This week’s reading, Internationalizing Higher Education Worldwide: National Programs and Policies, continued to discussed more policies and strategies that are currently being implemented and evaluated in the world of higher education around the globe.

One of the important policies discussed in the reading is Cross-border education, which seems to be quickly developing due to the technology advances, and is also called “transnational or borderless education”. Cross-border education policy is aimed to “establish partnerships among institutions on national, regional and international levels, create educational hubs, encourage domestic institutions to create campuses and programs abroad, and regulate cross-border educational activities” (P.39). All of listed objectives are ways to increase capacities within domestic institutions, while regulating institutional activities and increasing the presence on the international market.

Internationalization at home is another motivating policy described in the reading. Creating international experiences on campus locally is another step to expose students and faculty to the internationalization without the need to travel and the issue of accessibility. I strongly believe that this should be a major priority among many of the internationalization policies in the institutions, as this one in particular provides highest access to all students on campus and will provide greater long-term results. Although the initial investment/funding requirement for hiring international faculty and altering curriculum might be higher than for any other policy/strategy, it will be able to impact larger number of students without the need and cost of traveling abroad.

The internationalization policies and strategies are not easy to evaluate. There are many aspects that make the measurement of outputs, outcomes, and impact arbitrary. The output is typically the easiest to measure, with the number of participants, however, outcomes and impact are way too broad to try to analyze with quantitative measures. Instead, understanding the reason and motivation behind the policy of program is more valuable in determining the effectiveness and reviewing outcomes of internationalization. To support and expand their point of view, Hans de Wit discussed assessment of internationalization in Higher Education in the report by European Association for Higher Education Measuring success in the internationalization of higher education and stated, “Assessments should simultaneously probe not only the particular outcomes of internationalization, but also the contribution of these to the overarching directions and aspirations of institutions” (P. 9). I highly support this point of view of the assessment, as it focuses on the mission, goals, and strategy of the individual institutions, which might not have a globalization as a priority, but forced to spend a substantial amount of resources to meet the standard around the world. With such approach, evaluating the effectiveness and success of the internationalization is more accurate, as it will be in relation to the go initially set goals and priorities.

Natallia Kolbun