Posted on by e.truong · 4 Comments

W6- Best Practices in International Higher Ed.

In this week’s ACE report, it states in the beginning that a one-size fits all type of policy or solution to internationalizing higher education in the United States is not possible. The report says that this kinds of unitary over-arching solution will not “adequately address the nuances and realities of international partnership development in the US”( p.3).Partnerships in many cases are very unique to the institution, so having a one-size fits all solution in maintaining a partnership would not be very effective. However, the ACE’s survey and report on best practices is very helpful for administrators and institutions that are looking to establish a partnership with an institution abroad. These suggestions should not be limited to just international partnerships, but to all international higher education programs.

As a higher education administrator, I found what they said about transparency and accountability very important because having transparency and a common understanding will help with the buy-in from staff and faculty. The report suggests that the institution should make a strong effort to inform everyone at the institution about the partnership program, even during the beginning planning stages. Having everyone informed and educated about the program will allow everyone to have common understanding about it which will make them feel included and more likely to buy-in. Memorandums regarding the “nuts and bolts” of the program to how this will affect governance in the institution should be well communicated. Senior administrators who are heading these initiatives should be sure to include the entire institution when communicating with them because everyone has a stake in sustaining the program. If no one but the staff and faculty who are directly involved only know the details, then how will the word about these amazing opportunities spread among students. As an academic advisor, I would be less inclined to suggest or promote a program to a student if I did not know all the promises and details about the program. As a result, low participation rate becomes an issue for sustainability. Not only is inclusion of staff and faculty important after implementation, but it should be an essential from the beginning.

At a large institution like Baruch College could be difficult, however, it can and should be done. Of course communicating the details to students is the most important thing; but, those leading these initiatives should not forget about the administrators who can help to guide students towards these opportunities. Staff and faculty participation and buy-in is hard to achieve, and that might be the reason why many programs and partnership initiatives lose its momentum. However, transparency and accountability throughout the development of these partnerships is a good practice that all should utilize.

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.

Posted on by Ben Levine · 4 Comments

W6- Quality Assurance, Frames, and How to Develop a Sustainable Program

In ACE’s International Higher Education Partnerships, I gleaned one major theme: for a program to survive, there must be transparency. The piece delves into many other topics, but that is the one that, to me, is at the base of them all. There are so many steps to ensuring a successful program, from the inception to implementation to assessment, that nothing can be forgotten or overlooked.

When it comes to running an international education program, involved parties cannot take anything for granted. Whether it is creating appropriate curricula, hiring suitable faculty, or obtaining funding, every detail affects quality. Something as fundamental as language could derail an entire program due to misinterpretation. I say this because when you associate with people from other countries, you never know how others will understand your policies. At my college of employment, where many of our students are from other countries, miscommunications occur frequently. This is what is called a ‘pattern sheet,’ or a list of all the classes a student needs to take in order to graduate. In the bottom left corner, there is a paragraph explaining that certain courses are recommended, but not required. This creates a lot of confusion amongst students because some believe that they should be taking those courses no matter what, while others are more lax about their interpretation and will take other classes. What they choose may end up impacting what they need to take when they get to a senior college. This example demonstrates that semantics can effect the decisions made by students, which signifies that any and all international programs must be very careful with their wording.

Transparency is a concept that all areas of education should follow. An international education program must get funded, so it is absolutely necessary for the finance team to look over everything and make sure that all their dealings are kosher. Gross indicates that it is one of the most important roles of the finance director to keep clear records that everyone can comprehend. I bring this up simply to reiterate that from top to bottom, all aspects of a program must be air-tight.

This applies to the staff and faculty that is hired. As the readings suggest, they must be skilled in intercultural communication. They must be patient and articulate so students can understand things clearly. Additionally, faculty needs to be a good match for the program. There is a problem across the board of professors being hired at institutions that do not fit their pedagogical philosophies, or professors teaching subjects they shouldn’t be teaching. Since quality assurance is such a key factor in international education, the above-mentioned occurrences are big no-nos.

All of this reminds me of one of the most memorable things I have learned in graduate school- the four frames by Bolman and Deal. Probably everyone has taken the organizational management class in this program, so I won’t go into detail, but as a refresher, the four frames are strategic, human resources, political, and symbolic. As I was reading the documents for this week, my mind kept on wandering back to the four frames. Which one would best fit an international education program? I almost immediately nixed human resources, despite heavily leaning towards that frame myself. By process of elimination, I would then take away symbolic, simply because oftentimes the objectives of the program don’t directly relate to the mission of the institution. Still, the SIO can instill in his/her staff the notion that what they are doing is important. That leaves us with strategic and political. At this point, I realized that I couldn’t assume that just one frame would be the best fit- that would contradict the very concept of reframing. So, I decided that all frames could be used, but perhaps with a slight bias towards strategic. In the readings, especially the one about joint/dual degree programs, it is obvious how detail-oriented things must be. Using the degree programs as an example, the countries, institutions, programs, and students all must understand the difference between joint and dual before anything else! That being said, whoever ends up becoming the SIO must have a strong background in analysis and a history of paying close attention to detail. Who here thinks that they are, or will be one day, cut out for that role?

