Executive Report MODERN Conference on …...Executive Report MODERN Conference on Assuring the Quality of Internationalization, Amsterdam, 6-7 May 2010 • 7 I. Introduction MODERN

Executive Report MODERN Conference on Governance, Brussels, 8-9 June 2009 • 1

Assuring the Quality of Internationalisation Executive Report, MODERN Conference, Amsterdam, 6 -7 May 2010 The MODERN project is carried out with the support of the European Commission. The content of this report reflects the views only of the authors and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. Lifelong Learning Project N° 142354-LLP-1-2008-1-BE -ERASMUS-ENW Contact ESMU Rue Montoyer 31 1000 Brussels © 2010 ESMU www.highereducationmanagement.eu e-mail: [email protected] All rights reserved. No reproduction or copy of this publication may be made without written permission.

ASSURING THE QUALITY OF INTERNATIONALISATION

EXECUTIVE REPORT

MODERN CONFERENCE

AMSTERDAM, 6 – 7 MAY 2010

4 • Executive Report MODERN Conference on Assuring the Quality of Internationalization, Amsterdam, 6-7 May 2010

Partners & Steering Committee Members ESMU, European Centre for Strategic Management of Universities Frans van Vught, Project leader, ESMU President Nadine Burquel, ESMU Secretary-General Anja Busch, ESMU Project Officer CHE, Centre for Higher Education Development Frank Ziegele, CEO Sigrun Nickel, CHE Project Manager CHEPS, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (University of Twente) Jon File, CHEPS Executive Director DUK, Danube University Krems Attila Pausits, Head, Centre for Continuing Education and Educational Management EAIE, European Association of International Education Ruth Graf, EAIE Secretariat Gudrun Paulsdottir, EAIE Vice-President ECIU, European Consortium of Innovative Universities Bettina Burger, ECIU Secretariat, University of Dortmund Peter West Secretary, University of Strathclyde EFMD, European Foundation for Management Development Christophe Terrasse, Associate Director, Knowledge and Surveys Unit Boriana Marinova, Project Manager, Development Department HEDDA, Higher Education Development Association Peter Maassen, Hedda Director ICHEM, International Centre for Higher Education Management (University of Bath) Jeroen Huisman, ICHEM Director MIP, School of Management (Politecnico di Milano) Michela Arnaboldi, Associate Professor

Executive Report MODERN Conference on Assuring the Quality of Internationalization, Amsterdam, 6-7 May 2010 • 5

Associate partner organisations Association of Heads of University Administration (AHUA) Baltic Sea Region University Network (BSRUN) Central European University (CEU) Center for Higher Education Management and Policy at Southampton (CHEMPaS) Compostela Group of Universities (CGU) Danube Rectors’ Conference (DRC) Deans’ European and Academics Network (DEAN) ESMU-HUMANE Winter School Alumni Network (WSAN) European Association of Conservatoires (EAC) European Association of Distance Education Universities (EADTU) European Association of Institutions in Higher Education (EURASHE) European Network for Universities of Applied Sciences (UASNET) European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI) European Universities Public Relations and Information Officers (EUPRIO) European University Institute (EUI) Fachhochschule Osnabrück Heads of University Management and Administration Network in Europe (HUMANE) Institutional Management in Higher Education (OECD-IMHE) Network of Universities from the Capitals of Europe (UNICA) ProTon Europe Santander Group of European Universities The European Higher Education Society (EAIR) The Norwegian Association of Higher Education Institutions (UHR) UNESCO-CEPES, European Center for Higher Education Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Center for the Study of Higher Education Management (CEGES) University of Kassel, International Centre for Higher Education Research (INCHER) University of London, Institute of Education (IoE) University of Oldenburg University of Southern Denmark


TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction P 7 II. Summary of the MODERN thematic report ‘Internationalisation and its quality assurance’ P 8

1. Quality and Quality assurance P 8 1.1 Quality assurance in the Bologna Process P 9

2. Internationalisation P 10 2.1. Mobility P 10 2.2. Internationalisation of the curriculum P 11 2.3. Internationalisation and the Bologna Process P 11

3. Instruments for quality assurance of internationalisation P 11 III. The key contributions to the conference P 13

1. Issues of quality and internationalisation P 13 2. Case studies P 15

2.1 Mapping Internationalisation (MINT) P 15 2.2 Demonstrated impact of internationalisation on student

learning outcomes / graduate competences (IMPACT) P 17 2.3 Erasmus Mobility Quality Tools project (EMQT) P 18

