Professor Elspeth Jones

El libro reúne, analiza y expone el pensamiento actual sobre la internacionalización de la educación superior, examinando hasta qué punto las buenas prácticas orientadas a los estudiantes internacionales, lo son también para todos los ...

Abstract

The International Association of Universities has long espoused a values-driven approach to internationalisation “to ensure that the outcomes of internationalisation are positive and of reciprocal benefit to the higher education institutions and the countries concerned” (IAU 2012). In line with this, there is increasing discussion about whether the concept of internationalisation has yet been adopted in more distinctive forms in different parts of the world to better reflect local needs and priorities. This debate seeks to consider the impact on policy and practice through new perspectives from those whose voices do not normally have a strong presence in the discourse. In this contribution, we will reflect further on these key points, and consider what might be involved in taking the internationalisation agenda forward in more sustainable, equitable and inclusive ways.

Internationalization as a concept and strategy for, and in, higher education has evolved over the past four decades. Currently, discussion is increasing over whether internationalization is yet taking more distinctive forms in different parts of the world which better reflect local needs and priorities. We first consider several important moments in the development of international dimensions of higher education over the past hundred years which reflect the multidimensional and progressive development of internationalization: from an isolated to a process approach. Then we address the call for rethinking internationalization around the turn of the century, with initiatives such as internationalization of the curriculum in Australia and the UK and, across Europe, ‘Internationalization at Home’. The Covid-19 pandemic brought to the forefront a further rethinking: ‘internationalization of higher education for society’ and virtualization. But, internationalization continues to both reflect and exacerbate the inequalities in global societies. Moving our understanding of internationalization from a western, competitive paradigm to a global cooperative strategy is now an imperative for the coming years.

In countries around the world, universities promote study abroad and other initiatives to enable students to benefit from meaningful international experiences. In the USA in particular tens, if not hundreds, of instruments such as the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) (Hammer & Bennett, 2001) are available to measure quantitatively the impact of such activity on inter-cultural skills. Academics have developed innovative ethnographic and other approaches to support student learning during experience abroad (see Savicki, 2008; also Bosley and Russell & Vallade, this volume). In support of such work, large-scale studies such as the Georgetown University consortium project (Vande Berg, Balkum, Scheid & Whalen, 2004) seem to suggest that, ‘students left to their own devices will tend to gain very little in the way of intercultural development’ as measured by instruments such as the IDI (Bosley, this volume). As a linguist who studied abroad, I tended to support those who consider a full year to be the gold standard, with three months the ‘minimal time in which significant culture learning may take place’ (Martin, 1987, quoted in Hoff, 2008). A recent initiative in my university, and my research into its impact, have caused me to question some of those assumptions.

In this article, we argue that there is an urgent need to align internationalisation and university social responsibility agendas through the construct of Internationalisation of Higher Education for Society. The service or “third mission” of higher education institutions - to contribute to the social, economic, and cultural development of communities - has long been a core function of universities alongside teaching and research. However, the service mission is often disconnected from the internationalisation agenda. Service to society is rarely the focus of internationalisation strategies, and third mission strategies are predominantly domestically oriented. We consider how universities might, in today’s fractured and fragile world, amplify their contributions to society and the global common good by strategically enacting their global social responsibility through internationalisation. Related concepts of relevance are discussed, and we conclude with recommendations for leaders, researchers, and those involved in teaching and learning who seek to contribute to these endeavours.

This research uses data from i-graduate’s International Student Barometer to investigate the impact of student learning experiences on institutional satisfaction and recommendation for degree-seeking international students. Analyses revealed that evaluations – i.e., how satisfied students are with their experience – are influenced by different learning experience variables from those that impact behavioral intentions – i.e., their willingness to recommend the institution. This study finds that, within the learning experience, ‘teaching’ variables (e.g., “quality of lectures”, “expertise of faculty”) mattered most for overall satisfaction, while ‘study’ variables that often center on later employment (e.g., “employability skills”, “work experience during studies”) predicted the propensity to recommend an institution. In addition, results demonstrated that what students value, in terms of their learning experience, varies significantly when student nationality and destination country are considered. Implications for international educators and researchers are discussed.

This article identifies the alignment of transferable skills developed through international experience with those sought by graduate employers and argues the value of domestic intercultural contexts for similar learning. It is essential reading for world-wide universities, policy-makers and academics, offering key pointers for policy and practice. © 2013 Copyright CIPFA.

