Updates of the Study on the Indicators for Internationalization of Higher Education in Asia Hiroshi Ota, Ph.D., Hitotsubashi University h.ota@r.hit_u.ac.jp Yuki Watabe, Ph.D., Tohoku University yuki.watabe@tohoku.ac.jp Second Stakeholders Meeting on Indicators for Internationalization of Higher Education in Asia and the Pacific November 9, 2017@Sukosol Hotel, Bangkok, Thailand
Background of Study Internationalization evolves into a more mainstream role in higher education. Strategic efforts and approaches toward internationalization with the government support (financial support / funding programs). Need to fulfill accountability to the government and taxpayers. A lack of efficient prioritization and streamlining within the internationalization strategies. Increasing expectation: universities to be able to clarify the added value of the international dimensions and the impact of internationalization.
Background of Study Crucial challenge: develop the effective assessment process of internationalization efforts. Need for trusted quality control, accountability, transparency, resource management, and quantitative expansion. Requires a creative assessment methods and its related indicators: encourages overall internationalization initiatives and adds a strategic dimension to further university internationalization. 3
Purpose of Study Comparing the goals, strategies (approaches), evaluation (assessment) indicators and methods, and data collection of internationalization between Asian and Japanese universities. Internationalization Goals: priority Internationalization Strategies (approaches): priority Evaluation(assessment) Indicators: importance Data collection: have or have not Evaluation (assessment) methods: preference
Survey Methods (differences) Japan: modified Delphi method was employed. 1. First Round Survey in 2014 Asked 229 Japanese universities about the effectiveness of 152 indicators to assess internationalization of universities. 141 universities responded (institutional response). 2. Second Round Survey in 2015 Asked 37 Japanese universities about the importance of 53 selected indicators that are deemed effective for the assessment of internationalization. 37 universities selected for Top Global University Project Type A (13 univs.): leading research institutions, aiming to be ranked in the top 100 in the world university rankings (Top Type). Type B (24 univs.): Institutions that are expected to pioneer internationalization efforts in Japanese higher education and boost their international profile (Global Traction Type) 32 universities responded (institutional response).
Survey Methods (differences) 3. Third Round Survey in 2017 Asked academic and administrative staff working for international affairs (international offices and centers) at universities in Asia including Australia and New Zealand about the importance of 53 indicators to assess internationalization of universities. 119 responses (as of October 31): multiple responses are accepted from a single university (individual response)
Survey Design Four internationalization strategies (approaches) Adopted those four internationalization strategies proposed by the Higher Education Institution s Responses to Europeanisation, Internationalisation and Globalisation (HEIGLO) project Huisman, J. & van der Wende, M. (eds.). (2005). On cooperation and competition II. Bonn, Germany: Lemmens. http://www.lemmens.de/fileadmin/user_upload/verlag/buecher/aca_download_pdfs/2005_on_coo peration_and_competition_ii.pdf Five internationalization goals & 152 indicators to assess internationalization of universities Adopted the goals and indicators proposed by Indicators for Mapping & Profiling Internationalization (IMPI) project. IMPI Toolbox Full List of Indicators Retrieved from http://www.impi-project.eu/pdf/list_of_indicators.pdf on November 19, 2012 489 IMPI indicators were translated into Japanese and 152 indicators were selected based on the relevance to Japanese higher education context. 7
