Updates of the Study on the Indicators for Internationalization of Higher Education in Asia

Hiroshi Ota, Ph.D., Hitotsubashi Universityh.ota@r.hit_u.ac.jp

Yuki Watabe, Ph.D., Tohoku Universityyuki.watabe@tohoku.ac.jp

Second Stakeholders Meeting on Indicators for Internationalization ofHigher Education in Asia and the Pacific

November 9, 2017@Sukosol Hotel, Bangkok, Thailand

Background of Study• Internationalization evolves into a more mainstream role in higher education.

• Strategic efforts and approaches toward internationalization with the government support (financial support / funding programs).

• Need to fulfill accountability to the government and taxpayers.

• A lack of efficient prioritization and streamlining within the internationalization strategies.

• Increasing expectation: universities to be able to clarify the added value of the international dimensions and the impact of internationalization.

Background of Study

• Crucial challenge: develop the effective assessment process of internationalization efforts. Need for trusted quality control, accountability, transparency, resource management, and

quantitative expansion.

• Requires a creative assessment methods and its related indicators: encourages overall internationalization initiatives and adds a strategic dimension to further university internationalization.

3

Purpose of Study• Comparing the goals, strategies (approaches), evaluation (assessment)

indicators and methods, and data collection of internationalization between Asian and Japanese universities.

Internationalization Goals: priority Internationalization Strategies (approaches): priority Evaluation(assessment) Indicators: importance Data collection: have or have not Evaluation (assessment) methods: preference

Survey Methods (differences)Japan: modified Delphi method was employed.

1. First Round Survey in 2014 Asked 229 Japanese universities about the effectiveness of 152 indicators to

assess internationalization of universities. 141 universities responded (institutional response).

2. Second Round Survey in 2015 Asked 37 Japanese universities about the importance of 53 selected indicators

that are deemed effective for the assessment of internationalization. 37 universities selected for “Top Global University Project”

• Type A (13 univs.): leading research institutions, aiming to be ranked in the top 100 in the world university rankings (Top Type).

• Type B (24 univs.): Institutions that are expected to pioneer internationalization efforts in Japanese higher education and boost their international profile (Global Traction Type)

32 universities responded (institutional response).

Survey Methods (differences)3. Third Round Survey in 2017 Asked academic and administrative staff working for international affairs

(international offices and centers) at universities in Asia including Australia and New Zealand about the importance of 53 indicators to assess internationalization of universities.

119 responses (as of October 31): multiple responses are accepted from a single university (individual response)

Survey Design• Four internationalization strategies (approaches)Adopted those four internationalization strategies proposed by the Higher Education Institution’s

Responses to Europeanisation, Internationalisation and Globalisation (HEIGLO) project Huisman, J. & van der Wende, M. (eds.). (2005). On cooperation and competition II. Bonn, Germany:

Lemmens. http://www.lemmens.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Verlag/Buecher/ACA_Download_PDFs/2005_On_Cooperation_and_Competition_II.pdf

• Five internationalization goals & 152 indicators to assess internationalization of universities Adopted the goals and indicators proposed by Indicators for Mapping & Profiling

Internationalization (IMPI) project. IMPI Toolbox Full List of Indicators

Retrieved from http://www.impi-project.eu/pdf/list_of_indicators.pdf on November 19, 2012489 IMPI indicators were translated into Japanese and 152 indicators were selected based on the

relevance to Japanese higher education context. 7

3 Sets of Internationalization Indicators 1. Core internationalization indicators: 34 indicators

– Indicators recognized effective and important (Mean > 2.0, CV < 35.0)

2. Context internationalization indicators: 19 indicators– Indicators recognized effective, but less important (Mean < 2.0) or

their importance vary among the universities (CV ≧ 35.0)– Three categories: Education, Research, and Others

3. Comprehensive internationalization indicators: 97 indicators– Indicators for universities to go one step further or move toward

comprehensive internationalization– Not selected as 53 effective indicators

Scale: 3=very important; 2=Important; 1=somewhat importantCV (Coefficient of Variance): a measure of spread that describes the amount of variability relative to the mean

8

Responses 3rd Round: Asia by Country/Region/Territory (N=119)

TGU Type # of Samples

# of Respondents

Response Rate

Type A(Top Type) 13 10 76.9 %

Type B(Global Traction Type)

