examining benchmarking and standardization in ......why colorado state university •colorado state...

Examining Benchmarking and Standardization in Comprehensive Internationalization

Paulo Zagalo-Melo, Ph.D.Nancy Bjorklund, Ed.D.Western Michigan University

Benchmarking –A Driver for Internationalization

• HEI’s are becoming more internationalized and globalized.

• Every nation evaluates the performance and quality of education.

• Presently, HEI’s are not required to meet any internationalization standards.

• No certification nor accreditation.

The Context


• Overall need for well-defined and articulated procedures, evaluation and assessment.

• Quality and quality assurance of internationalization.

• Means to distinguish universities from competitors.

• Hundreds of strategies developed by HEI’s aimed at achieving internationalization.

The Context II


• NUFFIC - Netherlands Organization for International Cooperation in Higher Education: Mapping Internationalization

• DAAD – German Academic Exchange Service: Internationality of German HEIs

• ECA – European Consortium for Accreditation

• ACE – American Council on Education: Qualitative Internationalization Review Instruments (USA)

• NIADUE – National Institute for Academic Degrees and University Evaluation (Japan)

• IMPI – Indicator for Mapping and Profiling Internationalization (EU)

Organizational Strategies

“Current literature suggests that higher education’s

internationalisation is perceived as an important contribution to the

quality of higher education. Nonetheless few approaches have

been developed to assess the quality of internationalization”

European Consortium for Accreditation in Higher Education, 2015

“The primary mission of a university is to carry out educational activities

while imbuing students with rich qualities of humanity and developing the human resource who will benefit

society…higher education is expected to adapt to a globalized

world…however, specific standards for internationalization have not yet

been developed”

National Institution for Academic Degrees and University Evaluation (Japan), 2013.


Number of Critical/Strategic Languages (LCTL)

Language requirements for the bachelor’s degree

Bachelor’s degrees requiring an international perspective

Visibility of international content on an institution’s website

Presence of a senior administrator for international activities

Number of international students on campus

Number of Marshall and Rhodes Scholars

Number of Fulbright Students

Number of Peace Corps Volunteers

Percentage of Study Abroad participants

Percentage of world language graduates

Number of Fulbright scholars

Percentage of international faculty

Number of Title VI centers

Institutional Strategies


Definition of Benchmark

• 1a: something that serves as a standard by which others may be measured or judged

• b: a point of reference from which measurements may be made

Definition of Standard

• something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example

Merriam-Webster, 2020

Clarifying Language

Case Studies: Colorado State University

and Western Michigan University

Colorado State University

Why Colorado State University

• Colorado State University (CSU)

• Located in Fort Collins – flagship university of the State system

• Founded in 1870

• Approx. 35,000 students

• Strong internationalization strategy

• Recipient of the Senator Paul Simon Award for Campus Internationalization

• Awarded by the Association of International Educators (NAFSA)

Senator Paul Simon Award for Campus Internationalization

The Senator Paul Simon Award for Campus Internationalization recognizes U.S. colleges and universities that are making significant, well-planned, well-executed, and well-documented progress toward comprehensive internationalization—especially those using innovative and creative approaches.

“A selection committee of experts is assembled each year from campuses around the country. Each selection committee reviews the nominations looking for institutions that can demonstrate exemplary comprehensive internationalization…for the Award.”

Association of International Educators (NAFSA)

Key Findings of Research Study

1. Institutional mission is critical

2. Organizational culture can advance comprehensive internationalization

3. Centralized model/structure is necessary

4. Identified the significance of peer influences

Key Finding #4: Identified the significance of peer influences

Peer Influences

• Three different peer groups at CSU

• Peers influence Comprehensive Internationalization (CI)

• Benchmarking allows CSU to compare its methods, practices and strategies in CI

Standards & Benchmarking

• Measures strategies against another institution.

• CSU looks to peers for inspiration and guidance.

• Serves as a motivation for change and improvement

Western Michigan University

Case Studies: Western Michigan University

Forerunner in Internationalization• Haenicke Presidency (1980s—1990s)

• Centralizing international office

• Hiring faculty with extensive international experience

• Developing structured global partnerships

• Top #1 Hidden Gem University in US

Evidence-Based Internationalization• International Office’s Strategic Goals for WMU’s Global Engagement

• International Office’s Leadership Team Work

• Strategic Leadership Meetings and Retreats to define metrics

• Work in progress


Evidence-Based Internationalization


Vision MetricsBe a leader in global education to

foster cross-cultural understanding

and international cooperation.

