Posted on by Kristen.VanVleck · 2 Comments

W7 – International Cooperation for National Policy Reform

The OECD Education Policy Outlook 2015 talked about national educational policies and reforms across a number of different countries.  K-12 education was the main focus, while vocational education and training, tertiary education, and transitioning students to the workforce were also touched upon.  This article looked at different policies across OECD countries and identified common themes.  What I mostly took away from this reading is the importance of cooperation, not only for international exchange and partnerships, but also to help support each other as countries try to overcome similar challenges.  This can be done by looking at different policies and reforms that were successfully implemented and applying those solutions in a way that is relevant to your country’s situation.  Some of these challenges include improving equity and access by supporting disadvantaged schools and populations, ensuring high quality education through the educational environment and well-trained, effective teachers, and following up with evaluation an assessment.

I thought Korea’s exam-free semester was a unique idea.  I looked into it and found that the main motivation for this policy was to increase creativity and self-discovery outside of the classroom.  An article from The Korea Times explained that unlike in standard semesters where students spend 33 hours per week studying academic subjects, during this test-free term, students will study for 21 hours per week and have the other 12 hours to explore other interests, as long as it is approved by the principal.  This article noted that, “Korean schools have a poor reputation when it comes to cultivating creative and self-directed individuals.”  Parents and students are satisfied with the pilot program, which is set to be fully rolled out on a national level in 2016.  Critics believe that this break from tests could negatively impact academic performance.   It is important to note that taking into account a specific county’s context and unique situation is important before implementing any new reform.  Most of the other policies listed in the student assessment chart (Table 14) include specific grades when standardized assessments will be administered.  A policy like Korea’s test-free semesters would not be necessary or effective in countries that already encourage creativity and pursuing one’s passion.

The State of Higher Education 2014, also published by OECD, similarly looks at common challenges faced across OECD countries, but this time focuses specifically on higher education.  This executive summary notes that there have been many changes in higher education in response to the recent transition to mass participation in higher education experienced by many OECD countries.  These changes include increased diversity and flexibility among higher education institutions and a need for increasing transparency and quality improvements to stay competitive.  The most interesting thing discussed in Chapter 2 for me was the idea of an institution’s value proposition.  A value proposition is like a mission statement, yet also highlights the institution’s specific strengths as a way to separate it from its competition.  This is beneficial to various stakeholders and a well-defined value proposition can help institutions identify what they are good at and build upon those strengths.  It can also help students and parents differentiate between the various types of institutions.

Posted on by Kristen.VanVleck · 4 Comments

W6 – Partnership between Fairfield University and UCA

This week’s readings looked at policies surrounding institutional collaborations across borders. “A Process for Screening and Authorizing Joint and Double Degree Programs” is a document by IIE that explores Rice University’s policies and processes for evaluating proposals for dual and joint degree programs.  A dual degree program is when each institution involved awards a diploma, resulting in two degrees.  A joint degree program is when one degree is recognized by two institutions.  The reading titled “International Higher Education Partnerships” looks at common themes in the existing partnership standards of conduct for various organizations and analyzes their best practices.  Some of these themes include transparency or clearly articulating and publishing a description of the goals, rules, and policies of the partnership, and quality assurance, which entails risk assessment of potential institutional and personal risks.

My alma mater, Fairfield University, has a partnership with Universidad Centroamericana (UCA) in Managua, Nicaragua.  I took advantage of this partnership when I was an undergrad and studied abroad in Managua for a semester.  According to an article in NAFSA, the relationship goes back to the 1990s, starting with research ties between faculty at Fairfield and UCA.  The two universities signed a collaborative partnership agreement in 2004, which has evolved during more than a decade of collaboration.  Fairfield’s website notes that the partnership “provides opportunities for scholarly collaborations, service learning opportunities, faculty/student exchanges, and curricular projects.”

Although both Fairfield and UCA are Jesuit universities, the two institutions are quite different.  UCA is located in the second poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, and Fairfield is located in an affluent suburb of NYC.  Therefore, many of the challenges listed in the reading are relevant to this partnership.   The first theme that was highlighted by ACE was cultural awareness, which applies not only to national and regional cultures but also the difference in academic cultures across institutions.  Within that category falls the dilemma of deciding which language to use for instruction and administration purposes.  UCA had a very small international student population, so all of my courses except one were taught in Spanish.  I think this is a great way for students to increase their language skills and engage in the local culture.  Of course, this does limit the number of possible participants.

The second theme highlighted in ACE was the problem of access and equity.  According to a survey cited in the reading, limitations due to financial barriers were big concerns surrounding the feasibility and accessibility of international opportunities.  Although internationalization at home is a potential benefit for both Fairfield and UCA, financial disparities could pose challenges for the partnership, especially since Fairfield provides a scholarship for one Nicaraguan student to study at Fairfield each semester.  I really like the fact that it is a true exchange and that students that may not otherwise be able to study abroad have the opportunity to do so, but the administration will have to keep communication open with UCA leadership to not cause any imbalances of power due to uneven financial resources.  Although Fairfield and UCA have many differences that could potentially cause administrative and logistical challenges, I think students have the most to learn by experiencing cultures that are quite different from their own.

