internationalization of apru universities -local practices and future developments- professor...
TRANSCRIPT
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF APRU UNIVERSITIES-LOCAL PRACTICES AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS-
Professor Wan-hua Ma Professor K. Ravi Kumar Peking University University of Southern California
February 2004
APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004
Presentation Agenda
• Survey Objectives
• Survey Methodology
• Summary of Numerical Data
• Introduction to Workshop Sessions
APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004
Survey Objectives
• to have APRU members know each other’s “current internationalization strategies” both at the university level and school level
• to have APRU members learn from each other’s “best-practices” in the internationalization of teaching, research, and outreach activities
• to increase collaboration among APRU members on such internationalization activities.
APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004
Survey Methodology
APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004
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
APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004
Structure of Survey:Individual 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
APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004
Structure of Survey:University-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
APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004
Data Collection
• University-wide Survey– RWG member emailed electronic version of the
university-wide survey responses to APRU’s RWG Co-Chairs
• Individual School Survey– Schools emailed the results to university’s RWG
member.– RWG member forwarded the results to APRU’s RWG
Co-Chairs
APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004
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
APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004
Obtained clusters of best practices
• Teaching
• Student Research Projects
• Research
• Outreach
• IT Enabled Education and Outreach
• Integration of Teaching, Research, and Outreach
APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004
Method for Numerical Data Analysis
• Descriptive Statistics
• Comparative analysis– University vs. Schools– Regions– Disciplines
APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004
Summary of Numerical Data
APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004
ID University name University-wide School Total
1Hong 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
Number of Responded Universities and Schools
APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004
Respondents by Region
REGION
Central & South AmerAsiaNorth America and Oc
Pe
rce
nt
50
40
30
20
10
0
Number of University-wide Responses by Region
9 47.4 47.4
9 47.4 94.7
1 5.3 100.0
19 100.0
1 North America and Oceania
2 Asia
3 Central & South America
Total
Frequency PercentCumulative
Percent
Number of Individual School Survey Responses by Region
47 41.6 41.6
47 41.6 83.2
19 16.8 100.0
113 100.0
1 North America and Oceania
2 Asia
3 Central & South America
Total
Frequency PercentCumulative
Percent
REGION
Central & South AmerAsiaNorth America and Oc
Pe
rce
nt
50
40
30
20
10
0
APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004
Number of individual school survey responses by discipline
10 8.8 8.8
9 8.0 16.8
12 10.6 27.4
17 15.0 42.5
9 8.0 50.4
20 17.7 68.1
36 31.9 100.0
113 100.0
1 Business
2 Engineering
3 Science
4 Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing, Health
5 Law
6 Arts, Architecture, Humanities, Social Sciences
9 Center, Institute, General Education
Total
Frequency PercentCumulative
Percent
Respondents by Discipline
Discipline
Center, Institute, G
Arts, Architecture,
Law
Medicine, Dentistry,
Science
Engineering
Business
Pe
rce
nt
40
30
20
10
0
APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004
Priority for InternationalizationDifference between University and Schools
A1 Priority for Internationalization17
2
8.824
9.000
1.2367
6.0
10.0
Valid
Missing
N
Mean
Median
Std. Deviation
Minimum
Maximum
Priority for Internationalization
Priority for Internationalization
very high importance9.08.07.06.0
Per
cent
40
30
20
10
0
A1 Priority for Internationalization85
28
7.39
8.00
2.088
2
10
Valid
Missing
N
Mean
Median
Std. Deviation
Minimum
Maximum
Priority for Internationalization
Priority for Internationalization
very high importance
9
8
7
6
medium importance
4
2
Per
cent
30
20
10
0
Universities have higher mean and lower standard deviation than Schools.
University-wide School
* Priority for internationalization is significantly different between university and school mean (p = 0.05).
APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004
Priority for InternationalizationDifference between Regions
A1 Priority for Internationalization
8.78 9 1.202 6 10
8.71 7 1.380 7 10
8.75 16 1.238 6 10
REGION1 North America and Oceania
2 Asia
Total
Mean N Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum
A1 Priority for Internationalization
6.72 36 2.092 2 10
7.83 35 1.963 5 10
7.27 71 2.091 2 10
REGION1 North America and Oceania
2 Asia
Total
Mean N Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum
University-wide
School
No significant difference between regions.
Means are significantly different between regions (p=0.05).
0
2
4
6
8
10
University School Mean
1 North America and Oceania 2 Asia
The gap between university and schools is larger in North America/Oceania than Asia
APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004
Where Is Internationalization Stated?Comparison between university and school
B2 Mission stateme
nt
B3 Strategic plan
B4 Recruitin
g materials
B5 Other
Valid18
100%18
100%18
100%18
100%
Yes15
83.3%13
72.2%13
72.2%9
50%
No3
16.7%5
27.8%5
27.8%9
50%
Missing 1 1 1 1
Total 19 19 19 19
B2 Mission stateme
nt
B3 Strategic plan
B4 Recruitin
g materials
B5 Other
Valid93
100%93
100%93
100%93
100%
Yes32
34.4%42
45.2%22
23.7%16
17.2%
No61
65.6%51
54.8%71
76.3%77
82.8%
Missing 20 20 20 20
Total 113 113 113 113
University-wide School
83.3% of universities stated in mission statement 45.2% of schools stated in strategic plan
Most universities stated internationalization as a priority in written documents.But more than half of schools did not state it as a priority.
APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004
Responsible person for promoting internationalizationComparison between university and school
E1 Primary responsible person for promoting internationalization
2 10.5 11.1 11.1
16 84.2 88.9 100.0
18 94.7 100.0
1 5.3
19 100.0
0 No
1 Yes
Total
Valid
SystemMissing
Total
Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative
Percent
E1 Primary responsible person for promoting internationalization
38 33.6 40.9 40.9
55 48.7 59.1 100.0
93 82.3 100.0
20 17.7
113 100.0
0 No
1 Yes
Total
Valid
SystemMissing
Total
Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative
Percent
Primary responsible person for promoting internationalization
Primary responsible person for promoting internationalization
YesNo
Per
cent
100
80
60
40
20
0
University-wide School
Primary responsible person for promoting internationalization
Primary responsible person for promoting internationalization
YesNo
Per
cent
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
At university level, most universities have responsible person in internationalization. At school level, 40.9% of schools do not have one.
APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004
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.
57.50%
22.22%
42.50%
77.78%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1 North America and Oceania 2 Asia
No
Yes
APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004
Importance of Factors to InternationalizationComparison between university and school
7.277.89
6.727.44
6.67
8.67
7.08 7.47
5.86
7.386.646.396.06
6.816.94
6.64
0
2
4
6
8
10
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8
University 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. (p=0.01)
APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004
Gap between Priority and Importance to Internationalization
Gap between priority(A1) and importance(C1-C8): University-wide
8.82 8.677.89 7.44 7.27
6.72 6.67 6.39 6.06
0
2
4
6
8
10
A1 C8 C2 C6 C1 C3 C7 C5 C4
Gap between priority(A1) and importance(C1-C8): School
7.39 7.47 7.38 7.08 6.94 6.81 6.64 6.645.86
0
2
4
6
8
10
A1 C2 C6 C1 C4 C5 C8 C7 C3
Schools are more consistent between priority and importance to internationalization.
University School
APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004
Success of Outcomes Stimulated by Internationalization
Comparison between university and school
6.94 6.72 6.72 6.83 7.005.78
6.93 6.51 6.70 6.57 6.845.84
6.767.44
7.337.90
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8
University School
Note that D8 showed the lowest scores, meaning internationalization has not been successful in generating additional sources of income for both Universities and Schools.
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
APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004
Introduction to Workshop Sessions
APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004
1st DayTeaching (11:00 a.m.-12:30 p.m.)