3 Sets of Internationalization Indicators 1. Core internationalization indicators: 34 indicators Indicators recognized effective and important (Mean > 2.0, CV < 35.0) 2. Context internationalization indicators: 19 indicators Indicators recognized effective, but less important (Mean < 2.0) or their importance vary among the universities (CV 35.0) Three categories: Education, Research, and Others 3. Comprehensive internationalization indicators: 97 indicators Indicators for universities to go one step further or move toward comprehensive internationalization Not selected as 53 effective indicators Scale: 3=very important; 2=Important; 1=somewhat important CV (Coefficient of Variance): a measure of spread that describes the amount of variability relative to the mean 8
Responses 3rd Round: Asia by Country/Region/Territory (N=119) 1st Round: Japan (N=141) # of Samples # of Respondents 228 National: 67 Municipal: 29 Private: 132 141 National: 53 Municipal: 18 Private: 70 Response Rate 61.8 % 2nd Round: Japan by Top Global University Project Type (N=32) TGU Type Type A (Top Type) Type B (Global Traction Type) # of Samples # of Respondents Response Rate 13 10 76.9 % 24 22 91.7% Total 37 32 86.5%
# of Responses by Question Category Question Category Internationalization Goals Internationalization Strategies Evaluation Indicators Evaluation Methods Asia 119 113 95 87 # of Responses Japan 1 st round: 141 2 nd round: 32 1 st round 141 2 nd round: n/a 1 st round: 141 2 nd round: 32 1 st round: 141 2 nd round: 32
Internationalization Goals ASIA: Priority (3 rd round) Rank: 1 st to 5th Japan: Importance (1 st round) Scale: 4=very important; 3=somewhat important; 2=;not very important; 1=not important at all Goals Asia 1st % 2nd % Conversion Point Goals of Internationalization N Mean SD a To enhance the quality of education 41 34.5% 45 38.1% 469.00 a To enhance the quality of education 141 3.87 0.34 c To prepare students effectively for life and work in an intercultural and globalising world 49 41.2% 18 15.3% 440.00 c To prepare students effectively for life and work in an intercultural and globalizing world 141 3.77 0.43 d To enhance the international reputation and visibility 24 20.2% 15 12.7% 331.00 b To enhance the quality of research 140 3.65 0.48 b To enhance the quality of research 2 1.7% 32 27.1% 328.00 d To enhance the international reputation and visibility of the unit 140 3.29 0.65 e To provide service to society and community social engagement 3 2.5% 8 6.8% 201.00 e To provide service to society and community social engagement 138 3.28 0.60 Total 119 100% 118 100%
Internationalization Goals by Country/Region/Territory Country Japan Total South Korea China Hong Kong Taiwan Australia New Zealand Priority Mean of Importance Quality of Education Quality of Research Goal Student Prep Reputation & Visibility Social Engagement Total 3.87 3.65 3.77 3.29 3.28 n = 141 Country Indonesia Quality of Education Quality of Research Student Prep Reputation & Visibility Social Engagement 1st 2 0 1 0 0 3 2nd 1 0 0 2 0 3 1st 41 2 49 24 3 119 1st 0 0 1 0 0 1 Singapore 2nd 45 32 18 15 8 118 2nd 1 0 0 0 0 1 1st 5 1 13 1 1 21 1st 7 0 2 4 0 13 Thailand 2nd 11 4 2 1 2 20 2nd 5 2 4 0 2 13 1st 5 0 1 0 1 7 1st 1 0 3 2 0 6 Philippines 2nd 2 5 0 0 0 7 2nd 2 0 3 1 0 6 1st 2 0 3 0 0 5 1st 0 0 0 1 0 1 Brunei 2nd 3 2 0 0 0 5 2nd 0 1 0 0 0 1 1st 5 0 5 4 0 14 1st 8 0 5 1 0 14 Vietnam 2nd 4 4 2 2 2 14 2nd 4 7 1 2 0 14 1st 1 0 6 2 1 10 1st 3 0 5 5 0 13 Malaysia 2nd 3 3 3 1 0 10 2nd 6 3 0 3 1 13 1st 0 0 1 3 0 4 1st 1 1 3 1 0 6 India 2nd 1 0 1 1 1 4 2nd 2 1 1 2 0 6 Priority Goal Total