3. Workshops P 19 IV. Conclusions P 21 V. References P 22


I. Introduction MODERN – European Platform Higher Education Modernisation – is a three-year EU-funded project (2009-2011) under the Lifelong Learning Programme (ERASMUS), which aims to respond to the Modernisation Agenda of the European Union and to the need to invest in people, support future leaders and encourage the professionalisation of higher education management at all levels. The main project activities are to create an open platform for discussion and the dissemination for good practice and mutual learning, to map the demand and the supply of higher education management training, to publish thematic reports, and to organise peer-learning activities as well as a number of conferences on key themes related to the modernisation of higher education. The conference ‘Internationalisation and its quality assurance’, organised by the European Association for International Education (EAIE), was the third conference in a series of five thematic conferences. The conference took place on Friday 7 May in Amsterdam. As internationalisation grows in importance in higher education and takes on a more mainstream role, there is a growing expectation that universities are able to define the added value of the international dimension and measure the impact of internationalisation on the institutional mission. Quality remains a controversial concept with a range of definitions and purposes – whether it is equated with excellence, fitness for purpose, value for money or the ability to transform. The challenge lies in balancing the need for trustworthy external quality control that creates a “bottom line” in terms of accountability along with the need for a creative assessment structure that encourages initiative and creativity and stimulates institutional learning and improvement. Quality assurance in internationalisation should be able to provide reliable information on institutional performance while taking into account the diversity of institutional missions and profiles. The conference programme set out to address these issues by identifying the challenges, providing an overview of the current situation and examining in detail three current projects dealing with specific aspects of quality of internationalisation. Participants were given the opportunity to share their expertise on each of these projects in the workshop sessions or could choose to participate in a benchmarking exercise for internationalisation. An opportunity to meet participants ahead of the event was provided in the form of a networking dinner with an introduction to the topic made by Karl Dittrich, President of the Accreditation Organisation of the Netherlands and Flanders (NVAO) on 'Quality and internationalisation: a forced marriage?'.


II. Summary of MODERN Thematic Report1

One of the key components of the conference was a thematic report on the state of the art of internationalisation and quality assurance, analysing the concepts of internationalisation and quality assurance, their relationship and recent trends and developments. The report was produced by the Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies at the University of Twente, MODERN project partner. The main questions to be answered in the report and in consequence during the conference were:

� How can the quality of internationalisation be assured? � Which instruments are available? � What are current experiences and what should be action lines for the future? � How do we know that internationlisation is achieving its goals?

Before the report dealt with the answers to these questions and possible solutions the key concepts and rationales of the two main components, quality assurance and internationalization, were outlined. 1. Quality and Quality Assurance The quality of education at large and its assurance have gained more importance over the last years and a number of quality assurance schemes, also in the realm of the Bologna Process, have been developed. What does quality assurance entail? In the report this is defined by ‘(recurrent) practices to evaluate the quality of some of a higher education institution’s activities, and the structures associated to this practices’ (Westerheijden 2010). In terms of processes, this is for example the ‘check’ phase of the plan-do-check-act (PDCA) cycle.

Quality assurance on institutional as well as on supra-institutional level is executed through national as well as international quality assurance schemes established by quality assurance agencies. The supra-institutional level also allows for benchmarking and comparison. Quality schemes are, in many cases, established around priorities and characteristics of the system they are embedded in and therefore reflect the national policies etc. In other words, the

1 This summary is based on the thematic report ‚Internationalisation and its quality assurance’ by Don Westerheijden as well as the presentation of Hans Vossensteyn during the conference.


context drives the indicators. As a consequence, the indicators developed for one system might only be applicable to a certain extent in other schemes. The diversity of universities within a system is one of the major challenges in supra-institutional quality assurance schemes. Indicators can be determined in the following categories:

� Outputs: Retention rates, success rates, drop-out rates � Inputs: Staff numbers, staff qualifications, facilities � Process: delivery of curriculum, student satisfaction

1.1. Quality assurance in the Bologna Process

The Bologna Process has not only encouraged the internationalisation of higher education as such, but also the quality assurance. In addition, a number of EU projects have supported and furthered this development. Initially most attention was paid to national QA arrangements through the development of agencies, legal frameworks, criteria & indicators. In 2005 the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ESG) have been established. These guidelines consist of three parts, of which the first is most relevant for higher education institutions and in which the various areas for quality assurance are defined:

� Policy and procedures for quality assurance � Approval, monitoring and periodic review of programmes and awards � Assessment of students � Quality assurance of teaching staff � Learning resources and student support � Information systems � Public information

Part two of the ESG defines external quality assurance through e.g. quality assurance agencies and part three covers the quality assurance of these agencies. To further cooperation between quality assurance agencies and to establish a certain harmonisation of quality assurance procedures throughout Europe, umbrella organisations like the European Association of Quality Assurance Agencies (ENQA) and the European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education (EQAR) were established. In addition the European Consortium for Accreditation in higher education (ECA) has been established by a number of accreditation agencies with the main aim of mutual recognition of accreditation and quality assurance decisions. Currently twelve bilateral mutual recognition agreements have been concluded among quality assurance agencies from eight European countries. The report also provides a number of case studies of national quality assurance agencies and their different approaches e.g. the institutional audit approach from the UK’s Quality Assurance Agency or the evaluation per study programme developed by the Flemish-Dutch NVAO. Both approaches, however, do not have internationalisation as one of the key components. A quality label that explicitly evaluates internationalisation on all levels is the EQUIS (European Quality Improvement System) label developed by EFMD for the accreditation of business schools.