Posted on by Zeline Santana · 3 Comments

W6, Course Equivalencies & Joint Programs

International Higher Education Partnerships: a global review of standards &, Practices & Process for Screening and Authorizing Joint and Double Degree program presented many ways institutions can establish program administration, good management, and transparency that will allow internationalization to thrive in their schools. I think the section “Ongoing Support and Engagement” is very important in internationalization because both are needed for acceptance in the local and campus community. I believe through this example it establishes the promotion of international higher education as well as other factors that surrounds it, like budgeting and finance. In A Process for Screening and Authorizing Joint and Double Degree Programs, Rice University’s associate vice provost for academic affairs talked on concerns of dual and joint programs. I think overall this is why faculty members may not agree with internationalization and its quality because it is said that these programs are poor in content.

ACE report in Mapping International Joint and Dual Degrees: U.S. Program Profiles and Perspectives that “Program enrollment is notably skewed toward non-U.S. students. Nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of programs enroll only students from the partner country, while about one third enroll a mix of U.S. and foreign students. Just 4 percent of programs included in the survey enroll only U.S. students.” If you think of this in a mobility prospective non-American students would be the customers of dual or joint programs. What might be missing is inter-campus mobility within the U.S, however, the true issues with joint and dual degrees is the money spent on U.S dual- joint programs that at least in internationalization non-American students are using. In addition, academic issues for dual and joint programs arise with course equivalencies and teaching methodologies are challenge. Students who do participate in these programs need approved course equivalencies to obtain transfer credits and/or to start an academic career in the U.S. This particular report states that “In nearly all areas, joint degree programs are perceived as more challenging to implement and sustain than are dual degree programs.” Joint programs are challenged, however, with funding, legal or regulatory issues, as well as, safety abroad. Course equivalencies are the number one academic challenge student’s face at 66%.

ACE report in Mapping International Joint and Dual Degrees: U.S. Program Profiles and Perspectives: http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/Mapping-International-Joint-and-Dual-Degrees.aspx

International Joint and Dual Degree Programs: Issues and Challenges

Posted on by m.parsowith · 1 Comment

W6, Blog 6: Melissa Parsowith (Article Response)

I enjoyed reading this weeks article, titled International Higher Education Partnerships: a global review of standards and practices. In this piece, the American Council on Education tackles the broad subject of how institutions can become engaged on a global level, specifically through key partnerships. Although it is widely acknowledged that schools in the 21st century must join the global higher education community in order to remain competitive, the very real challenge still remains of how this can be successfully accomplished. Although institutions make strides through outlets such as exchange programs, study abroad programs and offering international joint/collaborative degrees, there are still many hurdles to overcome in this field. In an effort to address best practices for international practices and programs, the ACE determined that there are a few common themes which collectively address practical strategies and good practices for program administration and the promotion of international higher education. These include, but are not limited to: an emphasis on transparency and accountability, commitment and engagement from faculty and staff, the promise of quality assurance and continuous improvement, as well as strategic planning and strong institutional leadership. Each of these attributes contribute towards the goal of a more stable and secure future for international programs. Additionally, the ACE reflects upon the cultural, ethical and assessment challenges involved in determining best practices. Although there is not one solution to all of these concerns, the ACE does a great job of pinpointing potential issues and suggesting ways in which the field can overcome/address them.

In A Process for Screening and Authorizing Joint and Double Degree Programs, Rice University’s associate vice provost for academic affairs, Arnaud Chevallier, delves deeper into institutional partnerships. In his article, he asserts that while joint and double degree programs are attractive to colleges, they are also difficult to implement and poorly understood by the masses. A double (or dual) degree program is one which “students receive a separate diploma from each of the participating institutions” (p.35). A joint degree program is one which “students receive a single diploma representing work completed at two or more institutions” (p.35). At Rice U, they have begun to use a formal screening and authorization process for these types of degrees in hopes of alleviating some of the issues and concerns attached with joint and double degree programs.

In both of the readings from this week, there has been an emphasis on strategic relationship-building techniques. Whether a school is looking to initiate new practices and policies for promoting internationalization, or is looking to streamline the process in which they accept joint/double degrees, it all comes down to mutual collaboration and communication in order to achieve the desired outcome. In another article I read by a Professor at Bentley University, she discussed the many benefits and challenges associated with international dual degree programs. Although there will always be difficulties in these types of processes, I think it is inevitable that they are going to continue to exist, so it is extremely important that we read these types of pieces in order to gain a better understanding.