This article considers whether it is appropriate to continue distinguishing between international and domestic student experiences and whether vertical institutional structures limit our thinking in the provision of relevant, targeted services and support. It reflects on the heterogeneous nature of the international student population and compares that with diversity among domestic students. Outlining some of the factors which can affect their experiences, it argues that the traditional distinction between international and domestic students may be increasingly difficult to sustain. It suggests we need greater nuance in service delivery, and that working laterally across the institution could result in a more comprehensive approach to internationalisation, diversity, social and cultural inclusion to better support students, regardless of provenance.

This article evaluates the degree to which international students are satisfied with different dimensions of their university experience, namely, their arrival, living, learning, and support service experiences. Using quantitative survey research methods based on data from the International Student Barometer (ISB), the study evaluates the experience of over 45,000 degree-seeking, undergraduate international students at 96 different institutions in Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Multiple regression analyses indicated that all four dimensions of satisfaction were positively associated with students’ overall university experience, and the article reveals which of the four is the most influential. To the authors’ knowledge, this study represents the first time that a comparative meta-analysis of ISB data across institutions in the three chosen countries has been undertaken. Key implications are discussed for how university administrators, practitioners, and researchers might best allocate resources to support and enhance the experience of international students, leading to more effective institutional recruitment and retention strategies. The study also offers a baseline for future research on international student satisfaction.

This groundbreaking volume seeks to take the first steps in analyzing the impact of internationalization initiatives from student perspectives. As programs are increasingly delivered overseas and we seek to offer domestic students an international experience, how do we know what works for students and what does not? Encompassing the fast-growing global imperative is a significant challenge for higher education and this collection identifies opportunities for enrichment of the learning environment, with all chapters based on direct research with students. The book provides essential reading for anyone engaged in internationalization and wishing to learn more about the impact on students of a range of initiatives in order to apply the lessons in their own contexts. Chapters include student responses to the following learning contexts: • “traditional” international contexts, where students study outside their home country for shorter or longer periods; • “trans-national” programs where students study at home or in another country and faculty from the awarding university fly in to deliver courses; • domestic students studying in their home country, with staff seeking to internationalize the curriculum; • students having transformational international experiences in other countries through service learning/volunteering, or study abroad.

This study measures employability following domestic and international internships using a game based analytics tool to predict behaviors associated with employability skills. Exploratory Factor Analysis examined the underlying relationship between 33 behavioral descriptors, which measure skills such as diligence, leadership, learning agility, social intelligence, and logical reasoning. A two-factor structure emerged: a Social factor that centered on how people relate to each other and engage with the world, and a Cognitive factor indicating how new information is learned and the motivation to learn. Participation in an international internship predicted the Cognitive but not the Social factor. To our knowledge, this is the first study using a game-based tool to measure employability through international internships, and the first to demonstrate cognitive and not simply social/interpersonal skills associated with international internship participation. These cognitive skills are aligned with the highest cognitive domain in Bloom’s [(1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals: Cognitive Domain. Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain. New York: Longmans, Green.] taxonomy of educational learning objectives, and are exactly what some employers value the most [Accenture. (2017). New Skills Now: Inclusion in the digital economy. Retrieved from https://www.accenture.com/t20171009T054838Z__w__/us-en/_acnmedia/PDF-62/Accenture-New-Skills-Now-Report.pdf].

In the literature on international student mobility, foreign language skills are usually discussed as an outcome rather than a driver of study abroad programmes. In contrast, this article focuses on their role in study abroad aspirations and destination choices of credit mobility students. The study is based on an online survey, conducted at three European HEIs (n  =  2,327), located in Belgium and the Netherlands, and revealed that students who assess their skills as advanced are more likely to aspire to study abroad compared to those who evaluate their skills at an intermediate level. Students who speak a foreign language daily are also more likely to aspire to study abroad. Furthermore, our analysis suggests that the number of languages students speak does not seem to play a role. Finally, the findings demonstrate a significant influence of knowing the official language of the country on the choice of study abroad destination.

Many papers on international student mobility have analysed different macro factors influencing the decision making of international students. However, only a limited number of studies have considered the role of language distance on international educational choices. This paper aims to fill that gap by identifying the role of language proximity in international degree seeking student flows among 21 countries of the European Economic Area in the years 2005, 2010 and 2015. Our gravity models reveal a statistically significant influence of language proximity on student flows within these 21 countries. We argue that language proximity simplifies academic, cultural and socio-economic integration of international students in the destination country and as a result makes the process of their adaptation to a new environment easier and smoother. Future research should expand on the mechanisms of that influence.

