Posted on by m.parsowith · 4 Comments

W11, Blog 11: Melissa Parsowith (Article Response)

This week’s reading provided deeper insight into the world of internationalization of Higher Education. In the survey piece by the IAU, they review the highlights of their findings from a global survey which included 1,336 institutions from 131 countries. Something that I initially found interesting was that this is the 4th edition of the survey, conducted almost four years since the previous one, and it garnered almost double the responses since the last edition! Because assessment is something we so regularly discuss in our class, I would be very curious to find out why their participation rates increased so dramatically. They mentioned that over 6,800 institutions were solicited to participate, using an electronic link. I wonder if in the past these surveys were also sent electronically. While the respondents included the most replies on average from regions such as North America and Europe, they also included participation from Africa, Asia & Pacific, Latin American & the Caribbean, as well as the Middle East. Overall, the findings here seemed to be optimistic and congruent to our class discussions. As expected, globalization of higher education continues to grow in importance among institutions across the globe, and targeted academic goals and student mobility remain specific priorities of this broad mission. I was a bit surprised to learn that risks regarding internationalization have remained fairly consistent between this and previous IAU surveys, seeing as the state of international affairs is somewhat rocky. I wasn’t as surprised to learn that there still remains difficulty in assessing foreign programs.

In the “Mapping Internationalization on U.S Campuses” by the Center for Internationalization and Global Engagement, they review their findings after surveying U.S colleges and universities regarding internationalization activities from 2011. This survey was a bit different than those conducted in 2001 and 2006 because they decided to include “special focus” institutions this time, or institutions who “award baccalaureate or higher-level degrees where a high concentration (more than 75%) is a single field or set of related fields.” Similar to the IAU, the overall results from this survey were positive. Once again, it was discovered through the survey that internationalization is advancing. For these institutions, they saw movement in iAh (internationalization at the home campus), strategic partnerships, and an expansion in international student recruitment and staff. I also find it important to mention that while overall the outlook for internationalization is promising, there still lies certain challenges in assessment and student learning outcomes as a whole.

Overall, I was very pleased to read that the internationalization of higher education is headed in a good direction. In this article by Inside Higher Ed, researchers confirm that internationalization is more and more becoming a priority for institutions across the globe. I am very interested to see how this movement plays out over the years to come, especially with the upcoming advances in technology.

Posted on by Kristen.VanVleck · 2 Comments

W11 – Internationalization Surveys and the US’s Focus on Latin America

Both of the articles for this week summarized findings from surveys about internationalization.  Mapping Internationalization on US Campuses compares the data from a 2011 ACE survey across institutional types and historical data from past surveys.  While doctoral institutions clearly lead the way in most aspects of internationalization, this publication reported a positive picture of growth and expansion of internationalization overall in the US context.  For example, more campuses report having specific internationalization strategic plans and accompanying assessment methods than in previous survey years.  Since there was no change in the institutional policies requiring international experience for promotion or tenure, the authors recommend amending policies to factor in international experience for faculty.

The article named Internationalization of Higher Education: IAU 4th Global Survey presents the findings of a survey that was administered to institutions internationally.  This allowed the authors not only to identify global trends, but also see how perceptions, successes, and issues vary regionally.  In examining benefits, and risks of internationalization, they found that there is still a strong focus on student mobility.  The goals of internationalization align accordingly, including preparing students to succeed in a globalized world, and appreciation of different cultures.  The article spoke about many topics we have learned in class, including the importance of institutional leadership and funding challenges.  I thought the section about risks was interesting because despite the various benefits of international education and the progress being made in that area, there are still many obstacles to overcome including the perception, (and often times reality) that studying abroad is an elitist activity for students with financial means.  Regional societal concerns include brain drain in less developed countries, and solely economic motivations in North America.

I was also especially interested in the geographic priorities section, specifically for the North American region.  Based on the recent economic growth in many Asian countries and the high number of international students coming from countries such as China, India, and South Korea, it makes sense that Asia and the Pacific was the highest priority for institutions in North America.  I was also happy to see that Latin America and the Caribbean was the second highest priority for North America.  The reading stated that many regions, including Asia and Europe, identified their own region as the highest priority.  Since the Caribbean was grouped with Latin America, then North America really only consists of Canada and maybe Mexico.  I’m glad to see North American institutions taking an interest in their southern neighbors.

Since I studied and worked abroad in Latin America, I have always had an interest in the region.  A Huffington Post article reviewing the 2013 Open Doors Report noted that Costa Rica, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Ecuador, and Chile were among the top 20 destinations for US students.  The University World News article that Professor Choudaha sent us last week mentioned that Latin America was the top destination for Non-Credit Education Abroad, with Mexico and Nicaragua the first and third most popular destination countries respectively.  I think it is encouraging to see this increase in educational exchange with some of our closest neighbors, especially considering the various (and interconnected) ways in which we are linked including trade, immigration, tourism, the environment, and politics.

Posted on by Ben Levine · 2 Comments

W11- How to Present Survey Findings

The IAU 4th Global Survey so far has been my favorite reading of the semester. Its simplicity, organization, and approach is refreshing, especially when compared to some of the other long-winded, dense, or overly qualitative pieces we have read.

The first beneficial (and to me, necessary) method it follows is explaining how the survey was conducted and where its information comes from. Many of the other readings do not cite their content thoroughly, including the other one for this week. The ACE survey mentions percentages of its respondents, but it doesn’t clearly state who participated and how many (the information is at the bottom of the document). On the other hand, the IAU survey immediately states who participated, how many participated, and from where did they participate. Already, this document is more credible and easy to understand than most.

You might be reading this and thinking to yourself, ‘wait a second, is he really dedicating an entire blog to the format of the readings?’ I sure am. I think many people, even the most discerning among us, fall prey to the habit of believing whatever we read. As students, as educators, as critical thinkers, we cannot allow ourselves to become lazy. The reason I am commenting on this all is because earlier in the semester, the professor put up survey findings on the projector and I immediately became skeptical of their credibility. Perhaps you remember the information regarding the SIOs- who generally becomes one and what are their general qualities. While it seemed as if the information was legitimate, I remember seeing that a very small number of institutions took part in the survey- maybe around fifty. Sure, that may be several dozen colleges, but when there are thousands of schools in this country, I do not think those results accurately represented the whole.

The IAU survey wasn’t trying to sugarcoat anything or pull the wool over our eyes- it even expressed when numbers went down from the previous survey, such as the percentage of institutions with a dedicated budget for internationalization (p. 8). I think this is an important document for all of us in the class because it gives a more realistic look into the current status of internationalization in this country and the rest of the world. Despite my constant predilection for playing devil’s advocate, I truly do support internationalization and think it is a necessary component to HEIs overall strategy; however, I want to know the truth about it. What are its problems, what obstacles does it face, what are the major controversies. While this survey does not go excessively deep into any of those issues, it does provide a superficial, yet straightforward overlook on internationalization around the world.