Dr. Robert J. Coelen
Stenden University of Applied Sciences,
Inaugural Lecture
1 November 2013
The Internationalisation
of Higher Education, 2.0
Introduction
Contents
Introduction
3
Globalisation
4
The development of the middle classes
5
The debate on internationalisation of higher education
7
A learner-centred definition of internationalisation of higher education
16
Stenden fit for purpose?
26
The research group on internationalisation of higher education
29
Acknowledgements
30
References
31
The Internationalisation of Higher Education, 2.0
Dr. Robert J. Coelen
Stenden University of Applied Sciences,
Inaugural Lecture on 1 November 2013
2
As educators, we need to be aware of the forces that shape the future of education and
the world for which we prepare our graduates. In an idealistic way, one can consider
internationalisation of higher education the sector’s response to globalisation. This is one
of the most significant forces that is shaping the world. One of the effects of globalisation
is that we become more and more connected with people geographically and culturally
distant. We do business with them and they come and work with us on our doorstep.
Our graduates no longer see their transition to the first employer as a life long commitment.
It is more likely that they will work with a number of employers throughout their working
lives.
Globalisation and greater economic wealth, in heretofore-developing areas, will dramatically change the order of things. I would like to highlight these aspects briefly, to provide
a context for the remainder of this discussion. After all, through the educational programs
we create, we intend to prepare students to participate as global citizens. We wish them to
lead fulfilling lives and to be able to contribute to the betterment of the world. We would
like them to be capable of participating in the development of solutions that must be
found for global problems. We prepare them for a world that is changing at an everincreasing pace, fuelled by the demands of a burgeoning global middle class. The role of
internationalisation of higher education will increase in urgency and importance. It is vital
that we address this issue.
The growth of the global middle class in itself, arguably the economic and social motor
of the world, will provide many changes. Emerging middle classes (when sufficient in
number) enable a country to transform from an export driven economy to one of domestic
consumption. The same group of people will no longer be satisfied just with access to
services, they also demand quality. A case in point is the advent of massive demonstrations
against the government in Chile in the middle of 2011. After many decades of high economic growth (with the consequent development of the middle class segment), students
and others demonstrated to implore the government to provide excellent education at
low cost (Pezzini 2012). Clearly, just access to education was not enough; it had to be of
a very good quality.
It is the intention of this lecture to demonstrate that we need a shift in institutional culture
and significant changes in how we think about the integration of internationalisation in
our education.
3
Globalisation is an unstoppable force that has increased the integration of the global
economy. Technological advances have made it possible to move goods, services, ideas,
information, and people with ever increasing ease. The level of acceptance of goods and
services arriving on one’s doorstep from other countries continues to increase. This is in
part a function of price, but increasingly also one of quality. As technological capability
improves in many areas of the world, the goods from there make greater inroads into
our lives. In the early days of personal computers, components, or indeed total clones
of computers made elsewhere, which came from certain parts of east Asia, were a recipe
of disaster. The same regions today produce equipment one would not hesitate to use.
The other major factor, that will shape the global demand for higher education relates to
the development of the middle class populations throughout the world. Whilst a variety
of definitions exist as to what constitutes membership of the middle class (mostly based
on income, see discussion in Kharas (2010), a somewhat practical definition is that the
middle class usually enjoy stable housing, health care, educational opportunities for their
children, reasonable retirement and job security, and discretionary income that can be
spent on vacation and leisure pursuits (Kharas 2010). Another characteristic that should
be borne in mind is that access alone is not enough. These goods and services also need
to be of sufficient high quality (Pezzini 2012).
A testimony to the increased mobility of goods and people is easily provided by the data
shown in Figure 1, which shows the increase in air transport of freight and passengers
across the globe.
The predictions for the development of the middle classes globally show that by 2030
the Asia-Pacific region will dominate the world in terms of absolute numbers and the
proportion of its population that will belong to the middle class.
250 000
3 000
200 000
2 500
2 000
150 000
1 500
100 000
1 000
50 000
0
1970
500
0
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Air transport, freight (million-tonne-kilometres) (right axis) - World
Air transport, millions of passengers carried - World
2010
Freight (million-tonne-kilometres)
The development of the middle classes
Millions of passengers carried
Globalisation
6000
5000
4000
Middle East and North Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa
3000
Asia Pacific
Central and South America
2000
Europe
North America
Figure 1. Trends in global air transport of passengers and freight (Data obtained from the World Bank – Global Development Indicators)
Over the period of 1975 to 2010 there has been a six-fold increase in passenger air
transport and almost a 11-fold increase in airfreight. Many other indicators would show
the same picture. The various push and pull factors for whichever indicator chosen might
differ, but the unavoidable conclusion is that we are becoming increasingly connected.
1000
0
2009
2020
2030
Figure 2. Numbers (in millions) of people belonging to the middle class by region (Kharas 2010)
The main consumers of tertiary education globally will be the offspring of middle class
parents. The shifting balance of middle-income earners towards the Asia-Pacific region
has implications for the nature and location of a professionally and academically educated
4
5
work force. Who will be working for whom? I anticipate major changes by 2030 in this
regard. We need to let go of the thought that the West is, and continues to be, at the
forefront of all developments. We need to let go of the notion that the centre point of
economic gravity remains in the West, as it simply is not going to be.
100%
90%
80%
70%
Middle East and North Africa
60%
Sub-Saharan Africa
50%
Asia Pacific
40%
Central and South America
In a recent staff survey (2012) 70% of staff considered internationalisation as the most
important of three strategic pillars as outlined in the Institutional Strategy of Stenden
University of Applied Sciences (SUAS 2013). Given the high level of support amongst staff,
it is important therefore that we recognise clearly what internationalisation entails, what
we should be doing, and more importantly, how we can improve on what we are already
doing (see page 26 for further discussion). To get some answers to these questions we
need to consider the debate that is developing around the globe about internationalisation
of higher education.
Europe
30%
North America
20%
The debate on internationalisation
of higher education
10%
0%
2009
2020
2030
Figure 3. Proportion of the world’s middle class by region (Kharas 2010)
A dramatic example of the type of change in thinking that is required was provided by an
incident in a mission I lead to China some 10 years ago. One of the members of the mission
conducted research on a rare human disease. His idea, prior to undertaking the mission,
was to engage with potential collaborators in China as they had access to more of the rare
cases given the enormous population size. His collaborators in China would be able to
provide the samples and the technologically difficult work would be performed on these
samples in Europe. At the conclusion of the mission, his attitude was that he would be
glad if they could collaborate, but realised that in China they were much further advanced
than he had imagined. His initial thought of a division of labour in the collaboration based
on technological difference had to be adjusted very dramatically.
The rate of change will accelerate over the next decade and-a-half and we need to ensure
that our graduates will be able to work and contribute gainfully over more than three times
that period. If, as we and many other institutes of higher education (IAU Global Survey
on Internationalization of Higher Education – 2003, 2005, 2010) claim, our graduates
6
are educated in such a way as to be able to apply their skills and knowledge regardless
of the cultural context in which they find themselves, then we have our work cut out to
make sure that our education delivers on that promise. Other often quoted reasons for
internationalising higher education include the improvement of academic quality, the
strengthening of research, attracting new students, generating revenue, and more and
more enhancing prestige and reputation (Egron-Polak 2012).
Since the 1990s internationalisation of higher education has taken a flight. The interpretation of what this meant was wide and varied and more or less three types of activity
existed. The emphasis on what was practiced and how varied at all levels from supranational to institutional. These 3 activities included, inviting or recruiting international students
for degree study, outbound mobility in the form of study abroad or international exchange
as part of the degree from the home institution, and attention to ‘Internationalisation at
Home’. A comprehensive treatise on the concept and the possible actions that could be
undertaken at the institutional level was provided by Hudzik (2011).