2. Internationalisation The internationalisation of higher education has become more and more important over the last years and, as a response to globalization, has developed into a key element of a higher education institution’s mission. Internationalisation has become an integral part of university strategy and does no longer remain separate from the other components of a university’s mission. The rationales for internationalisation are manifold and the weight of the different rationales (academic, social, cultural, political, economic) has also seen a shift over the last years. The different rationales and their importance also lead to a different answer for the question: what is internationalisation meant to achieve and, furthermore, how can these achievements be measured? The definition for internationalisation used in the report is also one of the most common definitions used in the relevant literature: ‘The process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension in the purpose, function and delivery of postsecondary education’ (Knight, 2004). As mentioned, this process is driven by a number of different rationales. The economic rationale has become more important over the last years and higher education institutions as well as national governments internationalise for reasons like demography, additional resources for reduced funding. Internationalisation is realised in a number of different activities, of which mobility is still the most prominent. Internationalisation activities include for example:

� Mobility of students and staff � Internationalisation of curricula and QA � Inter-institutional cooperation � International consortia � Cross-border delivery of education e.g. transnational education, joint degrees and

programmes The implementation of these activities is more and more determined by an internationalisation strategy, meaning that the initial nature of adhoc activities without a given context has now been transformed into a strategy embedded in a university’s mission and defined by clear goals reached through the various activities.

2.1 Mobility Student mobility is the activity most associated with the internationalisation phenomenon. The mobility of students has developed over the years (through, for example, the Bologna Process as well as different mobility programmes and schemes) and can nowadays be divided into the following subgroups:

� Credit mobility (also short term mobility or horizontal mobility): Students follow a short term of their studies abroad e.g. as part of the ERASMUS programme and gain credits for modules completed during this stay.

� Diploma mobility (also vertical mobility): Students complete a diploma or degree in a foreign higher education institution.

Although these above mentioned definitions have been established, these terms are often interpreted differently and therefore the measurement of student mobility is still difficult. In


addition to measuring the actual number of mobile students, it is also important to measure the impact of student mobility. One of the key questions, which will also be addressed later in this report, is what impact a study abroad period has on students and their personal as well as professional development and, moreover, how these influences can be measured. This question is also valuable for the mobility of staff. Here however there is, according to the report, still a lack of sufficient background information and statistics.

2.2 Internationalisation of the curriculum Internationalisation at home provides students (mobile as well as non-mobile) with an international experience within their home university environment. Moreover, universities are required to be more international in order to be competitive and more attractive. An international campus can be achieved through, for example, the following:

� Content e.g. literature, language learning � Methods e.g. peer learning, pedagogies, ICT use � Delivery e.g. language of instruction � Services e.g. student support services

2.3 Internationalisation and the Bologna Process

The Bologna Process and its two main goals (establishment of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) and the promotion of European Higher Education) have given the internationalisation of Higher Education an additional driving force. Four of the ten Bologna action lines concern core activities of internationalisation:

� Mobility � Recognition � Joint degrees � Global dimension

The other action lines are also closely linked to internationalisation. The Bologna Process supports internationalisation instruments like ECTS as the credit currency, National Qualification Frameworks as well as the European Qualification Frameworks (QF-EHEA as well as EU’s EQF) and the Diploma Supplement. 3. Instruments for quality assurance of internationalisation The report showed that the importance of internationalisation in current quality assurance schemes is not very high. Internationaliation and quality assurance however have become more and more linked and their relationship comprises three different components:

� Quality assurance of internationalisation � Quality-adding value of internationalisation of higher education � Internationalisation of quality assurance

One of the key questions is whether the quality of internationalisation should be measured and analysed as a separate entity or as part of the overall quality assurance process. The attention for internationalisation in existing quality assurance schemes was non existent and marginal in many cases. As a first step separate models to measure and assure the quality of internationalisation were developed and implemented.


