Posted on by J.Gulston · 6 Comments

W7- Taking a step out of Internationalization

For this week’s reading we took a step out of internationalization and higher education and examined educational challenges as well as reforms. The OECD’s piece on the State of Higher Education was a summary of what I expect was a lengthy piece on the challenges and reforms in higher education in OECD countries. The executive summary dealt with a brief overview of developing a framework to monitor and enhance quality in higher education, examining higher education through a business model framework and research funding. I would have like to read the entire report, in particular the section dealing with strengthening’s business models in HEIs. For those of us who took Financing of Higher Education with Professor Apfel, we discussed often that higher education institutions run a fine line between being considered a business and a charity. While strengthening the business side of HEIs are important it is also good to note that any changes to the business model should keep in mind the mission and goals of colleges and universities. An article in the New England Journal of Higher Education discusses the need and importance of exploring new business models. The New England College Board of Higher Education website also provides information on the topic. It is clear that HEIs have to explore new options to deal with the continuous changing landscape of higher education.

The second reading, also authored by the OECD looks at reforms related to education in OECD countries. Reforming education is an ongoing process. I am not sure if there has been a time in any country where the stakeholders related to educational policy have been pleased with education for a long-period of time. In the United States as with other countries there have been policy cycles related to education. These cycles depend on who is in charge and what they see as the problem. In the 1960s, President Kennedy and Johnson focused on greater equity in schools, this also was the time of desegregation in public schools. By the 1980s, President Reagan believed that the educational standards in America were leading to a “rising tide of mediocrity”. By the 2000s, President Bush had established “No Child Left Behind” as the educational policy for the country and currently President Obama, created “Race to the Top” and backed the Common Core initiatives. The United States has a history of trying to reform education using the policy levers that are mentioned in the OECD piece. However,  when administrations change the policy are not continued or they change as well.

The challenges and reforms discussed in both reading can be connected to the internationalization of higher education. As HEIs are looking to become more internationalized, they will face challenges related to the cost effectiveness, improving the quality of programs as well as issues with equity. Any challenges that are related to the internationalization of higher education have to be addressed the same way we  address traditional issues in higher education, by always keeping in mind the mission and goals of HEIs.

-Jonelle Gulston

Posted on by J.Gulston

W5- Bringing Internationalization to the masses

This week’s readings continued to further my understanding of the internationalization of higher education. Of the two readings for this week, the report entitled “Approaches to Internationalization and Their Implications for Strategic Management and Intuitional Practice”, focused on an area that I wanted to get more information about. These past weeks in class we have discussed the internationalization of higher education policy and programs in place across various countries. Most of the policies and programs we discussed were based at higher education institutions but we haven’t deviled into how institutions directly deal with the trend of internationalization; how are colleges and universities administrations incorporating internationalization into their management approaches? The OECD piece breaks down how higher education institutions can approach internationalization. It can be seen as a blueprint for institutions who wish to create or expand their strategic management to include internationalization.

Several connections are made between internationalization and topic/areas related to higher education. The internationalization through dual and joint programs would allow the students of higher education institutions the opportunity to study multiple subjects at the same time. An article in the US News and World Reports defines dual degree as “Dual degree programs show both degrees on a student’s diploma. The program is formally organized by the university and may involve a great deal of overlap to minimize time spent and cost…” and joint degree as “Some joint degrees combine two or more areas of study in two separate departments on the same campus or at two different universities, Kent says, and are interdisciplinary in nature. Joint and dual degrees are also common structures for international programs, some of which are conferred jointly by different universities in different countries, or conferred separately as dual degrees by international partner institutions.” Dual degrees programs seem to be similar to double majoring and joint degree programs are more synchronized than dual programs, there is a connection between the subjects you are studying. A student can potentially earn a dual/joint degree at their home country and spend a significant amount of time at their host school abroad.

The internationalization of joint and dual degree programs is directly linked to student mobility. Most student mobility is connected to credit mobility but if more joint and dual degree programs were established it could lead to further growth in student mobility.  In order to help alleviate the risks that are discussed in the report, institutions must ensure that dual and joint degree programs are all round beneficial for all parties involved- home and host institutions, students and faculty/staff.  An article in Business World discusses how the Indian government is pushing for international collaborations like dual and joint degree programs.