Internationalization Strategies (approaches): Priority Internationalization Strategies Asia 1st % 2nd % 3rd % 4th % 1st % 2nd % 3rd % 4th % Japan a Competition: Aiming for the achievement of world-class university status ( Elitism ) 32 28.3% 32 28.6% 23 21.1% 24 22.2% 16 11.3% 6 4.4% 18 14.1% 74 61.2% b Co-operation and networking: Strengthening the international institutional profile 56 49.6% 41 36.6% 13 11.9% 3 2.8% 37 26.2% 55 40.4% 36 28.1% 5 4.1% c Internationalisation as a means of improving the institutional profile within the country ( to recruit good domestic students ) 8 7.1% 23 20.5% 52 47.7% 27 25.0% 53 37.6% 46 33.8% 34 26.6% 3 2.5% d Internationalisation for survival ( recruiting international students is essential for institutional survival or for maintaining institutional competitiveness ) 17 15.0% 16 14.3% 21 19.3% 54 50.0% 23 16.3% 26 19.1% 39 30.5% 33 27.3% e Other 12 8.5% 3 2.2% 1 0.8% 6 5.0% Total 113 100% 112 100% 109 100% 108 100% 141 100% 136 100% 128 100% 121 100%
Internationalization Strategies by Country/Region/ Territory Country Priority Competition Japan Asia Total South Korea China Hong Kong Taiwan Australia New Zealand Cooperation & Networking Domestic Reputation Survival Total Country Priority Competition Cooperation & Networking Domestic Reputation Survival Total 1st 16 37 53 23 129 1st 1 2 0 0 3 Indonesia 2nd 6 55 46 26 133 2nd 0 1 2 0 3 1st 32 56 8 17 113 1st 0 1 0 0 1 Singapore 2nd 32 41 23 16 112 2nd 1 0 0 0 1 1st 4 10 1 5 20 1st 3 8 1 0 12 Thailand 2nd 6 7 2 5 20 2nd 5 3 3 1 12 1st 4 1 0 2 7 1st 3 3 0 0 6 Philippines 2nd 1 4 2 0 7 2nd 2 3 1 0 6 1st 1 3 0 0 4 1st 1 0 0 0 1 Brunei 2nd 2 1 0 0 3 2nd 0 0 0 1 1 1st 3 3 4 3 13 1st 2 9 2 0 13 Vietnam 2nd 2 6 3 2 13 2nd 5 4 1 3 13 1st 4 2 0 4 10 1st 4 8 0 0 12 Malaysia 2nd 3 6 1 0 10 2nd 1 3 6 2 12 1st 0 1 0 3 4 1st 2 4 0 0 6 India 2nd 1 1 1 1 4 2nd 3 2 0 1 6
Internationalization Indicators: Importance by Category Scale: 3 = Extremely important, 2 = Important, 1 = Somewhat important
Top 30 Indicators Categories Total # of Indicators (a) Asia (n=93, 94 or 95) # of Indicators (b) % (b)/(a) Japan (n=32) # of Indicators (c) % (c)/(a) A. Student 5 1 20% 3 60% B. Staff 4 0 0% 2 50% C. Administration 8 5 63% 8 100% D. Funding and finance 4 3 75% 2 50% E. Curricula and Academic Services 11 4 36% 6 55% F. Research 6 5 83% 2 33% G. Promotion and Marketing 3 3 100% 2 67% H. Non-Academic Services, and Campus and Community life 12 9 75% 6 50% Total 53 30 31
Difference in Indicators between Asia and Japan: Indicators for Research Indicators Asia Japan F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 In a given year, what proportion of conference presentations are delivered abroad (or in the context of international conferences) relative to the number of researchers in the institution? In a given year, what proportion of research projects with which the institution is formally associated are internationally funded? In a given year, what proportion of research projects with which the institution is formally associated involve international partners? In a given year, what proportion of authored (or co-authored) pieces (books, journal issues, articles, and so on) are published internationally relative to the number of researchers in the institution? In a given year, how many and what proportion of publications in scholarly/peer-reviewed journals are authored (or co-authored) in a foreign language by researchers in the institution? Citation performance of international research activities, e.g., Science Citation Index (SCI), Citations of paper (CPP) Total 94 2.18 0.69 32 1.97.647 94 2.18 0.67 32 1.97.647 94 2.17 0.62 32 1.97.695 94 2.38 0.67 32 2.03.782 94 2.11 0.70 32 2.25.803 93 2.40 0.66 32 2.31.821 93 2.23 0.46 32 2.08 0.57