One of the early efforts was made through IMHE/OECD’s ‘Internationalisation Quality Review Process (IQRP)’, which was offered from 1994 to 1998. The process included pilot peer reviews in institutions in different parts of the world (Knight and de Wit 1999). The IQRP however did not gain the importance needed. The process was based on a self-assessment tool for the institution as such and an external peer review. The IQRP was rather a self-improvement exercise than a benchmark exercise. The IQRP proposed to evaluate internationalisation within seven dimensions:

� Internationalisation policies and strategies � Organisational and support structures � Academic programmes and students � Research and scholarly contributions � Human resources management � Contracts and services � Conclusions and recommendations

Furthermore, the thematic report points out that in the last years the emphasis of quality assurance has also changed from not only focusing on the ‘why?’ (motivation), but also on the ‘what for’ (goal) and the achievement of the goals. The missions and goals of internationalisation are many and diverse. A close link should, however, remain between the mission or goals aspired through internationalisation and the measures to assess the success or quality of internationalisation. Recently the measurement of the impact of internationalisation in addition to input and process measures has become more important. The values added through this process e.g. additional learning outcomes/competences for students have become the scope of being measured/evaluated. The literature however suggests that the definition of these learning outcomes and possible indicators are difficult to design and the report tries to identify the reasons for this. The main questions that remain are what internationalisation is expected to do to students, who these indicators are aimed for, what does it mean to train students to become European/global citizens. The report shows that it is still difficult to determine a set of indicators for the different dimensions as input, output as well as outcomes. The conference provided a forum to continue the discussion on the requirements for the quality assurance of internationalisation and the required tools to facilitate the process.


III. Key contributions to the conference Some of the themes that were outlined in the thematic report have been addressed in more depth in the various presentations during the conference. The morning part of the conference provided participants with the necessary information and input on general developments in internationalisation and quality assurance. Beside a presentation on the main outcomes of the report (see point 2) Hans de Wit provided an input presentation on a number of issues in relation to internationalisation and quality assurance. This presentation provided the participants with a comprehensive overview of the applicable definitions, current trends and challenges. To address the topic more in-depth the audience was presented with three different initiatives in the field of quality assurance of internationalisation. These three case studies were also the basis for the workshops that completed the afternoon part of the conference. 1. Issues of quality and internationalisation – Hans de Wit (University of Applied Sciences Amsterdam, the Netherlands) The presentation provided an overview of the meanings, trends and rationales for internationalisation, its relationship to globalisation and recent trends and developments. Moreover, a general overview of recent tools and instruments for quality assurance of internationalisation was provided. In his introduction, de Wit also referred to Jane Knight’s definition of internationalisation as already quoted in the thematic report. In addition, de Wit used - by quoting Jane Knight - the following more in-depth definition of internationalisation:

� Internationalisation at Home: activities that help students develop international understanding and intercultural skills

� Internationalisation Abroad: all forms of education crossing borders, mobility of students, teachers, scholars, programmes, courses, curriculum, projects

These terms replace the two traditional internationalisation categories of curriculum and mobility (as outlined in the thematic report) and reflect the changing role of higher education in the globalisation process. In addition to the classic rationales for internationalisation De Wit highlights some additional and emerging rationales:

� Standards, Status and profile: Ranking � Strategic alliances: cooperation for competition and competition for cooperation � Regionalisation (Bologna Process) � Trade in educational services � Skilled Migration � Developing international and intercultural competencies for students and academics

These rationales have consequences for mobility and lead to more competition for the best students in the world (shift from quantity to quality). As for the curriculum it puts more emphasis on international and intercultural competencies to prepare these talents (independently if they are national or international) for an increasingly more international and intercultural work and living environment. This also implies a stronger link between the curriculum, teaching and learning and the professions; attention to competencies of teaching staff; a more precise definition of what we mean by international and intercultural competencies. De Wit raises some general questions to be asked when discussing the measurement of internationalisation:


� How do we measure what we do? � What do we measure? � What indicators do we use for assessment? � Do we assess processes or activities? � Do we assess for quality improvement of our own process and activities or do we assess

the contribution of internationalisation for the improvement of the overall quality of higher education?

� Do we use a quantitative and/or a qualitative approach to measurement? � Which instruments do we use: post or ante measurements, indicators, benchmarking,

best practices, quality review, accreditation, certification, audits, rankings?

The elements that can be assessed are also not limited to one: � inputs (resources available to support internationalisation efforts) � outputs (the amount and types of work or activity undertaken in support of

internationalisation efforts) � outcomes (impacts or end results)

In many of the current projects only input and output indicators are developed, as outcomes would require large-scale in-depth surveys of samples. Moreover the national and institutional context is an important factor, which makes it difficult to develop a common tool. In addition to the Internationalisation Quality Review Process (already mentioned under point 2) a strong growth in the number of tools and studies which are trying to identify important indicators for internationalisation can be witnessed over the last years. Some of these projects are:

� ACU University Management Benchmarking Programme This programme was first implemented by the Association of Commonwealth Universities (ACU) in 1996. The programme was primarily but not exclusively for universities from the Commonwealth. Both in 1998 and 2008, internationalisation has been one of the themes in the benchmarking exercise of ACU.