National or supranational political interest has increased since internationalisation started
to take on significant dimensions. Such interest inevitably comes with political agendas
and thus, this becomes part of the complex environment within which internationalisation
activities take place. The national or supranational agendas not only provide a policy
context, but also support.
The European Commission has weighed in for example with the ongoing development of
a strategy for the internationalisation of higher education. In the most general sense the
Europe 2020 strategy has set ambitious targets for smart, inclusive, and sustainable growth.
7
It puts a strong focus on knowledge and innovation, sustainability, and social inclusion.
It calls for a greater proportion of 30-34 year olds having completed tertiary education
(2011). Recently (2013), the European Commission published a communication in which
it identified the need for comprehensive internationalisation strategies. Such strategies
should cover three areas: international student and staff mobility; internationalisation of
the curriculum and digital learning; and strategic cooperation in the form of partnerships,
and capacity building. The Roadmap of the European Commission identifies a number of
issues in the internationalisation of higher education, including the uneven distribution
of international students across EU countries, the competition for talent by other world
regions, and the shortage of talent in a wide range of occupations in the EU (2011). The
European Commission contends that it has a supporting competence in the area relevant
to Education, Youth, and Training (Lisbon Treaty) and that it will support Member States
through policy cooperation and through implementation of support for international
academic mobility and cooperation.
From this it is also evident that at the National level there is considerable interest in
internationalising higher education. Indeed, the global picture is that the race for talent
(either through import or by local development) and for the development of knowledgebased economies is gaining momentum. However, this is not the only motivation expressed,
for increased internationalisation. There is a broad consensus across the world that if
countries are to improve their national productivity, universities are critical to this mission
(El-Khawas 2012). This explains in part the increased interest by governments in their
higher education institutions and how they perform vis-à-vis this agenda. A few examples
of the motivation of governments will suffice to illustrate this.
The Report by the Commission on Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program
(2005) provided a range of arguments why internationalisation of higher education in the
form of foreign study was essential to the future of the nation, including national security
(knowledge of foreign languages), US global leadership, acquisition of important skill sets,
and the ability to engage the international community. Periods of slow or negative growth
of international student participation in higher education in the US have caused concerns,
as at times international graduate students who are often employed as teaching assistance
were very hard to come by. This had an impact on the ability to conduct certain educational
programs. The debate on the explicit recruitment of international students to the USA
by higher education institutions undoubtedly has part of its roots in the difficulties that
were experienced as a result of a decline in international graduate students some time
ago (Deupree, Miller et al. 2011) .
8
A request for investigation into the standing and performance of top Chinese universities
by their government led to the advent of global ranking (ARWU 2013). This request for an
investigation has been preceded and has been followed up with significant investments by
the government in higher education. Thus, China is committed to become a global leader in
the area of environmental solutions and technologies such as wind and solar energy and
understands that universities play a key role (Morgan 2010). To accelerate development
and research, China sees international collaboration as a key initiative and continues to
develop new initiatives (NOST).
The importance of internationalisation of higher education in the Netherlands has been
clearly underwritten in a recent government commissioned report (Veerman 2010). In this
report it is held that higher education has no option but to internationalise to ensure that
graduates are equipped to deal with the globalised world, that standards are internationally
comparable, and to serve the national agenda of further developing a knowledge-based
economy. Indeed, the position of the government is that they would like to maximise the
benefits of internationalisation. In particular, the Dutch government would like to utilise
the effects of internationalisation for the benefit of the development of a knowledge-based
economy. Recent advice by the Social and Economic Council of the Netherlands (SER 2013)
further underpinned the government’s intentions.
An understanding of the activities of internationalisation of higher education will help
to clarify the nature of the debate that is currently taking place amongst the scholars in
this field. These activities are therefore first described below. The notion, as explained
earlier, that the division into geographic locations (at home and abroad) is losing some
of its currency does not preclude, for the purpose of this discussion dividing the various
internationalisation activities the way it has been over the last two decades or so.
Degree seeking international student mobility
In 1950, Commonwealth foreign ministers met in Colombo, Sri Lanka, and developed a
bold initiative to deliver aid to developing countries in South and Southeast Asia. This was
referred to as the Colombo Plan (1949 – 1957). In Australia, the most memorable aspect of
this plan was the sponsoring of thousands of Asian students to study in higher education
at Australian institutes. This assistance was followed up with many other schemes, including ADAA, ADAB, AIDAB, and finally AusAID. All of these schemes featured sponsored
study by foreign nationals in Australia.
Legislation was changed in the late 1980s to allow Australian Universities to charge full
recovery tuition fees to foreign students. The aid of the 1950s to 1980s became trade over
the next three decades. The value of education as an export doubled every five years
from 1989/90 to 2009/10 (Connelly and Olson 2012) and rose to almost AUD$18 billion
9
The more recent advent of global university ranking (ARWU 2013) did add additional fuel
to the myth or misconception (see below on page 15) that more international students
meant better internationalisation. Without going into details, the various ranking schemes
utilised the number or proportion of international students on campus as a metric. Given
the public perception that high global ranking meant a qualitatively better university, this
metric was advantageous for universities that had made much work of recruiting foreign
students. After all, a university with a high number of international students was clearly
a better institution, given all the international attention.
4,5
Number of students in millions
(¤ 13 billion). The credo was that Australian universities were inviting international
students onto their campuses to promote intercultural contact between local and international students. Ostensibly, the full fee paying international students were part of the
internationalisation strategy, but more important was the additional revenue they brought
to cash-starved universities. A similar situation has occurred in the UK at almost the same
time. Internationalisation could be carried out by significant inbound international student
mobility. The most prolific inbound fee paying stream of international students arrived in
the USA. A number of factors applied to the situation in the USA that combined to make
deliberate student recruitment, such as practiced by Australia, the United Kingdom, and
New Zealand for example, not proper (see also the current debate on this issue (Deupree,
Miller et al. 2011). Recruiting international students remains a significant activity and
there is clear evidence that the race for recruiting them, for several reasons, is becoming
stronger.
4
3,5
3
2,5
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Year Figure 4. Long-term growth in student numbers enrolled in post-secondary education outside their country of origin (OECD and UNESCO
data). Adapted from OECD (2013)
Analysis of foreign student mobility data shows that on a global scale, there is, and there
has been, ever increased interest by young people to study in another country. In 1975
there were about 800,000 students (see Figure 4) receiving their post-secondary education
outside of their country of citizenship. In 2010, this number had risen to 4.1 million (a
5-fold increase) and today, if the growth rate remains unaltered (7% per annum since
2000, OECD) the estimate is that around 5.0 million (or more, Marmolejo (2012) students
belong to this category.
The distribution of the globalisation of education is not uniform. Just like the production
of goods takes advantage of local circumstances (e.g. the availability of resources, or the
cost of labour), so does the delivery of education. Whilst there has been a noticeable
increase in substantial host countries in general since 1975, Australia, Canada, France,
Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States together receive today about 50%
of all foreign students worldwide (see Figure 5). This is not a static phenomenon. Even
amongst the favoured host countries there is considerable movement in market share. Thus
whereas in 2000 the USA received 23% of foreign students worldwide, ten years later this
had declined to 16.6% (Marmolejo 2012). International students represent 10% or more
of the enrolments in tertiary education in Australia, Austria, New Zealand, Switzerland,
and the United Kingdom. At the advanced research level, they account for more than
30% of enrolments in Australia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom
(OECD 2013).
However, if these data are seen in the light of the increased participation in higher education globally, it becomes apparent that international mobility is largely for the academic or
economic elite (Marmolejo 2012). In 2010 there were about 177 million students enrolled
in higher education worldwide of which 2.3% (4.1 million) were international students. Ten
years earlier the global total enrolment was about 104 million and international students
constituted 2.1% (or 2.1 million). Thus whilst total enrolment went up by 70%, international students grew by 95%. Though still for the elite, just maybe the development shows
the first signs of a greater level of acceptance of the value of an international experience.