First Set of Metrics Adopted

• International Presence on Campus- Number of International Students- Number of Exchange Visitor Program J-Visas- Country-based Cultural Diversity

• Global Learning- Curriculum Internationalization- Graduates with Study Abroad Experience

• Financial Resources- Supporting Global Learning- Supporting International Collaborative Research and Teaching

• Global Engagement Community Outreach



First Set of Metrics AdoptedMETRIC INDICATOR TARGET HISTORIC BASELINE

International Student Enrollment

• International Enrollment Ratio (IIE-OpenDoors)

50% above national average (5%) = Target 8% [3yr avg]

Last 3-year average: 7.7%Fall 2016/17/18

Exchange visitor Program J-Visas

(STD+SCH)

• Total number of J-Visas

Top 200 in SEVIS Currently #190

Cultural Diversity

• Int’l Enrollment per Country

• Total Nr Countries

• No country above 35% of Total Int’l Enrollment

• 100+ countries

No countries over 35%

Fall 2018 = 101 countriesFall 2017 = 96 countries

International Presence on Campus



METRIC INDICATOR TARGET HISTORIC BASELINE

Support for curriculum internationalization initiatives

Essential Studies components focusing on Global Learning

One or more Global Learning components in Essential Studies

Graduates with study abroad experience

IIE Open Doors Ranking of Study Abroad per HEI

National average study abroad graduates = 10%(3 year average)

Top # 100

50% above national average = 15%(3 year average)

Total SA participantsAY 16, 17, 18= 617, 537, 676= not in top #100

% graduates w/ SA:AY 16, 17, 18= 12.17%, 11.31%, 11.89%

Global Learning



METRIC INDICATOR TARGET HISTORIC BASELINEFinancial Resources Supporting Global Learning

Incoming Fulbright students

Gilman, Boren and Fulbright (U.S. student): selection rate 10% higher than national average

HIGE study abroad scholarships to 100% of participants

40 Incoming Fulbright Students

Gilman: 28.6%. G.Target = 31.5%Boren: 28% B.Target = 30.8%Fulbright: 23% F.Target = 25.3%

PGSA, GES, WENGER study abroad scholarships combined covering 100% of number of SA students

Fulbright= 42 (AY2018/2019)

Gilman (18-19):8/24; WMU G.Avg=33.3%Boren (18-19): 1/1; WMU Avg=100%Fulbright (18-19): 1/3; WMU Avg=33%

2018/19:Faculty-led, PGSA, GES, Wenger5.5%, 21.7%, 11.1%, 4.6% = 42.9%

Financial Resources Supporting Collaborative Research and Teaching

Funding available for research collaborations (Yes/No)

Funding available for teaching collaborations (Yes/No)

Yes

Yes

Yes (IEFDF Faculty Travel)

Yes (IEFDF Global Classrooms)

Financial Resources



METRIC INDICATOR TARGET HISTORIC BASELINECommunity Outreach

Ratio of number of total participants in Global Engagement events over the total Kalamazoo County Population

5% of Kalamazoo County population = 265,000 x 5% = 13,250

Intl Friendship Program = 30International Festival = 5,000+China Festival = ?GE Signature Events = ?Confucius Institute Events = ?Soga Japan Center = ?Other GE/HIGE Events = ?

Community Outreach

Measuring:DiversityRevenueFinancial SustainabilityGlobal LearningPartnershipsEngagement


NEXT STEPS for WMU

Good Practice:

University of Calgary, Canada

Award for Innovation in Internationalization 2020

AIEA – Association of International Education Administrators

Conclusion – Creating Global Standards

By using peer influences and national or regional benchmarking, institutions can measure their success and ensure they are matching or exceeding that of its competitors, ensuring importance and quality to

its stakeholders.

Future Action

• As internationalization becomes increasingly important to higher education, instruments for measuring CI are needed.

• Institutions are progressively being asked to provide evidence of the quality and quantity; little emphasis has been given to how it is assessed and measured.

• Future research regarding standardization models is needed.

Discussion Questions

• Do you currently use benchmarks and standards to assess your institutions internationalization efforts? If so, what type of benchmarks and standards do you use?

• How did your institution identify the benchmarks and standards currently in place?

• Would it be useful to your institution to have access to a global digital/online repository that contains standards, benchmarks and metrics used by higher education institutions to assess their internationalization efforts?

examining benchmarking and standardization in ......why colorado state university •colorado state...

Documents