� Internationalizing the Campus The project has been developed by the American Council on Education. Its user’s guide was published in 2003. More information on this project can be found on the website of ACE (www.acenet.edu).

� Accessing Best Practices in Internationalization (ABPI) The project has been established by the Association of International Educators NAFSA. NAFSA has been publishing an annual report titled ‘Internationalizing the Campus: Profiles of Success at Colleges and Universities’ since 2003. Each year, this publication profiles colleges and universities, highlighting best practices in various aspects of internationalisation (www.nafsa.org/knowledge_community_network.sec/).

� A Guide to Outcomes Assessment in Education Abroad The guide was edited by Mell C. Bolen, published by the Forum on Education Abroad in 2007 and can be ordered via www.forumea.org/dialogue-resources.cfm.

� Developing Evaluation Criteria to Assess the Internationalisation of Universities This study was coordinated by Osaka University in 2006 and aims to assess the internationalisation of Japanese universities.


� European Benchmarking Initiative This benchmarking project, that also includes internationalisation, is funded by the European Commission and is realised by the European Centre for Strategic Management of Universities (ESMU), in cooperation with CHE and UNESCO/CEPES and the Universidade de Aveiro (www.education-benchmarking.org).

� Evaluation of international relations of universities In 2005-2006 the Spanish ‘Agencia Nacional de Evaluación de la Calidad y Acreditación’ (ANECA) ran this pilot project for the self-evaluation of international relations of universities, in which five Spanish universities were involved.

� How to measure internationality and internationalisation of higher education institutions This tool for measuring internationalisation in German Higher education institutions was developed by the Centre for Higher Education Development (CHE) in cooperation with a group of German institutions of higher education.

� Universities Benchmarking Club The Columbus network, a not-for profit organisation based in Paris, has established this group to support the universities' continued efforts towards improvement through systematic comparisons of various key aspects among participating universities. It includes internationalisation of human resources as one theme, and is considering expanding to other internationalisation themes as well. There are many connections and sometimes overlaps of these tools. Many of them were based on predecessors and tools developed in the same period also influenced each other. The following conclusions can be drawn from Hans de Wit’s presentation:

� There appears to be a need for quality assessment of internationalisation strategies in higher education

� Around the world, in particular in the USA and Europe, several instruments have been developed over the past 15 years for its quality assurance

� They use more or less the same programmatic and organisational categories for assessment

� They are focusing on input and output assessment � They are mainly taking place at the institutional level � They address the state of the art and/or the process for improvement � Some forms of benchmarking are appreciated for comparison and best practice

2. Case Studies Three case studies provided a more in-depth view of quality assurance measures in the field of internationalisation: 1. National self-evaluation and benchmarking tool 2. National tool on evaluating learning outcomes 3. International evaluation tool to evaluate outcomes of a mobility programme

2.1. Mapping Internationalisation (MINT) – Adinda van Gaalen (NUFFIC, the Netherlands) Universities and other higher education institutions operate in an increasingly international environment. In order to operate in such an international environment, institutions are internationalising. In recent years a shift has taken place from the internationalisation of specific core functions of institutions to the internationalisation of the institution as a whole, including its


objectives. The internationalisation of the institution is reflected by the international character of their education and research, but also by the international nature of their funding scheme, their quality assurance system, their staff and student population, etc. Three important interrelated developments are reasons for the increased demand for better data on the internationalisation and internationality:

� With the shift from peripheral to mainstream activity, internationalisation has become a more complicated and more comprehensive process. One is not only demanding quantitative indicators for internationalisation, but the quality of internationalisation is gaining priority.

� The emergence of an accountability culture in higher education based on evaluations. � Through increased global competition and the importance of rankings and league tables

in higher education, institutions need indicators to profile themselves. The tool ‘Mapping internationalisation’ (MINT) was developed under the leadership of Nuffic, the Netherlands Organization for international cooperation in higher education, and in cooperation with a number of Dutch higher education institutions (www.nuffic.nl/mint). After a first pilot in 2008 the tool was further developed in 2009 and is now in use by a number of institutions. The tool allows institutions to map their internationalisation activities and objectives. MINT was developed in cooperation with HEIs and is now a service to HEIs. The individual objectives of higher education institutions are the starting point for the assessment. The tool is online, can be used as a self evaluation as well as benchmarking tool and offers institutions baseline measurements and intra-institutional and inter-institutional comparisons. MINT enables its users to classify and profile their institution, to prepare visitations and accreditations, to improve internationalisation processes and results and to monitor and guide activities and policies. Van Gaalen pointed out that it is important to find a good balance between nuance and limitation. On the one hand, enough indicators should be used to ensure a sufficient degree of sophistication. On the other hand, the tool will not be practical to use if too many indicators are included. According to van Gaalen the following features are important to determine the indicator set:

� what elements (inputs, outputs & outcomes) of the internationalisation process the indicator sets actually want to measure

� what type of internationalisation activities (e.g. strategy, teaching & curriculum, students, staff or research) they focus on

� the purpose (self evaluation, benchmarking, classification, ranking) of the indicator sets � the level (e.g. programme or institution) on which one wants to assess the state of

internationalisation within the institutions � the type of information (e.g. expert judgements and knowledge or stakeholder

evaluations) that is necessary to measure the indicators � the way this data is collected (surveys, institutional data collection, peer reviews or panel

visits or data collection from external databases like (inter)national statistical offices) Below the key components and input for the assessment are listed and it is important to link the different elements.


� Goals (e.g. international and intercultural competencies for students, improving quality of education and/or research, reputation enhancement)

� Activities (education in English or another foreign language, credit mobility, student recruitment, internationalisation of curriculum, staff)

� Facilities (practical, academic, financial, social) � Quality assurance � Key figures

The activities are evaluated in clusters showing the different stages of implementation with help of a traffic light system (green – achieved, orange – partially, green – no). MINT as such is a national project and tool. Since the nature of internationalisation also aims for international benchmarking Nuffic is engaged in a similar project on European level. The project ‘Indicators for Measuring and Profiling Internationalisation (IMPI)’ started in October 2009. It includes the following partners: CHE, Nuffic, Campus France, SIU, ACA and Perspektywy. Associate partners are DAAD, VLHORA, 15 individual universities and 15 individual HEIs from the Coimbra group (www.impi_project.eu). Like MINT, IMPI is a self evaluation as well as a benchmarking tool and has the following aims:

� To provide a toolbox for medium and large group internal comparisons or check of internationalisation

� To provide ideas for a structured strategy approach (objectives, activities, indicators) � To develop three examples of application and test the practicability and robustness of the

chosen indicators for individual institutions, small benchmarking groups (3-5), large benchmarking groups (>10)

� Find examples of good practice for processes � Define ways to choose activities, services, QA measures

Both projects do not address the issue of outcome indicators, but work with input and process indicators.

2.2 Demonstrated impact of internationalisation on student learning outcomes/graduate competences (IMPACT) – Frederik De Decker (Ghent University Association, Belgium)

This presentation evaluated the results and achievements of a project that ran from 2002-2004 in Flanders (Belgium) and that aimed to evaluate the impact of internationalisation on the higher education curricula and more precisely on the competences of graduates. The project tried to carry out a systematic evaluation on a broad, but defined basis, with methodology that is transferable and useful for policy making at different levels (programme, institutional and national). The project should measure the impact of internationalisation of the higher education curricula, meaning that internationalisation activities (input) will have an effect on the core curriculum and as a consequence on the competences of graduates (output). For both, input as well as output, indicators were developed and the relationship between these two components was analysed. These indicators should be measurable, aimed at a certain intervention and linked to criteria for success. The different indicators were established through already existing material, criteria from other projects and then developed further in taking the following aspects into account:

� distinction between single and combined indicators


� structure & relationships � useful (partition of) indicators � value / weight

A questionnaire was used as the main tool to gather all information. The questionnaire was drafted with input from the project team, but also other stakeholders (e.g. HE institutions) to ensure applicability and relevance from the beginning. Furthermore, the target audience for the questionnaire included different stakeholders (graduates, teaching staff, management staff) in different disciplines (nursing, business, history, natural sciences). Within this target group a random selection over a certain period of time and of people with and without international experience/interest from a variety of institutions was made. Elements for the “input”-side were, for example, number and type of international activities, but also other elements like human resources, research etc. The basis for the “output”-side was taken from the 30 (generic) competences of the Tuning project. Some of these are typically linked to internationalisation (e.g. language skills, intercultural skills), others very broad (e.g. teamwork, analysis). According to De Decker the main conclusions of the project were as follows: The project can be seen as pilot project despite the fact that the concepts and methodology were possibly not mature enough. Some years later the concept of competences has gained importance through learning outcomes. The assessment of learning outcomes is the focus of a number of projects (e.g. AHELO project by the OECD). The term of output as used in the project has evolved to outcomes and the interest in the link between “internationalisation input” and “learning outcomes” and its relevance for the quality has increased. One of the current projects, that to a certain extend derived from the above project, is run by the Dutch-Flemish accreditation agency NVAO and is called ‘Programme accreditation and internationalisation: a distinctive (quality) feature for internationalisation’. This project includes self-assessment as well as peer review and makes evaluations on a programme level on the basis of 13 criteria closely linked to the content of education. Internationalisation is one distinctive quality feature in the project and special recognition in this area can be awarded.