China’s growth of places in Higher Education over the last decade or so has been enormous.
In June of 2008 I had a conversation with Zhang Xinsheng, the then Vice-Minister of
Education in China. I asked him how China was coping with having to find so many
additional professors when in 1998 there were 3.8 million students at higher education
institutions and in 2005 more than 16 million. This must have been especially difficult,
since in 1976 there were only 650,000 students in higher education (with only a proportion
in graduate studies) who would have been an important source of academics at the turn
of the century. At a student – academic ratio of 50 to 1, the students in 1998 would have
10
11
needed 76,000 academics. In 2005 this figure, assuming the same ratio would have been
320,000 or an increase of approximately a quarter of one million. Thus, despite enormous
resourcing efforts, China will continue to struggle to meet demand for higher education.
Indian minister Kapil Sibal estimated recently that India needs some 1,500 universities.
This is almost three times as much as the current 564 in existence. The huge expansion
is needed to serve India’s young and aspiring population, and to meet expectations for
knowledge based economic growth. Despite recognising this need, the Indian Parliament
has thus far been unable to enact a new law that would allow for foreign providers to set
up initiatives in India. Indeed, at the launch of new colleges to teach talented students
(at the cost of the state for tuition and living expenses) in the Science area, the lack of
suitably qualified personnel became obvious and already retired academics had to be
asked whether they would oblige.
These two countries alone present enormous challenges as both have a burgeoning middle
class that will demand quality higher education for their children. Thus, whereas demand
continues to grow, the supply of suitably qualified academics is stemming the growth
locally. This, coupled with in some instances government inaction continues to ensure
that those who can afford will continue to seek a cross-border supply of higher education.
Other non-OECD countries
15.1%
Other OECD countries 7.9%
Belgium 1.2%
Netherlands 1.3%
Switzerland 1.4%
Korea 1.5%
Austria 1.6%
New Zealand 1.7%
Italy 1.7%
China 1.8%
South Africa 1.9%
United States1 16.5%
Spain 2.5%
United Kingdom1 13%
Japan 3.5%
Russian Federation 4%
Canada2 4.7%
Australia1,3 6.1%
Germany 6.3%
France 6.2%
Figure 5. Distribution of foreign students in tertiary education, by country of destination (2011). Adapted from (OECD 2013).
12
The total global enrolment in Higher Education in 2000 was a little of 100 million, by 2010
it was just short of 180 million. On current trends this figure will blow out to 450 million
by 2030 (based on same proportion of the middle class). If the proportion of participants
in international education grows as it has over the last ten years, then in 2030 there will
be 10-12 million degree seeking international students. I believe this to be so, despite
the enormous investments that are being made to meet demand in emerging economies.
International exchange or study abroad
The second form of internationalisation activity, practiced especially in Europe and North
America, but also elsewhere in the world was international mobility as part of a degree
study at the home university. The period of study in a foreign country counted towards
the degree program at home.
The well-known Erasmus mobility program of the EU that celebrated its 25th anniversary in
2012 is thought to have mobilised its 3 millionth student during the 2012/2013 academic
year. It started in 1987 and supported the exchange of just over 3000 students in the
1987/1988 academic year (EU 2012). A similar program was created in the Asia-Pacific
region called UMAP (University Mobility in Asia Pacific). This program was not able to
draw on the collective resources that were available to the European Commission. Thus,
whilst UMAP did not grow to the size of Erasmus, features such as guaranteed credit
transfer, and lack of tuition fees were similar.
It is not possible to think of higher education at national levels as activities devoid of
international student mobility. Students are crossing borders in two directions. Is this what
we understand to be internationalisation of higher education? In a word, no, but it has
been part of the confusion surrounding this topic. We could call it part of globalisation
of higher education though.
Whilst international exchange was practiced more or less throughout the world, study
abroad was a feature of American higher education. In a typical study abroad program
students would study at a host university in a foreign country. The host university would
not necessarily reciprocate with sending the same number of students to the American
university. A study abroad program typically was filled with elective components of the
course of study at home. In Australia and the UK, popular study abroad destinations, the
study abroad program provided additional revenue. More important academically was the
significant spread of foreign (American) students throughout the disciplines at the host
university. This was distinct from the pattern of foreign full degree enrolment that took
place in Business and Management studies, followed by Engineering, IT, and some other
professional disciplines.
13
Internationalisation at Home (IaH)
The realisation that only a small proportion of students were internationally mobile
(then and now (Marmolejo 2012) prompted the call for activities under the umbrella of
Internationalisation at Home (IaH). The term was first coined some 15 years ago (Teekens
2013) and in essence dealt with inclusiveness, diversity and reciprocity in education.
Activities such as the explicit internationalisation of the curriculum, the attempts at getting
local and foreign students to interact in a meaningful way (so as to promote intercultural
learning), and the recruitment of sufficient numbers of foreign students to create an
international classroom in as many areas of the university as possible all contributed to IaH.
Most of the mechanisms or processes of internationalisation lend themselves to scaling
up. Thus, whereas Erasmus mobility was limited to 3000 students or so in its first year of
operation, most recently the number of students mobilised amounted to eighty fold that
number or about a quarter of a million (EC 2013). International student recruitment in
Australia or the UK amounted to small beginnings in the late 1980’s, but grew to national
export priorities in the 21st century. The major recommendation of the Abraham Lincoln
Study Abroad Fellowship Program Committee Report was that by 2015 the Study Abroad
program should see one million American students studying abroad annually. In 2012 the
counter stood at somewhere below 300,000. Nevertheless this constituted a tripling of the
number two decades earlier. This amounted also to a significant scale enlargement. Global
international student mobility has taken a massive flight and presently there are some 5
million students reading for a degree abroad. The notion, more is better, prevailed at the
supranational, national, and/or institutional levels.
Motivations ranged from economic benefit, enhancement of academic quality, soft diplomacy, to foreign aid and global social responsibility. The academic motivation often had
to play second fiddle to the economic argument. This was especially so in countries such
as Australia, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand. Whilst universities argued, at times
successfully, for the academic benefits, the prizes of enhanced intercultural competence
of the students (and staff) and increased international awareness as enhancements of the
quality of the education were presumed and not proven.
Are we on the right track?
In 2011 a number of papers appeared in the literature on higher education that started
to question the nature of and motivation for internationalisation. Knight referred to the
five myths of internationalisation (2011) and questioned whether internationalisation
of higher education had delivered what it set out to do (Knight 2011). Brandenburg and
De Wit (2011) wrote a polemic essay on ‘the end of internationalisation’. Whilst De Wit
expounded on 9 misconceptions in internationalisation of higher education (2011).
14
The first of 5 myths of Knight was that the mere act of inviting foreign students on campus
would produce a more internationalised institutional culture and curriculum. Thus, whilst
this would be a well-intentioned rationale, the reality is that this often does not occur or
indeed even produces adverse effects. The complaints from Chinese students enrolled in
business and management related programs, that their experience resembled the Chinese
monoculture at home, are a testimony to this. Equally, the lack of integration between
local and foreign students, experienced at many campuses, remains a vexing problem
(Volet and Ang 2012).
The second myth was that international reputation equates with quality. The more international (agreements, students, faculty, research, etc.) an institution is, the better its quality.
The third myth was that the more international agreements, the more prestigious and
attractive it would be to other institutions and students. The reality is that few institutions
can manage hundreds of agreements, save that in terms of active student exchange there
would be some benefit of such a number. Most inter-institutional collaboration, certainly
at the research level, relies on individual links and not top-down sanctioned, or worse
still instigated, activities. The fourth myth related to institutional accreditation by foreign
quality assurance agencies and the last myth related to the incorrect assumption that the
purpose of a university’s internationalisation efforts would be to improve global brand or
standing (see the argument in relation to global ranking below on page 15).