24 22 91.7%

Total 37 32 86.5%

2nd Round: Japan by Top Global University Project Type (N=32)

1st Round: Japan (N=141)# of Samples # of Respondents Response

Rate228

National: 67Municipal: 29Private: 132

141National: 53

Municipal: 18Private: 70

61.8 %

# of Responses by Question Category

Question Category# of Responses

Asia JapanInternationalization Goals 119 1st round: 141

2nd round: 32 Internationalization Strategies 113 1st round 141

2nd round: n/aEvaluation Indicators 95 1st round: 141

2nd round: 32Evaluation Methods 87 1st round: 141

2nd round: 32

Internationalization GoalsASIA: Priority (3rd round) Japan: Importance (1st round)

a To enhance the quality of education 141 3.87 0.34

c

To prepare students effectively for life and work in an intercultural and globalizing world

141 3.77 0.43

b To enhance the quality of research 140 3.65 0.48

dTo enhance the international reputation and visibility of the unit

140 3.29 0.65

eTo provide service to society and community social engagement

138 3.28 0.60

Goals of Internationalization Ｎ Mean SD1st % 2nd % Conversion Point

a To enhance the quality of education 41 34.5% 45 38.1% 469.00

c

To prepare students effectively for life and work in an intercultural and globalising world

49 41.2% 18 15.3% 440.00

d To enhance the international reputation and visibility 24 20.2% 15 12.7% 331.00

b To enhance the quality of research 2 1.7% 32 27.1% 328.00

eTo provide service to society and community social engagement

3 2.5% 8 6.8% 201.00

119 100% 118 100% Total

AsiaGoals

Scale: 4=very important; 3=somewhat important; 2=;not very important; 1=not important at allRank: 1st to 5th

Internationalization Goals by Country/Region/Territory

Quality of

Education

Quality of

Research

Student Prep

Reputation &

Visibility

Social Engagement

Quality of

Education

Quality of

Research

Student Prep

Reputation &

Visibility

Social Engagement

1st 2 0 1 0 0 32nd 1 0 0 2 0 3

1st 41 2 49 24 3 119 1st 0 0 1 0 0 12nd 45 32 18 15 8 118 2nd 1 0 0 0 0 11st 5 1 13 1 1 21 1st 7 0 2 4 0 132nd 11 4 2 1 2 20 2nd 5 2 4 0 2 131st 5 0 1 0 1 7 1st 1 0 3 2 0 62nd 2 5 0 0 0 7 2nd 2 0 3 1 0 61st 2 0 3 0 0 5 1st 0 0 0 1 0 12nd 3 2 0 0 0 5 2nd 0 1 0 0 0 11st 5 0 5 4 0 14 1st 8 0 5 1 0 142nd 4 4 2 2 2 14 2nd 4 7 1 2 0 141st 1 0 6 2 1 10 1st 3 0 5 5 0 132nd 3 3 3 1 0 10 2nd 6 3 0 3 1 131st 0 0 1 3 0 4 1st 1 1 3 1 0 62nd 1 0 1 1 1 4 2nd 2 1 1 2 0 6

Vietnam

Malaysia

Thailand

India

Philippines

Australia

Brunei

New Zealand

Total

China

Indonesia

Hong　Kong

Singapore

Taiwan

Priority

Goal

Total

Japan Mean of Importance 3.87 3.65 3.77 3.29 3.28 n = 141

South Korea

Country Priority

Goal

Total Country

1st % 2nd % 3rd % 4th % 1st % 2nd % 3rd % 4th %

aCompetition: Aiming for theachievement of world-classuniversity status ( Elitism )

32 28.3% 32 28.6% 23 21.1% 24 22.2% 16 11.3% 6 4.4% 18 14.1% 74 61.2%

bCo-operation and networking:Strengthening the internationalinstitutional profile

56 49.6% 41 36.6% 13 11.9% 3 2.8% 37 26.2% 55 40.4% 36 28.1% 5 4.1%

c

Internationalisation as a means ofimproving the institutional profilewithin the country ( to recruit gooddomestic students )

8 7.1% 23 20.5% 52 47.7% 27 25.0% 53 37.6% 46 33.8% 34 26.6% 3 2.5%

d

Internationalisation for survival ( recruiting international students isessential for institutional survival orfor maintaining institutionalcompetitiveness )