Why do postsecondary institutions engage in international education? Why is internationalization considered “essential to our future?" (Association of International Education Administrators, 2010), and an “institutional imperative, not just a desirable possibility” (Hudzik, 2011, p. 1). Numerous chapters (chapters 9, 11, 18, 19) in this volume offer possible answers, ranging from furthering research to strengthening institutional reputation, to launching new revenue streams. Another key factor is the need for institutions to prepare “global-ready” graduates, able to address global challenges and live in an increasingly interconnected society (Caruana, 2010; Deardorff & Arasaratnam-Smith, 2017; Jones, 2013a; Leask, 2015). Internationalization can “enrich the learning experience for home and international students, enhance employability skills and provide opportunities to develop global citizenship and cross-cultural capability for both personal development and the world of work” (Jones, 2013a, p. 165).

This book offers the reader a range of perspectives on the theme of local and global internationalisation of higher education from a globally dispersed group of authors. The theme was chosen by Hans de Wit as the topic of his Farewell ...

This book sets out to offer alternative viewpoints.

The term “Internationalization at Home” and its definition were first introduced in 2001 (Crowther et al 2001). Since then, strongly related and overlapping concepts and definitions have emerged, notably Internationalization of the Curriculum and Campus Internationalization, which have led to confusion over terminology and risk distracting attention from the main job of implementing internationalized curricula. This chapter focuses on the concept and definition of Internationalization at Home. It first critically explores three accepted definitions: 1. Internationalization; 2. Comprehensive Internationalization; and 3. Internationalization of the Curriculum. This is followed by a discussion of three notions which are more contested: the distinction between internationalization at home and abroad; the OECD definition of an internationalized curriculum; and Campus Internationalization. Their similarities to and differences from Internationalization at Home (IaH) are discussed. Next, recent developments in conceptualizing Internationalization at Home and in its implementation are presented. It will be argued that, while Internationalization of the Curriculum is the overarching term, the concept of IaH within that is still valuable in certain contexts and for certain purposes. On the basis of these arguments, it is maintained that the current definition of IaH does not provide sufficient support for those with an interest in internationalizing domestic curricula. The authors therefore propose a new working definition and identify challenges that await those who want to implement Internationalization at Home.

Internationalisation of HE is a concept variously interpreted in the UK in the strategic sense. University-centred strategies tend to focus on traditional notions of student mobility and recruitment of international students. Student centred approaches tend to focus attention rather more on the curriculum and how it prepares graduates to function effectively in the global world as both employees and citizens (Fielden, 2007). Keeling (2004) suggests that the real issue is how the economic and educational challenges are being played out at the practice level and cautions that whilst ‘loudly trumpeted schemes’ may be in evidence they do not necessary signal a fundamental change in educational practice (Keeling, 2004). Indeed, at the practice level research continues to cite lecturers’ stereotypical views’ of international students; home students’ reluctance to work with their international counterparts and their abiding preference for ‘staying at home’ (De Vita, 2002, 2004; Haigh 2002; Hills and Thom, 2005; Kingston and Forland, 2004; Morrison et al, 2005; Seymour 2002; Smith, 2006). . HEFCE (2005) has characterised the outwardly mobile student as ‘…middle class, ‘non-local’, ambitious, outward-looking, self-confident and positively selected academically…’ This HEFCE study provides ample evidence of the need for ‘widening participation’ universities in particular, to think beyond financial incentives (for institutions and students alike) and to embrace the challenge of designing curriculum that influences attitudes, builds confidence and instils curiosity not necessarily about studying abroad per se, but about intercultural encounters and understanding. It may be reasonable to assume, even in this day and age of ‘consumer sovereignty’ that lecturers continue to influence students’ notions of ‘graduateness’ and thus play a key role not only in responding to student needs, but in shaping them. However, evidence suggests that academics themselves can be negatively disposed to notions of the international and intercultural both ideologically and practically regarding them as ‘irrelevant’ to their teaching and learning practice (Caruana 2006). This chapter draws on research conducted in the Business School of a widening participation university, into how new academics’ attitudes towards internationalising the curriculum are shaped and how this in turn influences students’ attitudes towards intercultural capability as a graduate attribute. A purposive sample of lecturers all recent graduands of the University’s PG Certificate in HE Practice and Research were invited to complete an online questionnaire which served as a tool to facilitate reflection which was then posted to a wiki for collaborative comment. These new members of staff are regarded as being particularly receptive to the policy/strategic context of curriculum design and delivery and have developed as reflective practitioners and curriculum innovators whilst on programme. Evidence from the survey and wiki regarding the strategic choices of participants and how such choices have influenced curriculum design will be analysed and presented along with evidence to suggest how this has affected student disposition towards international and intercultural capability as a graduate attribute.