Two of the misconceptions described by De Wit (2011) related to myth 1 and 3 of Knight.
In addition De Wit included concepts such as teaching in English, the supposedly automatic
acquisition of intercultural skills (by virtue of providing an international environment),
the automatic international nature of higher education institutions, the equation of
international subjects with internationalisation, having an international study period, or
internationalisation as a precise goal, all as part of a set of misconceptions that variously
prevailed amongst higher education institutions.
In an attempt to stimulate debate Brandenburg and De Wit wrote an essay in which they
posed that internationalisation had become a process with an end onto itself. The more
we carried out the activities under the umbrella of internationalisation, the better our
students, and we, would be.
Indeed, a further impetus to look at maximising a number of parameters in respect of
so-called internationalisation came from the global university ranking activities. Ranking
organisations started to enumerate international students and staff as one of the ranking
metrics. Given that, in the public eye at least, ranking became a proxy for quality, it was
inferred that a higher ‘internationalisation’ score contributed to quality. The rankers would
argue that universities that were better known because of their standing would attract
more international students.
15
A learner-centred definition of
internationalisation of higher education
internationalise higher education or what the outcomes of the internationalisation processes would be. Knight deliberately formulated this as neutral to allow for the many and
varied interpretations, motivations, and outcomes related to this process.
The notion that internationalisation of higher education is part of a response to globalisation says little about what it actually is. Higher Education is of course also an actor
in globalisation. After all we send academics across borders to participate in knowledge
exchange, students move from their home to another country, and significantly we create
complete campuses abroad. This is something about which Stenden knows a lot. The term
internationalisation has been used for a long time in politics and law, well before its rise
to popularity in the educational context in the late 1980s to early 1990s.
The value of the definition by Knight is that from the perspective of university management it talks about a process of integrating certain dimensions into the normal functions
of a university. The disadvantage of this definition is that it does not address the learner
in the way that we think about them in respect of other elements of the learning process.
Another disadvantage is that the measurement of success in internationalisation tends to
focus on enumerating the extent of student mobility across the institution, and ticking
boxes as to whether features of individual programs exist or not. Indeed, some of these
parameters have ended up counting towards global ranking and world class. Bigger or
more is better?
This is not to say that prior to that time activities that we now group under the term
internationalisation did not occur at many universities throughout the world. International
staff and student mobility, as an example of such an internationalisation activity, has been
a feature of higher education almost since its inception. Indeed, the ‘Authentica Habita’
proclaimed by Frederik Barbarossa in 1158 in respect of the University of Bologna’s staff
and students, gave the foreign students and staff the opportunity to come and go as they
pleased and assured their protection (Otterspeer 2008). Leiden University, for example,
in the early years of its existence (1575), until today has always had a significant cohort
of foreign students and staff.
Apart from international mobility there were a variety of other activities related to international pursuits. They were more generally referred to as multicultural education, international
studies, peace education, or area studies (Jones and De Wit 2012). The term internationalisation of education became popular in the 1990s and was meant to cover the international
dimension of education. Its popularity reflected the gradual transfer of international activities
from the margins of higher education to its core (Jones and De Wit 2012).
This then seems to define at least the first part of the title of this discussion. The title has
a somewhat cryptic ending. Although in the jargon of the software industry the indication
2.0 is rather familiar. It denotes a second revised version of a piece of software, one with
new or additional features. It builds on what already existed, but has taken the concept
further. In this sense then ‘Internationalisation of Higher Education 2.0’ is a short form for
what the IAU has called the ‘Re-thinking of Internationalization’(Egron-Polak 2012). De
Wit in his article about the reconsidering the concept of internationalisation (De Wit 2013)
also alluded to the rise of internationalisation of higher education in heretofore reactive
developing areas of the world. Given the advent of the middle classes in these regions,
with the attendant demand for quality, this is not a surprising development.
In 2003, Knight refined the definition of internationalisation of higher education and
proposed that:
De Wit (2013) drew attention to the level at which the discourse on internationalisation
took place: the institutional and national arenas; This links well with the definition of
Knight. It explicitly focussed on the institutional as well as supra-institutional levels with
respect to internationalisation. Leask (2009) directed the attention on internationalisation
especially towards the curriculum. Leask noticed that internationalisation of the curriculum
in the many and varied disciplines were poorly understood.
“Internationalisation at the national, sector, and institutional levels is defined as the
process of integrating an international, intercultural, or global dimension into the
purpose, functions or delivery of post-secondary education.”
Leask addressed this issue with a research project that “sought to explore, make explicit,
and disseminate the meaning of internationalization of the curriculum (IoC) in different
disciplines”. IoC was defined by Leask (2009) as:
This definition is comprehensive and refers to internationalisation as a process in which
an additional dimension is added to that what is already carried out by institutes of
higher education. This definition does not say anything about why one would want to
“the incorporation of an international and intercultural dimension into the content
of the curriculum as well as the teaching and learning arrangements and support
services of a program of study.
16
17
An internationalised curriculum will engage students with internationally informed
research and cultural and linguistic diversity. It will purposefully develop their
international and intercultural perspectives as global professionals and citizens”.
It should be noted that the curriculum should be thought of as a rather broad concept
involving both the formal structured curriculum and the informal curriculum. The latter
comprising of activities that do not form part of the formal curriculum, but nevertheless
play an important role in the landscape of the formal curriculum (Leask 2009). The definition of Leask brings us closer to the individual at the level of what they will experience
as they progress through their curriculum (both formal and informal). The design of both
components must be deliberate. Elements of the curriculum that relate to the development
of international and intercultural competences, whether they are discipline-specific or of
a more general nature, must be explicitly programmed to occur.
To date this activity has often been left to individual academic staff with a particular
interest in internationalisation. Leask argues for a structured approach with disciplinary
teams (2013). The same research led to the finding that university-wide senior leadership
support through university policy was important, but also support throughout the various
levels in the organisation were critical success factors. There is also a need for a balance
between flexibility, as a response to rapid change, and structure to avoid flexibility due to
individual preferences. Finally, it is important to recognise that staff involved in developing
internationalisation of the curriculum be facilitated. This effort takes time and in the
framework of recognition, needs to be a structural part of what constitutes good academic
effort. Thus it needs to be clearly set out as part of the tasks in the academe.
Jones and De Wit (2012), amongst others, noted that internationalisation was increasingly
the norm for higher education institutes, but that there are many different interpretations
as to what it actually meant. Brandenburg and De Wit (2011) stated that internationalisation had moved from the periphery to the core of institutional interest. Hudzik
(2011) argued that internationalisation was no longer an interesting option, but absolutely
necessary. As Jones and Killick (2013) stated despite the centrality of internationalisation
as part of the activities of higher education institutes that their focus was more on the
parameters that related to institutional performance, rather than the outcomes for students.
It is precisely for this reason why this paper focuses on developing a definition of internationalisation of higher education that is learner-centred. This is about the learner who
enters higher education with the prior learning from secondary education and leaves us
for the next phase in their life long learning quest.
18
Nowadays formal curricula are designed to achieve learning outcomes. These learning
outcomes are ideally framed in such a way as to motivate the learner to want to achieve
them. Good curricula of course also check whether the intended outcomes are indeed
realised. These learning outcomes must be applicable in the next phase of a graduate’s
life long learning quest.
Over the last 2 years scholars have increasingly asked whether ‘more of the same’ constitutes a better form of internationalisation. It appears that the call is out to more precisely
define the learning outcomes that are gained by internationalisation activities. Whilst
previously these activities were defined by the location where they occurred (abroad
or at home), it appears more logical to refer to these activities as having an impact on
the curriculum. This aligns better with the learner-centred approach and acknowledges
that different learners will track through their learning experiences in a variety of ways.
