The rapid increase of student mobility worldwide and competitiveness for global talent raise questions about whether Finnish higher education institutions are still attractive to international degree students, and whether students stay in Finland after graduation. In Finland, around 21.000 international degree students enroll each year in higher education institutions (HEIs), and the total enrolment accounts for around 300.000 international degree students (Vipunen, 2019).  Despite the notable decline in 2017 after the introduction of tuition fees, the proportion of international degree students in Finlandaccounts for 8 %, which is still higher than OECD countries' average of 6% (OECD, 2019). Finland has one of the highest share of degree programs in English than any of non-English speaking European country (Wächter & Maiworm, 2014) and attracts international degree students more than the average of OECD countries, but the stay rates for international masters and doctoral researchers after graduation is lower than other European countries (Mathies & Karhunen, 2020). It is seen as essential for Finland’s economic development and its fast-ageing population that international degree students who graduate from Finnish higher education institutions to remain in Finland and integrate into the society (CIMO, 2015). There is a need for continuing research to examine services and support offered to international degree students at national, regional, and institutional level (Mathies & Karhunen, 2020). Student services are considered a competitive factor for deeper internationalization processes, higher rankings, and excellent reputation of higher education institutions (van der Beek & van Aart, 2014). Previous surveys demonstrate a high level of satisfaction with international student services in Finland, yet student services are often offered in a generic one-size-fits-all approach (Kelo, Rogers & Rumbley, 2010). The aim of the study is to investigate international degree students’ experiences of institutional support in Finnish higher education institutions that affect success and integration in Finland. The goal is to introduce a conceptual framework for international student services derived from the application of Student Development Theories (SDTs).The theoretical framework of this study draws on STDs and concepts of students support, success and integration. Two practical models derived from SDTs: (1)Schlossberg’s (1995) Transition Model, and (2) Museus’s (2014) Culturally Engaging Campus Environment (CECE) Model, are used to explain international degree students’ experiences of support in higher education, and the CECE Model is incorporated to investigate the factors that affects academic success and integration in higher education. Student support as a multi-dimensional concept includes different meanings for different institutions. The support attributes seen mainly as emotional, instrumental, informational, and appraisal support involve information, communication, assistance, provision of caring, empathy, love and trust, guidance and services needed from students(Bartram, 2009). Students´ success often relates to successful enrolment numbers, program retention rates, degree completion figures, or engagement in activities and integration processes, but the shared goal for most students and other educational stakeholders is academic progress (Jones & Abes, 2016). Student integration involves an interaction of academic, social and cultural integration (Draper, 2008). Museus´ cultural integration concept refers to the incorporation of academic, social and cultural backgrounds into educational spaces, programes, and activities which can have positive effects on the connection with campus environment and student success in higher education (2011). This study addresses three research questions:

• What are international degree students´ way of experiencing institutional support in Finnish education?
• What are the qualitatively different ways of experiencing institutional support that contribute to their academic success, social and cultural integration in higher education institutions?
• What kind of transitions are identified, and which campus indicators are present to enhance their success and integration in a higher education institution?

Phenomenography as a qualitative methodological approach aligns with the ontological orientation of this study since it investigates at a collective level, the different ways in which people experience, conceptualize, perceive and understand the same concept or a phenomenon in the world around them (Marton, 1986). The main characteristic of phenomenography is non-dualist ontological perspective where the person and the world are considered inseparable and experience and thought are not distinguished (Marton, 2000). Data collection of semi-structured focus group interviews of this study was done between August 2020-August 2021 (Bogdan & Biklen, 2006; Kitzinger & Barbour, 1999). Interview guide questions were structured on the three components of Schlossberg’s Transition (1995) model and the nine indicators of Museus’s CECE Model (2014) that promote student success and integration (Schlossberg at al., 1995; Museus, 2014). The data were collected from 17 purposeful sampling participants of master’s degree international students, representing 12 nationalities from 10 different Master of Arts or Master of Science offered at University of Jyväskylä. To seek the sample variation, phenomenographic techniques were considered within participant’s ways of experiencing institutional support in each phase of their study were interviewed; 2 on pre- arrival phase, 4 on arrival, 4 during the stay, 5 on pre- graduation and 2 recently graduated (Akerlind 2005; Paton, 2002; Töytäri et al., 2016;). The interviews were held in English and transcribed verbatim to use as a whole “data pool” for the phenomenographic analysis. Data analysis of a phenomenographic research includes three stages. The first stage of the analysis was focused on identifying and describing the participant ways of conceptualizing the phenomenon (Kettunen & Tynjälä, 2018). This phase is a kind of selection procedure based on criteria of relevance. The selected quotes made up the data pool which forms the basis for the next stages of analysis. The second stage of analysis was focused on delineating logical relationships among various categories. Themes that ran through and across the data were identified and used to structure the logical relationship within and between the categories to constitute the “outcome space”. The third stage of the analysis fulfilled the quality criteria elaborated from Marton & Booth (1997); 1) each individual category clearly describes a distinct and particular way of experiencing the phenomenon; (2) categories are in a logical a hierarchical relationship with each-other; (3) the categories are parsimonius and limited in number for capturing the critical variation in the data.