The first article named An analytical framework for the cross-country comparison of higher education governance aims to categorize the different types of higher education governance, mostly in Europe, in order to better track changes in organizational structures and policy trends.  The authors describe three major organizational types including state-centered, the Humboldt method, which is an academic focused “community of scholars,” and marketization.  In the state-based model, the state has much of the power, leaving the institution with low autonomy on issues such as curriculum, funding, and staffing.   In the self-governing community of scholars model, institutions are often referred to as Ivory Towers, professors have most of the power, and there is a strong emphasis on academic freedom and self-regulation.   The market-oriented model relies on market forces and views higher education as a commodity and competition ensures quality and innovation.  In this model, university management makes a majority of the decisions, yet the students, who are viewed as customers, also play a role.

The next reading, Approaches to Internationalisation and Their Implications for Strategic Management and Institutional Practice talks about different types of internationalization, the benefits and challenges of each type, and provides suggestions for successful institutions.  Some of these internationalization initiatives include strategies that we have talked about before such as off-shore campuses, networks, and information and computing technology (ICT).  However, this reading looks at internationalization from an institutional perspective and provides suggestions for institutions, rather than strictly taking a governmental policy point of view.  Some of the overarching themes include the importance of having a balance between cultural sensitivity and maintaining quality, and aligning government motives, goals, and objectives with those at the institutional level.  For example, off-shore campuses, also referred to as branch campuses, can be risky, so they need a well-thought out business plan.  Suggestions for institutions include starting small and making sure sufficient funding is available.

Another topic that I think is crucial for attracting international students to your campus is to have sufficient infrastructure, support systems, and culturally sensitive staff to address the unique needs of international students.  Henard, Diamond, and Roseveare write, “Mismatches and misunderstandings in their respective expectations and needs/requirements can create a fundamental gap between students and academic staff” (p 25).  This is why it is important for colleges and universities to provide students with as much information as possible before they start classes. Many international students socialize only with other international students, but wish they had better methods of meeting Americans.  It is often the responsibility of the staff to facilitate programs that aid students with their integration into campus life.

Many universities have started programs that help international students and American students get to know each other.  One example is at Juniata College in Pennsylvania where they have an option for students to participate in a program before orientation where students form groups based on shared interests such as outdoor activities.  The dean of international students writes, “Our idea is that when international students come to campus, they should be thrust into interaction with domestic students as quickly as possible, so they don’t bond and form their own cohorts within [their cultures].”  Institutions should be prepared to address both the academic needs, including language barriers, preparedness, and different approaches to teaching as well as social needs of international students, including engagement and cultural adjustment assistance.

The ACE report named Internationalizing U.S. Higher Education: Current Policies, Future Directions talked about various trends that were unique to the US.  For example, because there is no Ministry of Education and the U.S. has a decentralized education system throughout all levels, federal policies regarding internationalization in higher education are rare.  Instead, internationalization initiatives are created and supported by various departments within the national government.  As one would imagine, the Departments of State, Education, and Defense all have very different motives for funding internationalization programs, but as the reading pointed, economic motives, national security, and public diplomacy are among the most popular.

In addition to the various players on the policy level, the US has a large higher education system made up of diverse institutions.  As the reading notes, even if the federal government did get involved with internationalization policies nationwide, it would be nearly impossible, “to create a national policy that has enough specificity to be meaningful and go beyond generalities, but is still broad enough to be applicable across all institutions” (p 32).  Although overarching policies are difficult in the US, the policies that are in place have some commonalities with global trends.  For example, like most of the world, US programs focus on student mobility in order to prepare students for a more globalized world.

Although comprehensive cross-border internationalization strategies receive minimal regulation and support from the federal government, there are various initiatives at the institutional level such as direct institutional partnerships.  The reading calls these internal initiatives “foreign relations” policies.  Since incentives to internationalize are not tied to government initiatives, they often come from desires to keep up and compete with peer institutions.  In fact, a report by the International Association of Universities notes, “At many institutions, internationalization is now part of a strategy to enhance prestige, global competitiveness and revenue” (p 3).  It got me thinking: Could the resulting competition among US colleges and universities help internationalization in the absence of strong federal initiatives?

Although this article is not talking strictly about the United States, many of the arguments can still apply to a US context.   Knight talks about the importance of defining the various rationales driving internationalization in higher education.  Many of the emerging rationales are at the institutional level including “International Profile and Reputation,” “Income Generation,” and “Strategic Alliances” (Knight 2004 p 4).  Although these motives could be spurred by national policies, they may not be.  They show that, purely academically focused reasons (education for education’s sake), are not the only realistic motivations encouraging internationalization.