Internationalization of the curriculum attracts considerable interest, yet often remains in the hands of enthusiasts or is relegated to the periphery of personal skills modules. While academics may be “happy to ‘tinker around the edges’ of their course content and classroom pedagogy” they still frequently ask, “What does it really mean for me and my classroom?” This article outlines the experience of one U.K. university, which has been seeking to internationalize the curriculum through two phases. The overarching development framework of the first phase (Jones & Killick, 2007) is now being embedded through the university’s adoption of a global outlook as a graduate attribute. This attribute interlinks inclusivity and global relevance and connects equality and diversity with internationalization to form a cohesive construct for graduate development. The authors describe the process of working with academics across the institution to design and implement learning outcomes at modular and program levels within disciplines, to support student achievement of this attribute through the process of constructive alignment.

Introduction Recent research with UK students in Higher Education (HE) suggests that whilst they have a prevailing interest in other cultures and recognise the benefits of working in the ‘international classroom’ their experience is not tied more widely into learning or skills acquisition and benefits are often incidental, of low yield and not contextualised. Some students also feel that it is the institutions’ responsibility to review policy, procedure and pedagogical practice to better facilitate communication between different student groups (Harrison and Peacock, 2007; Peacock and Harrison 2006; Peacock and Harrison in this volume). Arguably this process of review is well underway and at some institutions it has prompted notions of internationalisation which embrace the concept of global citizenship (Bourn in this volume; Caruana and Spurling, 2007). At the institutional level the rhetoric of global citizenship is manifest in mission statements and internationalisation strategies that trumpet internationalised, intercultural and inclusive curricula (Caruana and Spurling, 2007). However, internationalisation is not a clearly defined, absolute set of ‘best practices’ but rather a nuanced construct which is highly context specific. In other words internationalisation will manifest in different ways depending upon disciplinary perspectives, whether it is viewed from an academic or administrative stance, from an institutional, faculty or department vantage point or from staff, student , employer and other stakeholder perspectives. However, the crucial factor determining the possibilities for intercultural dialogue within the student learning experience is academics’ attitudes towards, and the ways in which they understand, the process of internationalisation (Hyland et al, 2008; Schoorman, 1999). This chapter draws on research undertaken at a UK University with graduates of the institution’s Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Education Practice and Research (PGCHEPR), the first component of a Masters level programme, compulsory for all new academic members of staff. The programme is informed by a philosophy of transformative learning and critical pedagogy that provides a counterweight to the conservative (rather than expansive), instrumental (rather than evidence-informed), common-sensical (rather than scholarly) approach to teaching and learning often encountered in the immediate practice setting (Knight, Tait and Yorke, 2006). This study shows that discussing internationalisation strategy as part of a formal programme of study or encountering it within the informal operational context of disciplinary practice are equally lacking when it comes to understanding the complexity of the internationalised curriculum and global citizenship. This probably reflects the assertion made at the start of this chapter, that internationalisation is a construct rather than a set of ‘best practices’. Internationalisation strategy is correct in anticipating a long process of evolution and development but more important is the form which the process will take. It is likely (particularly in light of Australian experience) that assigning curriculum development exclusively to individual schools and departments will not deliver the internationalised curriculum which will benefit all students. Rather institutions need to encourage the broad based cross-faculty dialogue characteristic of the PGCHEPR in shaping institutional strategy and broadening staff and students’ horizons beyond a traditional outlook based on periods of study or placement abroad. Development is likely to be iterative, if not incremental and a ‘diffusionist’ or ‘middle-out’, centrally co-ordinated and facilitated approach encompassing ‘the bringing together of faculty and students for discussion of processes…’ in the spirit of collaboration and insider perspectives characteristic of action research seems to offer more potential for authentic engagement than either of the tried and tested top-down (from senior management) or ‘bottom-up (from students) approaches to internationalising the curriculum (Campbell, 2008; Caruana and Hanstock , 2008; Chang et al, 2004).