Chair: Jim Sait, Strategic Director, Internationalization, University of Sydney
• National University of Singapore: “University-wide Allocation Exercise for Student Exchange”
– Sharon Chan, Senior Manager, International Relations Office• University of Auckland, “International Collaborative Networks”
– Dick Bellamy, Dean of Sciences• Peking University, “University of California--Peking University Joint Center
for International Studies” – Theodore D. Huters, Resident Director, Beijing, U of California &
– Li, Yansong, Director, Office of International Relations • Hong Kong University of Science and Technology “Executive Master of
Technology Management ”– Pong, Ting Chuen, Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs
• University of Southern California: “Pacific Rim Education (PRIME)”– Ravi Kumar, Vice Dean for International Programs, Marshall School of Business
APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004
1st Day
Student Research Projects (2:00-3:00 p.m.)
Chair: Muhamad Rusat, Director, Institute of Research, Management and Consultancy, University of Malaya
• UC Davis: “Undergraduate Education and Research Abroad”– William Lacy, Vice Provost for Outreach and International Programs
• Seoul National University, “International Summer Camp”– Taeho Bark, Dean, School of International and Area Studies
• University of Southern California, “International Business Consulting Projects”– Richard Drobnick, Vice Provost for International Affairs
APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004
1st DayResearch (3:15-5:00 p.m.)
Chair: Christopher Tremewan, Pro Vice-Chancellor, University of Auckland
• Kyoto University, “Japan-Korea Core University Program on Energy Science and Engineering”
– Akira Kohyama, Institute of Advanced Energy• National University of Singapore, “Program on Air Transport and Logistics
”– Liew, Ah Choy, Director, International Relations Office
• University of California at Los Angeles, “InterPARES Project”– James Jacob, Research Coordinator, Center for International and Development
Education
APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004
2nd DayOutreach (9:00-10:30 a.m.)
Chair: Peter A. Coclanis, Associate Vice President for International Affairs, University of North Carolina
• Kyoto University, “International Symposium”
– Takashi Endo, Chairperson, Committee for International Academic Exchange• National University of Singapore, “Overseas College Program”
– Teo, Chee Leong, Director, NUS Overseas Colleges• University of California at Berkeley, “ORIAS Program for K-12
Communities– Michele Delattre, Program Representative, Office of Resources for International
and Area Studies • University of Oregon, “International Cultural Service Program for
International Students”– Tom Mills, Associate Vice President, International Programs
• Tsinghua University, “Tsinghua-Harvard Executive Education Program”– Chen, Guoqing, Deputy Dean, School of Economics and Management (tbc)
APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004
2nd Day
IT Enabled Education and Outreach (10:45 a.m-12:30 p.m.)
Chair: Jose Maria Balmaceda, Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs, University of the Philippines
• Kyoto University, “Trans-Pacific Interactive Distance Learning (TIDE)”– Montonori Nakamura, Academic Center for Computing and Multimedia
Studies• National University of Singapore, “Integrated Virtual Learning
Environment”– Liew, Ah Choy, Director, International Relations Office and– Hu, Rong, Business Development Manager, WizLearn Greater
China Representative Office• University of British Columbia, “Telehealth Initiative”
– Kenneth McGillivray, Director, Office of UBC International
APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004
2nd DayIntegration of Teaching, Research and Outreach (2:00-4:00 p.m)
Chair: William Tierney, Director, Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis, Rossier School of Education, USC
• University of California at Los Angeles, “AIDS International Training and Research Program (AITRP)”
– James Jacob, Research Coordinator, Center for International and Development Education• Taiwan University, “ Association of East-Asian Research Universities (AEARU)”
– Chou, Chia-pei, Director, Center for International Academic Exchanges• Waseda University, “International College of Waseda University”
– Katsuichi Uchida, Director, Planning Office of the International College• University of Southern California, “USC-Freeman Fellows Internship Program” -- John Windler, Director, International Offices
• Peking University, “Internationalization: development and trends at Peking University “
-- Li, Yansong Director, The Office of International Affairs.:
APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004
2nd Day
Future Projects: Collaboration, Ideas, & Barriers (4:15-5:00 p.m.)
Co-Chairs: Richard Drobnick, Vice Provost for
International Affairs, University of Southern California
Lawrence Loh, Secretary General, Asssociation of Pacific Rim universities