ICT assisting institutions in internationalization is another area worth further discussion. More and more universities and colleges are introducing or expanding the online presence of their classes. Connecting information and computing technology with the internationalization policies of higher education institutions can run into some of the same concerns that people have about MOOCs and fully online classes. However, a major advantage for ICT assistance in internationalization is that it could help with internationalization at home. It could connect the non-mobile student with international experiences or at least an international perspective. By using ICT to help with internationalization, universities and college understand the need to bring internationalization to all its students. Two articles in the Chronicle of Higher Education discuss the pros and cons of using MOOCs with regards to internationalization.

In order for ICT assistance to be successfully there has to be systems in place that would ensure that the benefits and skills that are gained through face to face instruction are still there for the students.

Posted on by J.Gulston

W4- Internationalization of U.S. Higher Education and Government Involvement

As we continue getting familiar with the topic of internationalization, this week’s reading “Internationalizing U.S. Higher Education” focused on the current policies and possible future direction of internationalization of higher education in the United States. I will be focusing on government involvement in the internationalization of US higher education but before that I want to point out key ideas/facts that I took notice to in the report:

  • 1) Cross-border Education is a program/policy type that is growing abroad but is not seeing any significant growth in program or polices in the United States
  • 2) Institutional autonomy and the country’s decentralized government can be seen as a hindrance to higher education internationalization
  • 3) National security, public diplomacy and the economy are the key motivators of programs and polices related to internationalization; academic and capacity building are the rationales used abroad when implementing policies and programs
  • 4) The internationalization of U.S. higher education is not necessarily the goal or expected outcome of some of the programs and policies in place.

These points stood out to me because they illustrate that internationalizing in the U.S. is different from the programs and policies that are in place across the world.

The lack of a cohesive and comprehensive plan for the internationalization of U.S. higher education demonstrates the lack of cohesive direction of higher education in America. As the authors note, unlike other countries the United States does not have a government agency that is dedicated to higher education. Within the U.S. Department of Education, is the Office of Post-Secondary Education (OPE) that “works to strengthen the capacity of colleges and universities to promote reform, innovation and improvement in postsecondary education, promote and expand access to postsecondary education and increase college completion rates for America’s students, and broaden global competencies that drive the economic success and competitiveness of our Nation.” I was unable to locate information on the government appropriations for the OPE, but I believe it is safe to assume that the funding is minimally when compared to their global counterparts.

Government discussion on higher education is usually in the context of federal aid (grants and loans). Legislation that is passed that would promote internationalization of U.S. higher education focuses on programs and policies that are believed to support national security and the economy. The Senator Paul Simon Study Abroad Foundation Act of 2007 was sponsored by Senator Richard Durbin and Representative Tom Lantos, the stated intentions of the bill don’t seem to align with the rational/motivations of legislative mandates of programs and policies that have gotten congressional support and approval. This maybe one of the reasons as to why the bill as not been enacted or is not a focus for Congress.

The report suggests that a comprehensive national policy on internationalizing U.S. higher education is not possible due to the systems and structures of the government and higher education institutions. Instead of a national policy “a broad, well-coordinated set of well-funded initiatives that support comprehensive internationalization” should be implemented. Any initiative that is put into place should come from a policy that lays out the expected goals, outcomes a rationales of internationalization U.S. higher education. Having an overreaching policy provides guidance. Instead of working with the federal government, state governments could be used as a vehicle to put into place policies to internationalize higher education that can be implemented by colleges and universities that meet certain criteria. Most states have some sort of standalone agency/department that focuses on the governing of higher education, these departments could be charged with implanting policies that are passed by the state legislatures.

It is important to point out that for any government state or federal to take an interest in the importance of internationalization of higher education, the officials have to understand how and why this topic is important to them and their constituents. Making higher education institutions global competitive is a good basis’s for providing an explanation, as we already know as Mr. Trump has said we need to make America great again.

Posted on by J.Gulston · 1 Comment

W3- ACE Internationalizing Higher Education Worldwide

The 3rd Week’s reading was the 2nd half of “Internationalizing Higher Education Worldwide”. As with the 1st half of the reading it continued to provide detailed insights into the policies and programs that are currently in place in relation to the internationalizing of higher education. The 2nd half of the reading included the final three policy typologies, a discussion on assessing the effectiveness of policies and the author’s final thoughts on the topic.

The 3rd policy type in the reading was cross-border education. Cross-Border education is defined as “the movement of people, programmes, providers, curricula, projects, research and services across national or regional jurisdictional borders.” One of the forms of cross-border education is branch campuses. An example of a branch campus that I brought up in our class discussion was, New York University (NYU). The link I have embedded is to an article about NYU’s “Global Ambitions”. The former President of NYU John Sexton, has referred to NYU as a Global Network University. He viewed the three campuses and study away sites as an “organic circulatory system.” The article discusses the current branch campuses as well as opposition from faculty and students about the expansion program. NYU’s cross-border education would perhaps fall under two of the initiatives that the authors discusses in the section: one, create educational “hubs” and two, encourage domestic institutions to establish campuses and programs abroad.

