INTERNATIONALIZATION OF APRU UNIVERSITIES -LOCAL PRACTICES AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS-

1
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF APRU UNIVERSITIES-LOCAL
PRACTICES AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS-
Summary Report for APRU Senior Staff Meeting
Stanford University, April 13-15, 2004
Richard Drobnick, University of Southern
California

• Based on materials presented by Professor
  Wan-hua Ma, Peking U. and Professor K. Ravi
  Kumar, USC
• at the APRU Workshop which was co-sponsored by
  Peking University USC, Feb 25-27, 2004

2
Survey Objectives

• to have APRU members know each others current
  internationalization strategies both at the
  university level and school level
• to have APRU members learn from each others
  best-practices in the internationalization of
  teaching, research, and outreach activities
• to increase collaboration among APRU members on
  such internationalization activities.

3
Terminology in Survey

• Internationalizationthe international teaching,
  research, and outreach activities of students,
  faculty, and alumni at university/school
• Outreachnon-degree teaching and consulting
  activities by faculty, students, or staff with
  domestic or foreign participants
• Best-practicesactivities which university/school
  thinks it does as well or better than the top
  national or regional universities with which it
  competes for students, faculty, research funds,
  and prestige

4
Structure of SurveyIndividual School Survey

• Section 1 Best Practices in the
  Internationalization of
• Teaching Activities Present/Ongoing and Future
  Activities
• Research Activities Present/Ongoing and Future
  Activities
• Outreach Activities Present/Ongoing and Future
  Activities
• Section 2 Missions, Goals and Priorities for
  Internationalization
• Priority for Internationalization
• Important Factors for Internationalization
• Outcomes Stimulated by Internationalization
• Section 3 International Nature of
• Students International, Exchange
  (In-bound/Out-bound), Total
• Faculty International Visitors, Going Abroad,
  Total
• Alumni Located outside of country, current
  contact info

5
Structure of SurveyUniversity-wide Survey

• Section 4 Best Practices in the
  Internationalization of
• Exchange Activities Present/Ongoing and Future
  Activities
• Outreach Activities Present/Ongoing and Future
  Activities
• Section 5 Missions, Goals and Priorities for
  Internationalization
• Priority for Internationalization
• Important Factors for Internationalization
• Outcomes Stimulated by Internationalization
• Section 6 International Nature of
• Students International, Exchange
  (In-bound/Out-bound), Total
• Faculty International Visitors, Going Abroad,
  Total
• Alumni Located outside of country, current
  contact info

6
Method for Choosing Best Practices

• Step 1 Setting criteria for evaluating best
  practices proposed
• Innovativeness, creativity, uniqueness
• Scalability, transferability
• Impact, involvement
• Anticipated Durability
• Step 2 Evaluation of best practices proposed
• Scoring each practice by 1 to 7 points (1 poor,
  7 outstanding)
• Discussion among four independent evaluators for
  consensus
• Step 3 Selection of best practices
• Choosing ones that are scored 6 and 7
• Step 4 Clustering selected practices for
  purposes of the workshop by content analysis

7
Obtained clusters of best practices

• Teaching
• Student Research Projects
• Research
• Outreach
• IT Enabled Education and Outreach
• Integration of Teaching, Research, and Outreach

8
Number of Responded Universities and Schools
ID University name University-wide School Total
1 Hong Kong University of Science and Technology 1 4 5
2 Keio University 1 5 6
3 Kyoto University 1 15 16
4 National Taiwan University 1 3 4
5 National University of Singapore 1 13 14
6 Osaka University 1 - 1
7 Peking University 1 5 6
8 Seoul National University 1 - 1
9 Tsinghua University - 1 1
10 University of Auckland 1 7 8
11 University of British Columbia 1 1 2
12 University of California at Berkeley 1 - 1
13 University of California at Davis 1 3 4
14 University of California at Los Angeles 1 13 14
15 University of Chile 1 - 1
16 Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México - 19 19
17 University of Oregon 1 4 5
18 University of Southern California 1 12 13
19 University of Sydney 1 2 3
20 University of Washington 1 5 6
21 Waseda University 1 1 2
Total 19 113 132
9
Respondents by Region
10
Priority for InternationalizationDifference
between University and Schools
University-wide
School
Universities have higher mean and lower standard
deviation than Schools.
Priority for internationalization is
significantly different between university and
school mean (p 0.05).
11
Priority for InternationalizationDifference
between Regions
University-wide
No significant difference between regions.
School
Means are significantly different between regions
(p0.05).
The gap between university and schools is larger
in North America/Oceania than Asia
12
Where Is Internationalization Stated?Comparison
between university and school
School
University-wide
B2 Mission statement B3 Strategic plan B4 Recruiting materials B5 Other
Valid 18 100 18 100 18 100 18 100
Yes 15 83.3 13 72.2 13 72.2 9 50
No 3 16.7 5 27.8 5 27.8 9 50
Missing 1 1 1 1
Total 19 19 19 19
B2 Mission statement B3 Strategic plan B4 Recruiting materials B5 Other
Valid 93 100 93 100 93 100 93 100
Yes 32 34.4 42 45.2 22 23.7 16 17.2
No 61 65.6 51 54.8 71 76.3 77 82.8
Missing 20 20 20 20
Total 113 113 113 113
45.2 of schools stated in strategic plan
83.3 of universities stated in mission statement
Most universities stated internationalization as
a priority in written documents. But more than
half of schools did not state it as a priority.
13
Responsible person for promoting
internationalizationComparison between
university and school
School
University-wide
At university level, most universities have
responsible person in internationalization. At
school level, 40.9 of schools do not have one.
14
Responsible person for promoting
internationalizationComparison by region (at
school level)
At school level, schools in Asia have more
responsible person in internationalization than
those in North America/Oceania.
15
Importance of Factors to InternationalizationComp
arison between university and school
C1 Expressed support by school board
C2 Strong interest among faculty
C3 Availability of internal funding
C4 Availability of external funding
C5 Importance of international expertise (hiring, promotion, tenure policies)
C6 Presence of experienced personnel for internationalization
C7 Integration of internationalization into school plan and budgeting
C8 Existence of office for support and coordination

• There is no significant difference between
  university and school in the importance of
  factors (c1 to c7) to internationalization.
• For factor c8, there is a significant difference
  between university and school. (p0.01)

16
Success of Outcomes Stimulated by
InternationalizationComparison between
university and school
D1 Preparing internationally competent graduates
D2 Improving hiring potential of graduates
D3 Recruiting and retaining internationally experienced faculty
D4 Developing international activities with stakeholders
D5 Maintaining international competitiveness of the school
D6 Maintaining international competitiveness of the country
D7 Developing international research and scholarship
D8 Generating additional sources of income
Note that D8 showed the lowest scores, meaning
internationalization has not been successful in
generating additional sources of income for both
Universities and Schools.