17 15.0% 16 14.3% 21 19.3% 54 50.0% 23 16.3% 26 19.1% 39 30.5% 33 27.3%

e Other 12 8.5% 3 2.2% 1 0.8% 6 5.0%

113 100% 112 100% 109 100% 108 100% 141 100% 136 100% 128 100% 121 100%Total

Asia JapanInternationalization Strategies

Internationalization Strategies (approaches): Priority

Internationalization Strategies by Country/Region/Territory

Country Priority CompetitionCooperation

& Networking

Domestic Reputation Survival Total Country Priority Competition

Cooperation &

Networking

Domestic Reputation Survival Total

1st 16 37 53 23 129 1st 1 2 0 0 32nd 6 55 46 26 133 2nd 0 1 2 0 31st 32 56 8 17 113 1st 0 1 0 0 12nd 32 41 23 16 112 2nd 1 0 0 0 11st 4 10 1 5 20 1st 3 8 1 0 122nd 6 7 2 5 20 2nd 5 3 3 1 121st 4 1 0 2 7 1st 3 3 0 0 62nd 1 4 2 0 7 2nd 2 3 1 0 61st 1 3 0 0 4 1st 1 0 0 0 12nd 2 1 0 0 3 2nd 0 0 0 1 11st 3 3 4 3 13 1st 2 9 2 0 132nd 2 6 3 2 13 2nd 5 4 1 3 131st 4 2 0 4 10 1st 4 8 0 0 122nd 3 6 1 0 10 2nd 1 3 6 2 121st 0 1 0 3 4 1st 2 4 0 0 62nd 1 1 1 1 4 2nd 3 2 0 1 6

Malaysia

Philippines

Australia

Brunei

New Zealand

Vietnam

Japan

South Korea

Asia Total

China

Indonesia

Hong　Kong

Singapore

Taiwan

Thailand

India

Internationalization Indicators: Importance byCategory

Scale: 3 = Extremely important, 2 = Important, 1 = Somewhat important

Top 30 Indicators

# ofIndicators (b)

%(b)/(a)

# ofIndicators (c)

%(c)/(a)

A. Student 5 1 20% 3 60%B. Staff 4 0 0% 2 50%C. Administration 8 5 63% 8 100%D. Funding and finance 4 3 75% 2 50%E. Curricula andAcademic Services 11 4 36% 6 55%

F. Research 6 5 83% 2 33%G. Promotion and Marketing 3 3 100% 2 67%H. Non-Academic Services, andCampus and Community life 12 9 75% 6 50%

Total 53 30 31

Total # ofIndicators (a)Categories

Asia (n=93, 94 or 95) Japan (n=32)

Difference in Indicators between Asia and Japan: Indicators for Research

F1

In a given year, what proportion of conference presentationsare delivered abroad (or in the context of internationalconferences) relative to the number of researchers in theinstitution?

94 2.18 0.69 32 1.97 .647

F2In a given year, what proportion of research projects withwhich the institution is formally associated are internationallyfunded?

94 2.18 0.67 32 1.97 .647

F3In a given year, what proportion of research projects withwhich the institution is formally associated involveinternational partners?

94 2.17 0.62 32 1.97 .695

F4

In a given year, what proportion of authored (or co-authored)pieces (books, journal issues, articles, and so on) arepublished internationally relative to the number of researchersin the institution?

94 2.38 0.67 32 2.03 .782

F5

In a given year, how many and what proportion ofpublications in scholarly/peer-reviewed journals are authored(or co-authored) in a foreign language by researchers in theinstitution?

94 2.11 0.70 32 2.25 .803

F6 Citation performance of international research activities, e.g.,Science Citation Index (SCI), Citations of paper (CPP) 93 2.40 0.66 32 2.31 .821

93 2.23 0.46 32 2.08 0.57

Asia JapanIndicators

Total

Difference in Indicators between Asia and JapanN Mean

(a) SD N Mean(b) SD N Mean

(a) SD N Mean(b) SD

B3In a given year, out of all academic staffmembers in the institution, whatproportion have foreign citizenship?

95 1.76 0.80 32 2.25 0.67 -0.49 H1Does the institution provide facilitiesadapted to the needs of a culturallydiverse student population?