The 4th policy type was Internationalization at Home, the author gives examples of how the United States is trying to implement the internationalization of curriculum. The Department of Education is focusing on foreign language and area studies education. These are the most obvious choices but if you look at the description of curricular issues that are offered in the section, it seems that the Dept. of Education and higher education institutions should include all subject areas in order to internationalize their curriculum. Faculty cooperation would be very important when trying to change the curriculum to include “…global focused content and perspectives…”.

The final policy type was Comprehensive Internationalization Strategies. This section dealt with policies and programs that are in place by an entire country. An example in this section are the plans in place by the European Union and Canada. Eventhough the authors give few examples for each program or policy, I thought it was interesting to note that the United States doesn’t have a comprehensive higher education internationalization plan/policy in place. The lack of policy/plan can be connected to the fact that our country doesn’t have a comprehensive education plan or policy for primary and secondary education. This connection maybe small but if you look at other countries who do have comprehensive internationalization strategies in place you will see that these countries have learning goals/outcomes that have been established for many years. They may change over the years but the changes are perhaps not based on which political group is in charge.

To conclude the report, the authors offered summaries and final thoughts about the internationalization of higher education. It is interesting that their final recommendations include the need to shift the focus to non-mobile students. These students have to benefit from the internationalization of higher education. As we discussed in class and gathered from the readings the biggest way higher education has been internationalized is by the mobility of students; students travelling abroad to take credit bearing courses. Studying abroad can be too costly for students so looking to include ways to bring an international education to the non-mobile student is important.

Some questions that I still have after the reading include how are higher education institutions -colleges and universities directly involved in implementing the programs mentioned? Also Africa isn’t used a direct example of any policy or plan related to the internationalization of higher education. Is that because the programs don’t exist or are very limited? Africa is mentioned in relation to Germany and China. These two countries have programs in place to work with colleges and universities in African countries.

Overall the reading gave a great introduction to the policies and programs geared toward the internationalizing of higher education.

 

Sources

American Council on Education, Center for Internationalization and Global Engagement. (2014)             Internationalizing higher education worldwide: national policies and programs.      Washington, DC: Brajkovic, Laura; Helms, Robin; Mihut, Georgiana; Rumbley, Laura

 

Redden, Elizabeth. (March 11th, 2013) Global Ambitions. Inside Higher Ed.                www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/03/11/nyu-establishes-campuses-and-sites-aroundglobe

Posted on by J.Gulston

Week 2 Internationalizing Higher Education Worldwide: National Policies and Programs

This week’s reading “Internationalizing Higher Education Worldwide” provided a thorough examination of the policies and programs that are currently in place in relation to the internationalization of higher education. By analyzing the programs and policies in a comparative nature it allowed the reader a better understanding of the systems that are in place. By providing real world examples of what is being discussed the reader can 1) conduct his/her own research into the areas discussed and 2) you can see how different countries handle similar policies and programs.

The “four categories of rationales driving country-level efforts toward higher education internationalization…” each have a level of importance. However, I think economic and academic motivations and goals have a stronger influence on why countries decide to pursue internationalization of higher education. Academic motivations or goals target different areas of importance especially for higher education institutions. Economic motivations and goals provide a realistic view as to why higher education internationalizing is important. Political motivations should not be discounted but I think they would be better applied to specific countries and/or regions; countries or regions that view internationalization as tool to strengthen its national security.

As the report moved to the different policy typologies, something that I questioned was how countries with multiple programs ran by the national government or other organizations were able to keep all of their programs funded. The programs and policies that target student mobility inbound and outbound seem to be costly with grant and scholarships available as well as in some cases favorable financial aid policies. These programs can cost specific higher education institutions or countries a lot of money (see Turkey Scholarship program). Is the money funded through private donations, government appropriation, etc. Understanding the funding would have given me more insight to see if these programs or policies are long-lasting.

With all the policies and programs that are in place to increase student and scholar mobility it is important that the opportunities are shared with students who would be considered non-mobile. One is to assume this would be 1st generation minority students who come from economic disadvantaged households. Ensuring that these students know that there are scholarships available to allow them to travel internationally would greatly increase the number of students who are abroad which is the goals of many of the policies and programs we read about.  Making sure that scholars (professors) that teach abroad include minorities and women allow the visiting institutions a new perspective on teaching.