The challenge is to use this competition for good, to produce productive results.  As the following quote notes, since a broad internationalization strategy is not feasible in the US, instead of starting from scratch and asking a decentralized system to unite for a goal that really does not fall under a particular department’s purview, perhaps they should use the existing system to their advantage.  ACE writes, “As more institutions formalize their commitment to internationalization, federal agencies need to understand and articulate how their policies and programs fit into and reinforce institutional internationalization initiatives, and how the government and institutions can work together to advance their respective and collective goals” (p 35).  The coordination and harmonization of national and institutional goals in the US is a good starting point for the federal government in the absence of a singular national policy.   The government could also step in to prevent some negative consequences that come with widespread internationalization including homogenization of languages and systems (IAU 2012).  As the IAU notes, promoting integrity, socially responsible behaviors, and cooperation over obsession with prestige are crucial to the success of higher education.  US government policies can focus on regulation rather than straining resources to create a one-size-fits-all program model for the US.

References

International Association of Universities.  (April 2012). Affirming academic values in internationalization of higher education: A call for action.  Retrieved from: http://www.aieaworld.org/assets/docs/Additional_Resource_PDFs/iauaffirmingvalues.pdf.

Knight, J.  (2004).  New rationales driving internationalization.  The Boston College Center for International Higher Education. (34).  Retrieved from: https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cihe/pdf/IHEpdfs/ihe34.pdf.

Posted on by Kristen.VanVleck

W3 – Internationalization: Scholar Vs. Student Exchanges

This reading starts out continuing the themes of the first half of the document and defining different types of internationalization policies.  It describes comprehensive internationalization strategies including internationalization at home which widens the outputs and impact of international education.  These strategies go beyond a singular focus on exchange and embrace a multi-faceted approach including creating partnerships and being prepared to welcome international students on many different levels.

The reading goes on to explain the difficulties in measuring the effectiveness of internationalization policies and concludes by examining factors that affect a policy’s success.  One part that I thought was really interesting was the fact that most policies focus on student mobility rather than scholar mobility.  The article made a good argument for the investment in and promotion of scholar exchanges.  For example, scholars usually stay at an institution for a longer time than students.  They also have the ability to impact hundreds or thousands of students through introducing new course material, sharing their firsthand cultural experiences, and promoting international study and travel.  Whereas students have a profound personal experience, professors can produce long-term direct and indirect impacts leading by example.

I am sure that policymakers are aware of the multiplier effect of scholar exchanges, so it got me thinking why so many programs focus on students.  As the article mentioned, funding is one of the main determinants of success of an exchange program.  Students may have a greater need for funding than established scholars.  Researchers could receive funding for a project they are working on abroad.  Professors may have the option to do a sabbatical abroad and still receive their full or partial salary.  In other words, scholars have more funding options for international exchanges that are outside of policies created by national governments, regional entities, and nongovernmental organizations.  Additionally, there are more students than scholars, so it makes sense that there are more programs aimed at them.  It would be interesting to see the percentage of students compared with the percentage of scholars that benefit from these internationalization policies.

There are numerous benefits to investing in student exchanges.  Traditionally aged students are at an age when they are often open to learning about different ways of life.  World Education Program, Australia states such individual benefits to students as increased acceptance and understanding, language skills, problem solving skills, personal growth and development, and interest in global issues (WEP 2016).  Although these can be personal gains, they are also attributes that create globally minded citizens that will go on to help society as a whole.

Focusing mostly on public diplomacy, the Fact Sheet released by the American Security Project, “Academic Exchange: A Pillar of American Public Diplomacy,” (2013) notes that government funded student changes are a crucial aspect of the US’s long-term, strategic relations with other countries.  It notes, “50 percent of the world’s population is younger than 30, constituting a significant potential audience. Building relationships with youth through exchange may pay dividends for the U.S. decades down the line as they assume leadership roles in their countries” (Trost and Wallin p 6).   The authors note that alumni of international exchange programs go on to hold leadership positions in their home governments and win Nobel Peace Prizes.  Although scholars can reach a wide audience, student exchange represents an investment in human capital for long-term benefits.  Both student and scholar exchanges are crucial to comprehensive, multi-faceted internationalization policies.

 

Sources:

Trost, K. and Wallin, M.  (2013).  Academic exchange: A pillar of American public diplomacy.  American Security Project.  Retrieved from: https://americansecurityproject.org/ASP%20Reports/Ref%200135%20-%20Academic%20Exchange%20-%20A%20Pillar%20of%20American%20Public%20Diplomacy.pdf.

WEP. (2016). Benefits of student exchange.  World Education Program, Australia.  Retrieved from: https://wep.org.au/student-exchange/benefits-of-student-exchange/.