In the preliminary results five qualitatively different ways of experiencing support and are identified. Support is experienced as (a) a way for adjustment to the education system, (b) a way for acquiring new knowledge, (c) a way for personal grow, (d) a way for providing opportunities, and (e) a way for social integration. Six dimensions of variation which describe the different ways of experiencing support are: developing relationships, information, communication, flexibility, study environment and expectations. Transitions such as academic and social identified the institutions or communities to which the individual belongs among their potential sources of support. Participants indicated that Availability of Holistic Support and the opportunity to have access to faculty members (teachers and supervisors) and staff (international coordinator of the programs) as sources of information and communication were supportive of their transitions. Similarly, some other indicated the presence of Humanizing Educational Environments institutional agents who took time to develop meaningful relationships with them or who were viewed as trusted sources of guidance through their academic experience. The findings suggest that the support experienced in the pre-arrival and on-arrival helps them the adjust to the Finnish education system but more specialized support in needed for their social and cultural integration during their stay and the transition from studies to work. The hierarchical structure of the research outcome may serve as a tool for providers of the international student services to identify the successful support and the needs for support in each stage of their studies in higher education.

Åkerlind, G. S. (2005). Learning about phenomeonography: Interviewing, data analysis and qualitative research paradigm. In J.A. Bowden &P. Green (Eds.), Doing Developmental phenomenography (pp.63-73)- Melburne: RMIT University Press. Bartram, B. (2009). Student support in higher education: Understandings, implications and challenges. Higher Education Quarterly, 63(3), 308–314. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2273.2008.00420.x Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2006). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. CIMO (Centre for International Mobility) (2015). What is the Cost of Education of International Students?” Facts Express 2B/2015. http://www.cimo.fi/instancedata/prime_product_julkaisu/cimo/embeds/cimowwwstructure/55457_FactsExpress_2b_2015.pdf Draper,W. (2008). Tinto’s Model of Student Retention. https://www.psy.gla.ac.uk/~steve/localed/tinto.html. (Accessed April 10, 2021). Hirschy, A. S. (2016). Student Retention and Institutional Success. In H. J. Schuh, R. S. Jones, & V. Torres (Eds.), Student Services: A Handbook for the Profession ( 6th ed., pp. 252–267). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Jones, S. R., & Abes, E. S. (2016). The Nature and Uses of Theory. In H. J. Schuh, R. S. Jones, & V. Torres (Eds.), Student Services: A Handbook for the Profession ( 6th ed., pp. 137–152). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kelo, M., & Rogers, T. (2010). International Student Support in European Higher Education. International Review of Education (Vol. 58). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-012-9280-x. Marton, F. (1986). Phenomenography - A research approach investigating different understandings of reality. Journal of Thought, 21, 28-49. Mathies, C., & Karhunen, H. (2020). Do they stay or go? Analysis of international students in Finland. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 0(0), 1–13. https://doi.org10.1080/14767724.2020.1816926 Museus, S. D. (2014). The culturally engaging campus environments (CECE) model: A new theory of college success among racially diverse student populations. In M. B. Paulsen (ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 189–227). New York: Springer OECD (2019), Education at a Glance (2019): OECD indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f8d7880d-en Perez-Encinas, A., & Rodriguez-Pomeda, J. (2018). International Students’ Perceptions of Their Needs When Going Abroad: Services on Demand. Journal of Studies in International Education, 22(1), 20–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315317724556 Schlossberg, N. K., Waters, E. B., & Goodman, J. (1995). Counseling adults in transition (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer. van der Beek, C., & van Aart, J. (2014). Key influencers of international student satisfaction in Europe. Study Portals. Vipunen. Education Statistics Finland. (2019). Students and degrees. https://vipunen.fi/engb/university/Pages/Opiskelijat-ja-tutkinnot.aspx. Accessed on April 23rd 2021 Wächter, B., and F. Maiworm. (2014). English-taught Programmes in European Higher Education: The State of Play in 2014. Bonn: Lemmens Medien GmbH. Accessed: http://www.aca secretariat.be/fileadmin/aca_docs/images/