Increasingly, learning situations are made more individualised. Blended modes of learning,
involving the provision of on-line learning materials, are becoming more commonplace.
Joint degrees are increasing in number and are being encouraged. Students spend part of
their learning at their ‘home’ institution and part of the same curriculum abroad. Indeed,
some of the Erasmus Mundus programs can be initiated at one of several partner universities and concluded at any of the partners, as long as a student chooses more than one
place to study. At Stenden University of Applied Sciences students can choose to take part
of their curriculum at one or several campuses distributed over the globe. Academic staff
members from the various campus sites are in regular contact to improve the curriculum.
This creates a continuum of development stretching across the globe. The distinction
between what happens ‘at home’ and ‘abroad’ becomes blurred. Equally in programs where
students go international together with their own academics (so-called island programs)
the distinction between internationalisation at home and abroad becomes academic or
one of semantics. The ‘external’ environment changes, but the actors remain the same. In
what sense is this then internationalisation abroad or at home?
A similar argument can be brought for the recruitment of foreign students to one’s campus.
From the perspective of the inward bound foreign student this would, in the previously
used distinction, be internationalisation abroad. For the students staying at their home
campus this would have been called internationalisation at home. The distinction is borne
out of the perspective of the learner, however for both this could be called internationalisation of the curriculum. A similar difference of perspective exists for staff working with
foreign colleagues on their campus. Whose perspective prevails?
19
The foregoing argues for the term internationalisation of the curriculum as a mantle
for internationalisation insofar as it relates to the teaching and learning functions of a
university. The distinction of ‘at home’ or ‘abroad’ as discussed is less relevant and moves
the focus away from the learner. The definition of internationalisation proposed in this
paper benefits from this more inclusive and, especially, learner-centred approach.
The state of internationalisation should be measured. Most frequently, this involves
enumerating the extent of the various activities such as outlined above. Some of these
parameters also have found their way into global ranking of higher education institutes.
These tend to be quantitative data such as the number or proportion of international
students on campus, the proportion of international academics, or the proportion of
programs taught in a foreign language. Jones (2013) argues that for the assessment to
be effective and holistic, it also requires qualitative evaluation. Jones proposed the 7 R’s
method (rationale, route (strategy), realisation, report, return (qualitative evaluation),
review, revise) of evaluating internationalisation. In which the qualitative evaluation
measures the value of the activities, rather than the quantitative aspects.
For a long time, the prevailing thought has been that as long as the quantity of activities
was sufficient, more and more students would receive the benefits of this internationalisation. Thus, senior management of universities, along with national, and international
organisations, pursued ways to increase the extent of these activities. There was a degree
of acceptance that different type of activities were relevant depending on the discipline
involved and that the internationalisation landscape would be uneven across the spectrum
of university offerings. This kind of thinking was well aligned with the paradigm that
prevailed for a long time in higher education in which the delivery of the appropriate
materials coupled with the didactic methodology would ensure the graduation of young
persons ready to face the challenges of the world.
This thinking is undergoing rapid changes and for some time now the processes involved
in teaching and learning are assessed for their effectiveness in terms of learning outcomes.
Programs are increasingly being designed with the learning outcomes in mind, rather than
the teaching inputs.
Studies of the learning outcomes in terms of internationalisation (both at Stenden and
elsewhere) indicate that, unlike what was previously thought, the mere participation
in internationalisation activities does not adequately confer learning outcomes that are
sought in relation to these aspects. Part of the challenge in this regard is the definition of
what constitute learning outcomes of internationalisation.
20
A particular problem in defining these is that some of they are poorly defined or have
many interpretations. Deardorff (2006) listed no less than 49 papers in which scholars had
defined intercultural competence, one of the intended outcomes of internationalisation.
In this study Deardorff used American scholars in the field of intercultural competence
and administrators to attempt to uncover a consensus on what constituted a definition
and components of intercultural competence as well as ways to measure this. In general,
Deardorff found that both groups did not define intercultural competence in specific
components, but preferred broader definitions.
Both administrators and scholars felt that it was possible to measure intercultural competence, but that this would require measurements for a period of time, rather than a
point in time. Measurements would require both quantitative and especially qualitative
components.
Deardorff (2006) proposed a process orientation to the development of intercultural
competence that started with individual attitudes of respect, openness, curiosity and
discovery. These attitudes, coupled with knowledge and skills would result in external
and internal outcomes. Whilst it was not necessary to acquire the internal outcomes (of
adaptability, flexibility, ethno-relative view, and empathy) in order to display effective
and appropriate communication and behaviour (external outcome). The latter would be
strengthened by the former if those outcomes were also achieved. Whilst more focused
definitions of intercultural competence remain elusive, there is little doubt that this
remains an important learning outcome of internationalisation.
Paige et al. (2004) explored the impact of the study abroad experience and a curricular
intervention on the intercultural development, second language acquisition, and the
employment of learning strategies related to language and culture. The curricular intervention was in the form of a set of guidebooks that was intended to enhance language
and culture learning through a strategies-based approach. The study showed a positive
impact of the study abroad experience on intercultural competency with a decrease in
ethnocentricity and an increase in ethno-relativity. In addition, the study demonstrated
an increase in overall intercultural sensitivity.
One of the largest studies of its kind was that of Vande Berg, Connor-Linton, and Paige
(2009), which sought to compare internationally mobile students with their non-mobile
counterparts in respect of the learning of target language, intercultural skills, and disciplinary learning. The study also aimed to discover whether relationships existed between the
learning goals and characteristics of the international mobility. Finally, the study was aimed
at shedding light on the extent to which language gains were associated with intercultural
learning. Almost 1300 students took part in this study.
21
In brief, the study found that international mobility did produce more progress in intercultural learning and oral proficiency in target languages when compared to students who
were not internationally mobile. There were some trends observable about the extent of
the positive effect among the mobile students depending on various independent learner
characteristics. Taking classes in the target language was one such variable. Of note was
that the study confirmed that many students did not learn inter-culturally simply by being
present in another culture, although on average the mobile students gained more than
their non-mobile counterparts.
Indeed, whilst those students with the lowest pre-mobility period intercultural competence
scores (as measured by the IDI - (Hammer, Bennett et al. 2003) gained the most from their
international mobility. There appeared to be a plateauing effect and programs of more than
18 weeks duration did not yield significant additional intercultural learning. Vande Berg et
al. (2009) did suggest that interventions might stimulate additional learning at that point.
The study found that significant interactions between students and a well-trained cultural
mentor was probably the single most important intervention to improve student intercultural learning. Many other studies before and after this large study have shown at times
similar and at other times varying results.
Whilst Euler and Rami (2006, in (Behrnd and Porzelt 2012) were quoted as demonstrating
increases in intercultural competence for sojourners going abroad and Williams (2005)
made similar findings, others have not been so definite about this. Stephenson (2002)
found that many factors play a role as to whether any gains are made in intercultural
competence. Behrnd and Porzelt (2012) showed that there was some effect from staying
abroad. However, their post-hoc analysis showed that 10 months was critical for developing increased intercultural competence. This is far longer a period than most students
spend abroad. Interestingly, this was much longer than the plateauing effect seen by Vande
Berg et al. (2009). The difference could be due to differences in the background of the
student populations. Whilst time abroad was significant, prior experience abroad or not
had no effect. This may be due to the relative short duration of such experiences. Indeed,
Dwyer (2004) and also Stronkhorst (2005) also demonstrated that longer time periods
were required to develop additional intercultural competence. Straffon (2003) studied
high school students and their intercultural sensitivity. His work also showed that length
of time (in years) correlated positively with intercultural sensitivity.
