1 / 31

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF APRU UNIVERSITIES -LOCAL PRACTICES AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS-

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF APRU UNIVERSITIES -LOCAL PRACTICES AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS-. Professor Wan-hua Ma Professor K. Ravi Kumar Peking University University of Southern California. February 2004. Presentation Agenda. Survey Objectives

butch
Télécharger la présentation

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF APRU UNIVERSITIES -LOCAL PRACTICES AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS-

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. INTERNATIONALIZATION OF APRU UNIVERSITIES-LOCAL PRACTICES AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS- Professor Wan-hua Ma Professor K. Ravi Kumar Peking University University of Southern California February 2004

  2. Presentation Agenda • Survey Objectives • Survey Methodology • Summary of Numerical Data • Introduction to Workshop Sessions

  3. Survey Objectives • to have APRU members know each other’s “current internationalization strategies” both at the university level and school level • to have APRU members learn from each other’s “best-practices” in the internationalization of teaching, research, and outreach activities • to increase collaboration among APRU members on such internationalization activities.

  4. Survey Methodology

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

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

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

  8. Data Collection • University-wide Survey • RWG member emailed electronic version of the university-wide survey responses to APRU’s RWG Co-Chairs • Individual School Survey • Schools emailed the results to university’s RWG member. • RWG member forwarded the results to APRU’s RWG Co-Chairs

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

  10. Obtained clusters of best practices • Teaching • Student Research Projects • Research • Outreach • IT Enabled Education and Outreach • Integration of Teaching, Research, and Outreach

  11. Method for Numerical Data Analysis • Descriptive Statistics • Comparative analysis • University vs. Schools • Regions • Disciplines

  12. Summary of Numerical Data

  13. Number of Responded Universities and Schools

  14. Respondents by Region

  15. Respondents by Discipline

  16. Priority for InternationalizationDifference between University and Schools University-wide School Universities have higher mean and lower standard deviation than Schools. * Priority for internationalization is significantly different between university and school mean (p = 0.05).

  17. Priority for InternationalizationDifference between Regions University-wide No significant difference between regions. School Means are significantly different between regions (p=0.05). The gap between university and schools is larger in North America/Oceaniathan Asia

  18. Where Is Internationalization Stated?Comparison between university and school School University-wide 45.2% of schools stated in strategic plan 83.3% of universities stated in mission statement Most universities stated internationalization as a priority in written documents. But more than half of schools did not state it as a priority.

  19. Responsible person for promoting internationalizationComparison between university and school School University-wide At university level, most universities have responsible person in internationalization. At school level, 40.9% of schools do not have one.

  20. Responsible person for promoting internationalizationComparison by region (at school level) At school level, schools in Asia have more ‘responsible person in internationalization’ than those in North America/Oceania.

  21. Importance of Factors to InternationalizationComparison between university and school • There is no significant difference between university and school in the importance of factors (c1 to c7) to internationalization. • For factor c8, there is a significant difference between university and school. (p=0.01)

  22. Gap between Priority and Importance to Internationalization University School Schools are more consistent between priority and importance to internationalization.

  23. Success of Outcomes Stimulated by InternationalizationComparison between university and school Note that D8 showed the lowest scores, meaning internationalization has not been successful in generating additional sources of income for both Universities and Schools.

  24. Introduction to Workshop Sessions

  25. Teaching (11:00 a.m.-12:30 p.m.) Chair:Jim Sait, Strategic Director, Internationalization, University of Sydney National University of Singapore: “University-wide Allocation Exercise for Student Exchange” Sharon Chan, Senior Manager, International Relations Office University of Auckland, “International Collaborative Networks” Dick Bellamy, Dean of Sciences Peking University, “University of California--Peking University Joint Center for International Studies” Theodore D. Huters, Resident Director, Beijing, U of California & Li, Yansong, Director, Office of International Relations Hong Kong University of Science and Technology “Executive Master of Technology Management ” Pong, Ting Chuen, Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs University of Southern California: “Pacific Rim Education (PRIME)” Ravi Kumar, Vice Dean for International Programs, Marshall School of Business 1st Day

  26. 1st Day Student Research Projects (2:00-3:00 p.m.) Chair: Muhamad Rusat, Director, Institute of Research, Management and Consultancy, University of Malaya • UC Davis: “Undergraduate Education and Research Abroad” • William Lacy, Vice Provost for Outreach and International Programs • Seoul National University, “International Summer Camp” • Taeho Bark, Dean, School of International and Area Studies • University of Southern California, “International Business Consulting Projects” • Richard Drobnick, Vice Provost for International Affairs

  27. 1st Day Research (3:15-5:00 p.m.) Chair: Christopher Tremewan, Pro Vice-Chancellor, University of Auckland • Kyoto University, “Japan-Korea Core University Program on Energy Science and Engineering” • AkiraKohyama, Institute of Advanced Energy • National University of Singapore, “Program on Air Transport and Logistics ” • Liew, Ah Choy, Director, International Relations Office • University of California at Los Angeles, “InterPARES Project” • James Jacob, Research Coordinator, Center for International and Development Education

  28. Outreach (9:00-10:30 a.m.) Chair: Peter A. Coclanis, Associate Vice President for International Affairs, University of North Carolina Kyoto University, “International Symposium” Takashi Endo, Chairperson, Committee for International Academic Exchange National University of Singapore, “Overseas College Program” Teo, Chee Leong, Director, NUS Overseas Colleges University of California at Berkeley, “ORIAS Program for K-12 Communities Michele Delattre, Program Representative, Office of Resources for International and Area Studies University of Oregon, “International Cultural Service Program for International Students” Tom Mills, Associate Vice President, International Programs Tsinghua University, “Tsinghua-Harvard Executive Education Program” Chen, Guoqing, Deputy Dean, School of Economics and Management (tbc) 2nd Day

  29. 2nd Day IT Enabled Education and Outreach (10:45 a.m-12:30 p.m.) Chair: Jose Maria Balmaceda, Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs, University of the Philippines • Kyoto University, “Trans-Pacific Interactive Distance Learning (TIDE)” • Montonori Nakamura, Academic Center for Computing and Multimedia Studies • National University of Singapore, “Integrated Virtual Learning Environment” • Liew, Ah Choy, Director, International Relations Office and • Hu, Rong, Business Development Manager, WizLearn Greater China Representative Office • University of British Columbia, “Telehealth Initiative” • Kenneth McGillivray, Director, Office of UBC International

  30. 2nd Day Integration of Teaching, Research and Outreach (2:00-4:00 p.m) Chair: William Tierney, Director, Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis, Rossier School of Education, USC • University of California at Los Angeles, “AIDS International Training and Research Program (AITRP)” • James Jacob, Research Coordinator, Center for International and Development Education • Taiwan University, “ Association of East-Asian Research Universities (AEARU)” • Chou, Chia-pei, Director, Center for International Academic Exchanges • Waseda University, “International College of Waseda University” • Katsuichi Uchida, Director, Planning Office of the International College • University of Southern California, “USC-Freeman Fellows Internship Program” --John Windler, Director, International Offices • Peking University, “Internationalization: development and trends at Peking University “ -- Li,Yansong Director, The Office of International Affairs.:

  31. 2nd Day Future Projects: Collaboration, Ideas, & Barriers (4:15-5:00 p.m.) Co-Chairs: Richard Drobnick, Vice Provost for International Affairs, University of Southern California Lawrence Loh, Secretary General, Asssociation of Pacific Rim universities

More Related