Difference in Indicators between Asia and Japan B3 C7 C6 A1 E2 B2 E6 Indicators In a given year, out of all academic staff members in the institution, what proportion have foreign citizenship? Does the institution set quantitative targets set for study abroad? Does the institution set quantitative targets set for international students? Out of all students that graduate from the institution in a given year, what proportion are international students? Does the institution provide support (? e.g. programmes teaching the host country's language as a second language, tutor system?) to international students with special academic needs? In a given year, what proportion of the institution's academic staff members teach a course delivered in a foreign language (?excluding foreign language courses?)? Out of all courses offered by the institution in a given year, what proportion of courses are taught in a foreign language (?excluding foreign language courses?)? N Asia Mean (a) SD N Japan Mean (b) SD (a)-(b) 95 1.76 0.80 32 2.25 0.67-0.49 H1 95 2.08 0.71 32 2.50 0.62-0.42 H7 95 2.15 0.73 32 2.50 0.62-0.35 F4 95 1.94 0.65 32 2.25 0.72-0.31 E8 95 2.19 0.70 32 2.50 0.57-0.31 A3 95 1.98 0.80 32 2.28 0.68-0.30 H5 95 2.07 0.80 32 2.38 0.66-0.30 C4 Indicators Does the institution provide facilities adapted to the needs of a culturally diverse student population? Does the institution provide support for international students to encourage/enable interaction with domestic students? In a given year, what proportion of authored (?or co-authored?) pieces (? books, journal issues, articles, and so on?) are published internationally relative to the number of researchers in the institution? Does the institution use English language proficiency tests such as TOEFL, TOEIC, or IELTS for the purpose of educational activities or graduation requirements? In a given year, from how many different countries do the institution's international students come? Does the institution provide services/support for international students who may wish to participate in community cultural exchange activities? Does the institution have a specific organisational structure to support internationalisation? N Asia Mean (a) SD N Japan Mean (b) SD (a)-(b) 95 2.31 0.58 32 2.00 0.67 0.31 95 2.31 0.55 32 2.00 0.72 0.31 94 2.38 0.67 32 2.03 0.78 0.35 95 2.27 0.76 32 1.91 0.73 0.37 94 2.03 0.68 32 1.63 0.75 0.41 95 2.14 0.56 32 1.72 0.52 0.42 95 2.56 0.61 32 2.06 0.76 0.50
Evaluation Methods Types of Evaluation Asia Japan 1st % 2nd % 3rd % 1st % 2nd % 3rd % a Self-evaluation according to institutional needs 19 26.0% 2 2.7% 13 17.8% 8 25.0% 2 7.1% 3 12.0% b Self-evaluation through benchmarking with institutions at 10 13.7% 10 13.7% 8 11.0% 2 6.3% 3 10.7% 1 4.0% home c Self-evaluation through benchmarking with institutions 5 6.8% 11 15.1% 5 6.8% 3 9.4% 6 21.4% 5 20.0% abroad d Mutual evaluation and sharing information through cooperation 4 5.5% 10 13.7% 8 11.0% 2 6.3% 4 14.3% 1 4.0% with institutions at home e Mutual evaluation and sharing information through cooperation 3 4.1% 4 5.5% 4 5.5% 4 12.5% 7 25.0% 1 4.0% with institutions abroad f Evaluation by Quality Assurance? Agency 16 21.9% 9 12.3% 12 16.4% 3 9.4% 1 3.6% 0 0.0% g External evaluation 5 6.8% 17 23.3% 6 8.2% 4 12.5% 2 7.1% 5 20.0% h Overseas evaluation resulting in the award of a certificate 8 11.0% 2 2.7% 4 5.5% 2 6.3% 2 7.1% 3 12.0% i Evaluation accompanied by consultation with and advice from 3 4.1% 8 11.0% 11 15.1% 3 9.4% 1 3.6% 6 24.0% experts j No plan to conduct institutional internationalisation evaluation 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 2.7% 1 3.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Total 73 100% 73 100% 73 100% 32 100% 28 100% 25 100%
Concluding Remarks We need your HELP to increase the number of responses. We want more responses! We need more responses! Survey on Evaluation of Internationalisation at Universities in Asia Please respond by Wednesday, 31st January, 2018 via the online questionnaire at the following URL: http://intl-assess.org/en/about/
Thank you for your attention! Email addresses Yuki Watabe: yuki.watabe@r.hit-u.ac.jp Hiroshi Ota: h.ota@r.hit-u.ac.jp 21