In a more recent study of American study abroad students, it was shown that they made
no significant progress in intercultural competence development from studying abroad
22
alone (K. Lou and G. Bosley - pers. comm.). Only if specific attention was paid to intercultural aspects did any shift in intercultural competence occur. The last word on this
issue has not been said. Lindsey Parsons (2009) concluded from a study with students
in Australia and the United States that there were positive effects from all aspects of an
internationalised education. Whilst the most recent study at Stenden involving students
on Grand Tour to South Africa and Indonesia showed little effect (De Vries and Okken,
pers. comm.).
Whilst there is a diversity of outcomes it is becoming clear that duration of study abroad
is an important factor in the development of intercultural competence. Less clear is the
nature of interventions, and the independent variables that may further contribute to
the development of this competence. Whether students from Europe, North America,
or indeed the Asian-Pacific region show differences due to their location of origin and
background culture is difficult to tell. As yet there has not been a large study involving
students from around the world.
Internationalisation, as many universities take up in their rhetoric about this, is meant to
produce graduates who are able to apply their skills and knowledge, irrespective of the
cultural context in which they find themselves. These graduates have an open attitude
to views from other cultures and, most optimally, they are able to transition their point
of view into that of another culture. It appears that unless specific and detailed attention
is paid to the intercultural aspects of an internationalisation activity, unless students
are given the opportunity to reflect on their feelings and their attitudes towards what is
happening as they encounter another culture (the creation of the ‘aha’ moment), they
will not gain much in respect of their intercultural competences. Indeed, it has been
demonstrated that such specific attention may be given, before, after, and/or during
the internationalisation activity for the effect to be enhanced and for some intercultural
competence enhancement to occur (Behrnd and Porzelt 2012).
The international awareness and knowledge about foreign countries and cultures is more
readily dealt with by explicitly introducing such information into the learning materials
and presents less of a problem. Nevertheless, it must be programmed into the curriculum;
otherwise the desired outcomes may not be achieved. Indeed, evaluation of the achieved
learning outcomes must take place to ensure that they match the intended outcomes.
Equally, examples and case studies must be examined for cultural bias to ensure that
learning materials are readily accessible and understood by students from a variety of
cultural backgrounds. This is particularly important when international students are
invited on campus to participate in programs or when programs are mobilized into other
23
cultural contexts. The idea that foreign students have to come with the same ‘cultural
baggage’ as local students in order to participate, diminishes the quality of their experience
(if not present) and may lead to complete disengagement from the learning process. It
may diminish the learning outcomes of these students and decrease the quality of their
experience.
The learner-centred definition for internationalisation of higher education proposed in this
paper needs to be seen in the context of a chain of situations, in which the learner is the
constant, who connects the various elements of the chain. As higher education institutes,
we receive students from secondary education. They undergo a teaching and learning
process with us that facilitates their transformation. This transformation, whether it takes
place just in the undergraduate phase, or also during postgraduate learning, is aimed at
preparing them for the next link in the chain and to instil a desire for life long learning.
Thus, the learner’s first work place may provide an opportunity where the learning
outcomes are brought to bear on a work environment. Whether this work environment
is defined in terms of what are the most optimal learning outcomes with reference to
internationalisation, and to what extent this varies depending on a particular environment
is, for the purpose of this discussion, not dealt with here. However, it is thought that this
aspect needs careful analysis and definition so that higher education institutes may focus
on the most appropriate domain relevant aspects.
The chain, as described above could easily be expanded to include primary education. It
probably needs to, but for the purpose of this discussion, it will not need to be considered.
Given that the one central aspect in defining learning outcomes is the individual, it may
be appropriate to add a learner focused definition internationalisation. The definition
proposed in this paper, in respect of students in higher education is that:
Internationalisation of higher education constitutes the provision of an environment
containing such elements that a learner is given the opportunity to attain achieved
learning outcomes associated with international awareness and intercultural
competence.
It should be noted that the elements of this environment are not just parts of the curriculum, but also constitute important aspects such as the senior management support,
support services, and processes that create and evaluate a holistic internationalisation
(Jones 2013). The quality of this environment relies on a whole-of-institute approach and
must recognise the diversity of willingness to support internationalisation.
24
It would be possible to define learning outcomes associated with other aspects of internationalisation (e.g. language learning), but it is commonly agreed that the development
of inter-culturally competent students is meant to be one of the outcomes of internationalisation of higher education (Deardorff 2006). International awareness is generally a
pre-condition for intercultural competence. It is hard to imagine the one without the other.
In the higher education setting this international awareness also includes discipline-specific
aspects. The views on a discipline from other cultures should be part of the awareness.
To take full advantage of the chain of learning situations, it is necessary to refine the
definition once more. In doing so it not only touches on the concept of life long learning,
but is capable of actively connecting the various links in the chain of an individuals quest
towards the ideal of ‘being a global citizen’. To be very effective in this regard, just like
there has been extensive dialogue about curricular content and (now) learning outcomes
in the various phases of education and ultimately the application of these outcomes in
the workplace, there needs to be extensive dialogue amongst the various sectors of the
learning and working chain on internationalisation. Life long learning can then be guided
by learning lines that cross institutional boundaries:
Internationalisation of higher education constitutes the provision of an environment
containing such elements that a learner is given the opportunity to attain achieved
learning outcomes associated with international awareness and intercultural competence. Higher education recognises and actively links with other phases in the life
long learning chain.
The additional sentence acknowledges the chain of organisations. This definition gives
centrality to the individual transformation; with all the attendant benefits. It focuses the
shaping of the environment towards achieving (or expressing) learning outcomes. Thus,
it differs from definitions that place the activities of an organisation central. Whilst such
definitions are convenient from a management perspective, they may draw attention
away from organising internationalisation activities in such a way as to achieve learning
outcomes related to international awareness and intercultural competence. This definition
also acknowledges that, argued from the perspectives of institutes of higher education,
we receive students with predefined prior learning outcomes, and that the learner will
leave us for another chapter in their life long learning. In this way the definition also
encourages institutes of higher learning to play a more active role in managing the life
long learning chain.
25
Stenden fit for purpose?
Why does the entire foregoing auger well for Stenden University of Applied Sciences
(SUAS) to be a good place to study the Internationalisation of Higher Education? What
is so special about this institution that makes me think it offers excellent opportunities
for this endeavour? I hope you will agree with me, after hearing about what we do and
how we think about internationalisation, that this institution is a good choice in the
Netherlands at which to conduct research into internationalisation of higher education.
To help you understand why I think so, I need to give you some background on the
activities SUAS carries out under the banner of internationalisation. This description will
also highlight of what I think we are not doing enough. This will provide the focus for
the areas of research.
Many international students
Compared to many institutes of higher education in the Netherlands, or indeed in Europe,
Stenden University of Applied Sciences has a very high proportion of international
students. At the campuses in the Netherlands some 25% of all students are international.
About half of the international students come from Germany. This is in good alignment
with other institutions in the Netherlands that are close to the border with Germany.
The surprising fact however is that many German students are not border students, but
come from much further afield. Anecdotal evidence suggests that they specifically choose
Stenden University of Applied Sciences for its international outlook. It will be important to
investigate this to help unravel the motivation for choosing Stenden. Other international
students come from both within and outside of Europe and represent somewhere around
70 or so foreign countries. There is a clear alignment between activities of the international
marketing unit to countries from which we derive our international students. As such
it can be said that Stenden deliberately recruits international students. Our cohorts of
international students are not limited those studying on our Dutch campuses.
competencies is the first base in a longitudinal study on this topic. An inventory of studies that have already been carried out both Stenden University of applied sciences and
elsewhere equally will provide a starting point for such an investigation.
Whilst not all of our programs are well endowed with a high proportion of international students, there are sufficient of these situations to provide ample opportunity for
investigation. Thus, our institution in this sense provides an ideal research location. It
has to be said that this also requires for staff to be interested in helping to build a truly
internationalised experience for students. I am happy to report that I believe this to be
the case. When our strategic objectives were revisited recently, more than 70% of staff
believed that internationalisation was the most important pillar for our future.
