et al. (2024) note that rigorous causal inference about peer mentoring outcomes requires matched control group designs that are difficult to implement in naturalistic program settings, precisely the methodological challenge this study faces. González-Ortiz-de-Zárate et al. (2025) addressed this limitation through a quasi-experimental design comparing 4,962 students over 5 years, a model that future research on international student success programs should aspire to replicate.
To provide meaningful context, the researchers draw on a decade of historical institutional data from CAS/MAX, where preintervention first-year international student retention rates averaged 87%. Following the model's implementation, the retention rate rose to 91.5% for the cohort of Fall 2021, the highest figure recorded in over a decade, before declining to 83% for the Fall 2022 and 82% for the Fall 2023 cohorts, figures that fall modestly below the preintervention average. These fluctuations underscore the complexity of retention as an outcome measure and the limitations of single-institution, nonexperimental program assessment. Retention is shaped by a wide range of institutional, financial, personal, and geopolitical factors that extend well beyond the scope of any single advising intervention.
Importantly, departmental records indicate that the majority of international students who departed CAS/MAX during this period did so with GPAs of 3.5 or above, suggesting that attrition in these cohorts was largely voluntary in nature rather than driven by academic difficulty or failure. As Tinto (1975) noted in his foundational theory of student departure, not all departures represent failure; students may leave an institution for reasons unrelated to dissatisfaction or academic struggle, including the pursuit of opportunities better aligned with their evolving academic and career goals. If a well-implemented success model prepares international students to become competitive for opportunities at other institutions, standard retention metrics may systematically undervalue the program's actual contribution to student success. This limitation points to the need for more nuanced departure data in future research, specifically, disaggregating voluntary transfers in good academic standing from involuntary departures driven by academic, financial, or personal hardship, to develop a more accurate and equitable picture of international student success outcomes.
Future Research
The findings and limitations of this study point to several productive directions for future inquiry. First, future research should employ quasi-experimental or multiinstitutional comparative designs to strengthen causal claims regarding the impact of structured international student success initiatives on retention, academic performance, and career readiness. A study comparing outcomes across institutions that have implemented similar models with those that have not would provide substantially stronger evidence than the single-institution, practice-based design employed here.
Second, future research should explore more nuanced approaches to measuring international student success outcomes. As this study demonstrates, standard institutional retention rates may inadequately capture the full impact of success interventions, particularly when voluntary departure in good academic standing is conflated with involuntary attrition. Studies that disaggregate departure reasons, track students longitudinally beyond their initial institution, and incorporate postgraduation career outcomes would offer a more complete and equitable picture of what international student success looks like across the full arc of students’ educational and professional lives.
Third, the role of peer mentoring in supporting international student academic success warrants more rigorous investigation beyond the practice-based assessment design employed here. Gehreke (2024) identified that despite peer mentoring's widespread use in higher education, its effectiveness lacks well-established empirical validation, particularly across diverse student populations and institutional contexts. González-Ortiz-de-Zárate et al. (2025) demonstrate what is possible with quasi-experimental designs spanning multiple cohorts, a methodological standard that future research on international student peer mentoring programs should work toward.
The role of faculty in supporting international student academic success warrants dedicated scholarly attention. The present model is grounded in academic and career advising practice, but faculty interactions, through teaching, mentoring, undergraduate research opportunities, and inclusive classroom design, represent a parallel and potentially powerful lever for international student integration and persistence. Future studies might examine how faculty development programs focused on intercultural pedagogy and international student engagement contribute to measurable academic outcomes.
Fourth, career services represent an underexplored area in the international student success literature. While this model incorporates career readiness as one of its core pillars, the specific mechanisms by which career advising supports international students’ postgraduation transitions, including OPT and CPT navigation, employer engagement, and pathway planning for students with work authorization constraints, remain understudied. As the findings of this study demonstrate, institutions must move beyond welcome orientation to provide ongoing academic support, meaningful campus connections, and clear career pathways for international students throughout their entire academic journey.
Fifth, future research should examine the scalability and transferability of the five-pillar model across diverse institutional contexts, including community colleges, liberal arts colleges, and regional comprehensive universities, where resource levels, international student populations, and advising infrastructures differ substantially from the R1 research university context in which this model was developed. Comparative implementation studies across institutional types would help identify which elements of the model are universally applicable and which require contextual adaptation.
Finally, given the rapidly shifting geopolitical landscape affecting international student mobility, including evolving visa policies, enrollment fluctuations, and changing destination country preferences, longitudinal research tracking how external policy environments interact with institutional support structures to affect international student retention and success is critically needed. RU's experience of enrollment decline in Fall 2024 reflects broader national trends that institutions cannot control but must nonetheless respond to strategically.
Conclusion
This study presents a practice-based inquiry into the development, implementation, and assessment of an International Student Success Model at a R1 private research university, grounded in Tinto's (1975) interactionalist theory of student departure and Berger and Braxton's (1998) organizational attributes model. Drawing on a global survey of 255 academic advisors conducted in partnership with NACADA and 5 years of longitudinal program assessment data, the study demonstrates both the urgent national need for structured academic advising frameworks for international students and the meaningful outcomes achievable when institutions invest proactively in this population's academic and career success. The five-pillar model, encompassing prearrival academic coaching, peer mentoring, advisor training, academic intervention, and communication, offers a replicable, theoretically grounded framework that higher education institutions of varying types can adapt to their own contexts. Continued institutional commitment, multistakeholder collaboration, and ongoing scholarly inquiry are essential to building the holistic, systematic approaches that international students deserve and that the field of higher education urgently needs.
We have no known conflict of interest to disclose.
Footnotes
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.