95 2.31 0.58 32 2.00 0.67 0.31

C7 Does the institution set quantitativetargets set for study abroad? 95 2.08 0.71 32 2.50 0.62 -0.42 H7

Does the institution provide support forinternational students toencourage/enable interaction withdomestic students?

95 2.31 0.55 32 2.00 0.72 0.31

C6 Does the institution set quantitativetargets set for international students? 95 2.15 0.73 32 2.50 0.62 -0.35 F4

In a given year, what proportion ofauthored (?or co-authored?) pieces (?books, journal issues, articles, and so on?) are published internationally relativeto the number of researchers in theinstitution?

94 2.38 0.67 32 2.03 0.78 0.35

A1Out of all students that graduate fromthe institution in a given year, whatproportion are international students?

95 1.94 0.65 32 2.25 0.72 -0.31 E8

Does the institution use Englishlanguage proficiency tests such asTOEFL, TOEIC, or IELTS for the purposeof educational activities or graduationrequirements?

95 2.27 0.76 32 1.91 0.73 0.37

E2

Does the institution provide support (?e.g. programmes teaching the hostcountry's language as a secondlanguage, tutor system?) tointernational students with specialacademic needs?

95 2.19 0.70 32 2.50 0.57 -0.31 A3In a given year, from how manydifferent countries do the institution'sinternational students come?

94 2.03 0.68 32 1.63 0.75 0.41

B2

In a given year, what proportion of theinstitution's academic staff membersteach a course delivered in a foreignlanguage (?excluding foreign languagecourses?)?

95 1.98 0.80 32 2.28 0.68 -0.30 H5

Does the institution provideservices/support for internationalstudents who may wish to participate incommunity cultural exchange activities?

95 2.14 0.56 32 1.72 0.52 0.42

E6

Out of all courses offered by theinstitution in a given year, whatproportion of courses are taught in aforeign language (?excluding foreignlanguage courses?)?

95 2.07 0.80 32 2.38 0.66 -0.30 C4Does the institution have a specificorganisational structure to supportinternationalisation?

95 2.56 0.61 32 2.06 0.76 0.50

Japan(a)-(b)

JapanAsia(a)-(b)Indicators Indicators

Asia

Evaluation Methods1st ％ 2nd % 3rd % 1st % 2nd % 3rd %

a Self-evaluation according to institutional needs

19 26.0% 2 2.7% 13 17.8% 8 25.0% 2 7.1% 3 12.0%

bSelf-evaluation through benchmarking with institutions at home

10 13.7% 10 13.7% 8 11.0% 2 6.3% 3 10.7% 1 4.0%

cSelf-evaluation through benchmarking with institutions abroad

5 6.8% 11 15.1% 5 6.8% 3 9.4% 6 21.4% 5 20.0%

dMutual evaluation and sharing information through cooperation with institutions at home

4 5.5% 10 13.7% 8 11.0% 2 6.3% 4 14.3% 1 4.0%

eMutual evaluation and sharing information through cooperation with institutions abroad

3 4.1% 4 5.5% 4 5.5% 4 12.5% 7 25.0% 1 4.0%

f Evaluation by Quality Assurance?Agency

16 21.9% 9 12.3% 12 16.4% 3 9.4% 1 3.6% 0 0.0%

g External evaluation 5 6.8% 17 23.3% 6 8.2% 4 12.5% 2 7.1% 5 20.0%

h Overseas evaluation resulting in the award of a certificate

8 11.0% 2 2.7% 4 5.5% 2 6.3% 2 7.1% 3 12.0%

iEvaluation accompanied by consultation with and advice from experts

3 4.1% 8 11.0% 11 15.1% 3 9.4% 1 3.6% 6 24.0%

jNo plan to conduct institutional internationalisation evaluation 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 2.7% 1 3.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

73 100% 73 100% 73 100% 32 100% 28 100% 25 100%

Asia JapanTypes of Evaluation

Total

Concluding Remarks We need your HELP to increase

the number of responses.We want more responses!We need more responses!

“Survey on Evaluation of Internationalisation at Universities in Asia”Please respond by Wednesday, 31st January, 2018 via the online

questionnaire at the following URL:http://intl-assess.org/en/about/

Thank you for your attention!

Email addressesYuki Watabe: yuki.watabe@r.hit-u.ac.jp

Hiroshi Ota: h.ota@r.hit-u.ac.jp

21