I want to emphasize that I am not saying that having a high proportion of international
students constitutes internationalisation or indeed creates an internationalised environment. As such I totally agree with what Knight and de Wit have written about this.
Nevertheless, we do need a significant proportion of international students to be able to
work on what is generally known as Internationalisation at Home [IaH]. Under the banner
of IaH one is able to create situations in which intercultural learning is possible. I believe
this to be particularly so when the pedagogy is cooperative group learning.
There are other aspects Stenden University of applied sciences activities under the banner
of internationalisation that provide extra meaning and additional opportunities to look into
the internationalisation of higher education. I trust you are already aware that Stenden
has branch campuses in foreign countries. What you might not know is that staff at these
campuses are largely sourced either locally or from around the world. Of course there are
also some staff there who have been recruited either from within Stenden or at least from
the Netherlands. At our foreign branch campuses we conduct educational programs that
are a copy of what we teach in the Netherlands. It should be noted that presently one
program is being developed where our branch campus is in the lead.
International Branch Campuses
Stenden University of Applied Sciences has 4 International Branch Campuses (IBC’s)
located in South Africa, Qatar, Indonesia, and Thailand.
Our principal educational method revolves around use of problem-based learning. The way
in which we conduct PBL classes is such that students spend a lot of time interacting. Thus,
combining both local and international students in PBL groups promotes their interaction.
In this sense, attracting international students is a precondition to being able to create
an environment in which our students are given the opportunity to work together with
students from other cultures. The extent to which this contributes to their intercultural
26
In situations where the educational program is being delivered both here in the
Netherlands as well as foreign locations we have the unique situation of staff with
many different cultural backgrounds teaching exactly the same program under different
conditions. This brings with it an opportunity to allow staff at the different campuses
to collaborate in further developing the program. During this process the needs of the
different situations and cultures can be taken into account. The end result is a program that
is internationally informed and sufficiently robust to be able to be taught in a number of
jurisdictions around the world. I refer to this process as primary internationalisation of the
curriculum. This is distinct from a process in which academics attempt to internationalise
27
the curriculum utilising only to our own viewpoint. Anecdotal evidence from the initial
attempts in the International Hotel Management program indicates that this process is
very worthwhile and appreciated by all staff concerned. This close cooperation in the
development of a program across cultures provides another unique opportunity to study
internationalisation.
The Grand Tour®
Equally, the international mobility of students and staff not only in the well-known
exchange programs, but especially between our international branch campuses and
those in the Netherlands provides another well-controlled environment within which
we can study the effects of an international experience. Again, there is a moderate body
of literature dealing with the effects of such study and teaching periods from research
conducted here and elsewhere. Such research reports can provide a starting point for
further work into the impact of international experiences on the quality of education. It
should be noted that our intercampus mobility is generally referred to as the Grand Tour.
A lot of work has gone into developing this mode of international study and more work
is to be done to maximize the yield for students who participate.
Without wanting to say too much about the possible outcomes of such studies on the
Grand Tour, there is some anecdotal evidence that it distinguishes this form of international
mobility from international exchange in a number of ways. It appears that students are
more able to focus on cultural differences due to the fact that they are very familiar with
the way in which their program is conducted at the international branch campuses. In
fact, students do not have to get used to another institutional culture in which there is
uncertainty about what is expected of them, how exams are conducted, or how classes
are being run. The reduction in stress about their study creates opportunities to focus on
other aspects of the experience. Such anecdotal evidence, as well as some initial studies,
simply beg to be researched further so that we can enhance the yield from this form of
international study.
Stenden University of applied sciences has been a pioneer in the Netherlands in developing
unique international experiences for its students. It behoves us to continue to lead the
field in these endeavours. I for one congratulate the Stenden community and its supporters
for pushing ahead in internationalisation. I expressed the hope that in the tenure of my
professorship I am able to provide evidence to support this belief in internationalisation.
I would like to thank the Executive Board for placing its trust in me for this important
task. I ask for your indulgence and support to be able to be effective in the coming years.
28
The research group on internationalisation
of higher education
This is the core of what I propose to be the research carried out under the auspices of
the professorship entitled ‘Internationalisation of Higher Education’. The focus will be on
studying this phenomenon with the aim to improve the outcomes of what we hope to
achieve by internationalising our higher education. The core of the intended research will
revolve around investigating whether the outcomes, related to the teaching and learning
activities of internationalisation, are being achieved, and whether interventions can be
designed that maximise and optimise the desired outcomes. In addition, the research will
relate to the cultural shift that is required in higher education to have internationalisation
run through the finest veins of our institutional existence.
Finally, without going into too much detail, and referring to the newly proposed definition
of internationalisation of higher education, in which institutes of higher education need
to take a lead in managing the connections between the various links of the life long
learning chain, I would like to investigate the viability of a Master’s degree program in
which Internationalisation is the subject of study. A program to deliver graduates who
are able to influence organisations to derive maximum benefit from a quality response to
globalisation. This irrespective of whether these are learned institutions, aid organisations,
global industrial players, or SME’s looking to extend their field of operation beyond the
local confines.
The exact nature of the initial research efforts is something that will be subject of a sequel
to this paper and written especially in collaboration with those who’ll make up the initial
research group. The synergistic effect of such collaboration is an essential ingredient
for success. Save to say that important insights will hopefully be gained from a Frisian
congress on internationalisation in which in collaboration with Nether (in Brussels) and
some other fine organisations I hope to bring together four important players in the chain
of life long learning, namely the secondary and higher education institutions, industry,
and those we all care about: our students.
29
Acknowledgements
References
First and foremost, I thank the Executive Board of Stenden University of Applied Sciences
for their foresight to create the position of professor of Internationalisation of Higher
Education. I consider myself indeed fortunate to be allowed to spend some of my time
fulfilling the obligations of this role, whilst at the same time ‘practicing what I preach’ in
developing the Qatar campus of this institute. The balancing act between two distinct
cultures will provide ample stimulation for the research that is before us.
ARWU. (2013). “About Academic Ranking of World Universities.” Retrieved 21-8-2013,
2013, from http://www.shanghairanking.com/aboutarwu.html.
In a general sense I thank my colleagues at Stenden for their support for internationalisation as one of our strategic pillars. Seventy per cent of you think it is an important
element of the way forward. It begins with you and ends with our students. I’ll be looking
for some of you to join me in my research group.
Brandenburg, U. and H. De Wit (2011). “The End of Internationalization.” International
Higher Education 62(Winter 2011): 15-17.
More closer to home, I thank my wife and my children for their forbearance in seeing me
sit in front of a computer working on this and other papers on my favourite topic over the
last 17 and possibly next 10 years or so. This includes parts of my family who still reside
in Australia, where this adventure in internationalisation of higher education began. That
brings me to my parents who had the farsightedness to let this wandering spirit go, when
the Netherlands seemed too small and the world beckoned. Thank you for letting me go,
it was my best present from you.
Last, but not in the least, I want to thank a priori, all the nameless students, who will
(hopefully) partake in studies to uncover how we can prepare you better for the world
we are giving to you. This is so that you may make it a better place for those who come
after you.
Behrnd, V. and S. Porzelt (2012). “Intercultural competence and training outcomes of
students with experiences abroad.” International Journal of Intercultural Relations
36(2): 213-223.
Connelly, S. and A. Olson (2012). Education as an Export for Australia: More valuable
than Gold, but for How Long? Australian International Education COnference.
Melbourne.
CotALSAFP (2005). Global COmpetence & National Needs - One million Americans
Studying Abroad. Washington, D.C.: 58.
De Wit, H. (2011). “Internationalization of Higher Education: Nine Misconceptions.”