2.3 Erasmus Mobility Quality Tools project (EMQT) – Uwe Brandenburg (CHE Consult, Germany)

The project started in October 2009 and is coordinated by the University of Padova (Italy) in close cooperation with the University of Bologna (Italy) and the University of Deusto (Spain). The project has a broad ownership with 15 participating universities and a number of other national and international stakeholders involved. The EMQT project focuses on promoting quality of Erasmus mobility through the development of monitoring and self-certification tools for the benefit of HEIs. The EMQT overall delivery should be prepared by the partners’ platform, through common debate, reflection and search for agreement on procedures and indicators, within six lines of action covering the main aspects of Erasmus Mobility. Furthermore the project is complementary to the IMPI project. The project consists of six main action lines:

� General organisational models within HEIs � Language issues � Information and orientation


� Students’ performances and recognition � Reception of host students � e-Coaching or ICT mobility tools

According to the project plan the main forseen outputs are:

• Guidelines for good practice in Erasmus Mobility, including a general mapping report • Quality Tool Box, describing key-indicators and relative weights, possible quality

patterns, minimal standards identification, positioning scale, guidelines to improve positioning of a concerned HEI, mechanisms and procedures of institutional accountability (e.g. self-certification) and of external validation/assessment

Methodology: The project works with the G.A.IN. sequences (Goals - Actions – INdicators) and identified:

• 8 major goals, among which each HEI makes a choice, when committing itself in the Erasmus programme

• Actions through which HEIs pursue one or more of the chosen goals • Indicators conveying information on the efficacy of one or more actions

The main source of information gathering will be through a questionnaire aimed at mapping the process and highlighting the best practices and the most significative indicators. The questionnaire will first be tested internally and based on this information, guidelines and a list of indicators will be devloped. These indicators will then be forwarded to 150 external partners (external testing). Based on the results obtained, a Quality Tool Box is developed which is able to describe:

• Key indicators & their relevance • Possible quality patterns • Identification of minimum standards • Positioning scales with respect to indicators • Guidelines to improve HEIs’ positioning • Mechanisms & procedures of institutional “accountability” (i.e. self-certification) and for

external validation/evaluation. 3. Workshops

Workshop 1: Quality assurance through mapping internationalisation - Adinda van Gaalen

Subgroups in the workshop discussed, based on a simple case, one of the possible applications of the MINT tool:

� Monitoring activities/policies � Preparing for accreditation � Setting up a policy plan � Positioning your institution/programme � Benchmarking/comparing Workshop 2: Quality assurance in the Erasmus Mobility scheme - Uwe Brandenburg

Participants were asked to:

� give feedback on usability and transparency of actions and indicators in the EQMT project


� develop a small case for at least one institution in the group on how to measure ERASMUS mobility through these tools (which actions to choose, which indicators etc).

Workshop 3: Demonstrated impact of internationalisation on student learning outcomes/graduate competences - Frederik De Decker

Participants explored the impact of internationalisation (both the internationalisation experiences of the students and the internationalisation dimension of the curriculum) on the achieved student learning outcomes/graduate competences. The main questions were:

� what kind of envisaged learning outcomes could be referred to as “international or intercultural learning outcomes”;

� what could we refer to as “internationalisation experiences” of the students; � what could we refer to as the “internationalisation dimension” of the curriculum; � which “international or intercultural learning outcomes” have an impact from which type

of internationalisation. Participants also explored how to make outcomes visible or measurable to the outside world and how internationalisation plays a role in reaching certain intended learning outcomes.

Workshop 4: Benchmarking internationalisation: Going beyond traditional quality assurance approaches - Nadine Burquel

European higher education has been undergoing major changes in the last decades accelerated by the Bologna Process and the Lisbon Agenda. With increasing competition, it is no surprise that instruments such as classifications, rankings and benchmarking exercises have proliferated. Institutional leaders are searching for new strategic planning tools to improve and demonstrate their performance to a multiplicity of stakeholders, to build a strong strategic profile and maintain (or further develop) their position in the market. National and European governments are demanding institutional data to support policy, strategic developments and the restructuring of higher education systems. Indicators are defined to measure performance and benchmarks are set for higher education institutions to respond to. Systematic data collection on institutional performance with a view to set targets to increase institutional performance is not sufficiently developed in universities. The purpose of quality assurance is to ensure accountability, yet it does not sufficiently enhance the quality of higher education itself. Going beyond current quality approaches, benchmarking exercises have a strong added-value as a modern instrument and management tool to support leaders in higher education with strategic decision-making based on systematic data gathering for organisational improvement to set targets for increased performance. The Benchmarking in European Higher Education project www.education-benchmarking.eu has compiled significant information and expertise on benchmarking, reviewing the literature, investigating collaborative benchmarking approaches worldwide and testing new approaches. Participants discussed possible indicators to measure their performance, outlining critical success factors for effective benchmarking and proposing a practical step-by-step approach to benchmark internationalisation. The workshop looked at:

� Understanding and expectations of benchmarking � Measuring the performance of the internationalisation process of the participants’ higher

education institution


� Defining descriptive (contextual) indicators (institutional level) � The challenges of effective collaborative benchmarking � From data collection to implementation of results


IV. Conclusions The conference provided a number of useful references for the access to information, indicators and initiatives on assuring the quality of internationalisation but it also raised many issues in an area that is currently undergoing significant development and transformation. It highlighted that linking quality and internationalisation does not happen by chance but requires serious choices and investment on the part of the stakeholders interested in achieving specific outcomes, whether for monitoring and improvement, for accreditation purposes or for profiling and branding. The various options available have different purposes and it is essential that the institution first has a clear idea of what it wants to do, why it wants to do it and how it plans to reach its goals in order to develop an appropriate strategic design with the most appropriate instruments. In the current context of a trend towards mainstreaming of internationalisation, the conference concluded that the next five years will see an expansion and acceleration of activities aimed at assuring its quality as it becomes more integrated into institutional strategy and more key to the realisation of institutional objectives. As internationalisation becomes mainstreamed, it is moving to a more strategic level and this will also move forward the quality agenda. It also raises the question of where the responsibility for the quality of internationalisation lies, whether it is a European or national issue, or whether it is predominantly an institutional concern and priority.


V. References Brandenburg, U. (2010) Quality assurance in the ERASMUS mobility scheme. Presentation at the MODERN conference on Internationalisation and its quality assurance in May 2010. Available also on http://www.highereducationmanagement.eu/images/stories/Uwe_Brandenburg_EMQT.pdf De Decker, F. (2010) Demonstrated impact of internationalisation on student learning outcomes/graduate competences. Presentation at the MODERN conference on Internationalisation and its quality assurance in May 2010. Available also on http://www.highereducationmanagement.eu/images/stories/Frederik_de_Decker_a_distinctive_European_quality_feature.pdf de Wit, H. (2010) Issues of quality and internationalisation. Presentation at the MODERN conference on Internationalisation and its quality assurance in May 2010. Available also on http://www.highereducationmanagement.eu/images/stories/Hans_de_Wit_Issues_of_quality_and_internationalisation.pdf de Wit, H (2009) Measuring success in the internationalisation of higher education. EAIE Occasional Paper. Amsterdam. Knight, J. (2004) Internationalization Remodeled: Definition, Approaches, and Rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5-31. Knight, J. and de Wit, H. (1999) Quality and Internationalisation of Higher Education. OECD, Paris. van Gaalen, A. (2010) Internationalisation and Quality Assurance. EAIE Professional Development Series for International Educators. Amsterdam. van Gaalen, A. (2010) Quality assurance through mapping Internationalisation. Presentation at the MODERN conference on Internationalisation and its quality assurance in May 2010. Available also on http://www.highereducationmanagement.eu/activities/conferences/amsterdam/programme Vossensteyn, H. (2010) Presentation of key points from the MODERN report on internationalisation and quality assurance. Presentation at the MODERN conference on Internationalisation and its quality assurance in May 2010. Available also on http://www.highereducationmanagement.eu/images/stories/Hans_Vossensteyn_Internationalisation_and_its_QA.pdf Westerheijden, D. (2010) Internatonalisation and its quality assurance. A thematic report produced for the third conference of the MODERN project. CHEPS.


Eurydice (2008), Higher Education Governance in Europe. Policies, structures funding and academic

staff. Brussels: Eurydice.

Jongbloed, B. (2010), Funding higher education: A view across Europe. Enschede: CHEPS.

Neave, G. (1988), On the cultivation of quality, efficiency and enterprise: An overview of recent trends

in higher education in Western Europe, 1986-1988. European Journal of Education 23 (1/2), pp. 7-

23.

OECD (2008), Tertiary Education for the Knowledge Society. Paris: OECD.

Sorbonne Declaration (1998), Joint declaration on harmonisation of the architecture of the European

higher education system by the four Ministers in charge for France, Germany, Italy and the United

Kingdom.

Williams, G. (1995), The “Marketisation” of Higher Education: Reforms and Potential Reforms in Higher

Education Finance. In Emerging Patterns of Social Demand and University Reform: Through a Glass

Darkly, edited by David Dill, D. And B. Sporn (pp. 170-193). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Documents

Executive Report MODERN Conference on …...Executive Report MODERN Conference on Assuring the Quality of Internationalization, Amsterdam, 6-7 May 2010 • 7 I. Introduction MODERN