International Higher Education 64(Summer): 6-7.
De Wit, H. (2013). “Reconsidering the Concept of Internationalization.” International
Higher Education 70(Winter): 6-7.
Deardorff, D. K. (2006). “Identification and Assessment of Intercultural Competence
as a Student Outcome of Internationalization.” Journal of Studies in International
Education 10(3): 241-266.
Deupree, J., J. L. Miller, R. B. Cushing, M. S. SMith, V. Rao and S. McElroy (2011).
“International-Student Recruitment Debate: 6 Views on Agents.” The Chronicle of
Higher Education: 21.
Dwyer, M. M. (2004). “More is better: The impact of study abroad program duration.”
Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 10: 151–164.
EC (2011). Commision Communication on a strategy for the internationalisation of
higher education. Roadmap. Brussels, Directorate General of the European Commission
for Education and Culture: 7.
30
31
EC (2013). Erasmus – Facts, Figures & Trends. The European Union support for
student and staff exchanges and university cooperation in 2011-12. E. Commission.
Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union.
EC (2013). European Higher Education in the World. E. Commission. Brussels.
Egron-Polak, E. (2012). “Re-thinking internationalization - Internationalization of
Higher Education - An introduction.” IAU Horizons 17(3): 15-16.
El-Khawas, E. (2012). “Strengthening Universities Around the World.” International
Higher Education 67(Spring): 3-5.
Knight, J. (2011). “Five myths about Internationalization.” International Higher
Education 62(Winter 2011): 14-15.
Knight, J. (2011). Has internationalization lost its way? OBHE Perspectives on the
future: 10.
Leask, B. (2009). “Using Formal and Informal Curricula to Improve Interactions Between
Home and International Students.” Journal of Studies in International Education 13(2):
205-221.
Leask, B. (2013). “Internationalizing the Curriculum in the Disciplines--Imagining New
Possibilities.” Journal of Studies in International Education 17(2): 103-118.
EU (2012). ERASMUS changing lives opening minds for 25 years. Luxembourg, EU: 78.
Hammer, M. R., M. J. Bennett and R. Wiseman (2003). “Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The intercultural development inventory.” International Journal of Intercultural
Relations 27(4): 421-443.
Lindsey Parsons, R. (2009). “The Effects of an Internationalized University Experience
on Domestic Students in the United States and Australia.” Journal of Studies in
International Education 14(4): 313-334.
Hudzik, J. K. (2011). Comprehensive Internationalization: From Concept to Action,
NAFSA, Washington, D.C.
Marmolejo, F. (2012). “Trends in International Mobility of Students: a Wake-up call for
the US?” Retrieved 14 - 8 - 2013, from
http://chronicle.com/blogs/worldwise/education-at-a-glance-2012/30454
Jones, E. (2013). The global reach of universities: leading and engaging academic and
support staff in the internationalization of higher education. Pre-print.
Morgan, J. (2010). “China spends as Uncle Sam tightens the purse strings.” Retrieved
23-8-2013, from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/410048.article.
Jones, E. and H. De Wit (2012). “Globalization of Internationalization: Thematic and
Regional reflections on a Traditional Concept.” AUDEM: The International Journal of
Higher Education and Democracy 3: 35-54.
NOST. “New Education Plan: 10 billion RMB investment in 100 local universities in
Midwest China.” NOST China News Retrieved 23-8-2013, 2013, from
http://news.nost.org.cn/2013/06/new-education-plan-10-billion-rmb-investment-in100-local-universities-in-midwest-china/
Jones, E. and D. Killick (2013). “Graduate Attributes and the Internationalized
Curriculum: Embedding a Global Outlook in Disciplinary Learning Outcomes.” Journal of
Studies in International Education 17(2): 165-182.
OECD (2013). Education at a Glance 2013 - OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing.
Otterspeer, W. (2008). Het Bolwerk van de Vrijheid. Leiden, Leiden University Press.
Kharas, H. (2010). The emerging middle class in developing countries. OECD
Development Centre. Paris, OECD. 285: 1-61.
Knight, J. (2003). “Updating the definition of internationalization.” International Higher
Education 33: 2-3.
Paige, R. M. C., A.D.; Shively, R.L. (2004). “Assessing the Impact of a Strategies-Based
Curriculum on Language and Culture Learning Abroad.” The Interdisciplinary Journal of
Study Abroad 10: 253-276.
Pezzini, M. (2012). “An emerging middle class.” Retrieved 23-8-2013, 2013, from
http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/3681/
32
33
SER (2013). Make it in the Netherlands. S. E. Raad. The Hague, Sociaal-Economische
Raad. 13/01.
Stephenson, S. (2002). Beyond the lapiths and the centaurs: Cross-cultural “deepening”
through study abroad. ‘Rockin’ in Red Square: Critical approaches to international
education in the age of cyberculture. (Education & Innovation). W. Grünzweig and N.
Rinehart. Münster, LIT Verlag: 85-104.
Straffon, D. A. (2003). “Assessing the intercultural sensitivity of high school students
attending an international school.” International Journal of Intercultural Relations
27(4): 487-501.
Stronkhorst, R. (2005). “Learning Outcomes of International Mobility at Two Dutch
Institutions of Higher Education.” Journal of Studies in International Education 9(4):
292-315.
SUAS (2013). World-wise, Education and Research, Stenden’s Compass for 2013 - 2017.
Leeuwarden, Stenden University of Applied Sciences: 43.
Teekens, H. (2013). “Internationalisation at home – Crossing other borders.” 15 June
2013 Issue No:276. Retrieved 22-9-2013, 2013, from
http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20130613084529186
Vande Berg, M., J. Connor-Linton and M. R. Paige (2009). “The Georgetown Consortium
Project: Interventions for Student Learning Abroad.” Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary
Journal of Study Abroad 18: 1-75.
Veerman, C. (2010). Rapport Differentieren in drievoud omwille van kwaliteit en
verscheidenheid in het hoger onderwijs. The Hague.
Volet, S. E. and G. Ang (2012). “Culturally mixed groups on international campuses: an
opportunity for inter-cultural learning.” Higher Education Research & Development
31(1): 21-37.
Williams, T. R. (2005). “Exploring the Impact of Study Abroad on Students’ Intercultural
Communication Skills: Adaptability and Sensitivity.” Journal of Studies in International
Education 9(4): 356-371.
34
Dr. Robert J. Coelen, Ph.D. Lector (Professor University of Applied
Sciences) Internationalisation of Higher Education, is Executive
Dean at Stenden University Qatar and Vice-President International
at Stenden University of Applied Sciences in the Netherlands.
He has worked for about 17 years in the field of international
education. He returned to work in Europe after an absence of
30 years, mainly in Australia. He was a researcher and academic
for most of that time and finally as Director International at two
universities in Queensland. In 2004 he became Vice-President
International at Leiden University.
Robert is a member of Club33, a global group of specialists
on internationalisation of higher education, a member of the
International Ranking Experts Group that produced the Berlin
Principles on Ranking in Higher Education. He was a member of
the Executive Steering Committee and the Editorial Committee
of the European Association of International Education. He was
a member of Advisory Boards on the EU Network of European
Promotors and Transnational Education Projects within the context
of the Erasmus Mundus Global Promotion. He was the founding
President of Euroscholars, a Foundation of 12 leading research
intensive universities in Europe that promotes opportunities for
undergraduate research in study abroad.
Robert is a regular speaker at international and national
conferences on issues related to internationalisation of higher
education, in particular ranking, international positioning, and
service to international students. He was also the organiser of the
Leiden University Global Ranking Symposium Series.
Robert is committed to the ideals of an internationalised higher
education as the result of first-hand experience as an international
student, followed by observing the development of his international
students in undergraduate programs, as well as his international
Ph.D. students.
www.stenden.com