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

APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004 Presentation Agenda Survey Objectives Survey Methodology Summary of Numerical Data Introduction to Workshop Sessions

APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004 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.

APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004 Survey Methodology

APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004 Terminology in Survey Internationalization the international teaching, research, and outreach activities of students, faculty, and alumni at university/school Outreach non-degree teaching and consulting activities by faculty, students, or staff with domestic or foreign participants Best-practices activities 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

APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004 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

APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004 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

APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004 Data Collection University-wide Survey –RWG member ed electronic version of the university-wide survey responses to APRU’s RWG Co-Chairs Individual School Survey –Schools ed the results to university’s RWG member. –RWG member forwarded the results to APRU’s RWG Co-Chairs

APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004 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

APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004 Obtained clusters of best practices Teaching Student Research Projects Research Outreach IT Enabled Education and Outreach Integration of Teaching, Research, and Outreach

APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004 Method for Numerical Data Analysis Descriptive Statistics Comparative analysis –University vs. Schools –Regions –Disciplines

APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004 Summary of Numerical Data

APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004 IDUniversity nameUniversity-wideSchoolTotal 1 Hong Kong University of Science and Technology 145 2Keio University156 3Kyoto University National Taiwan University134 5National University of Singapore Osaka University1-1 7Peking University156 8Seoul National University1-1 9Tsinghua University-11 10University of Auckland178 11University of British Columbia112 12University of California at Berkeley1-1 13University of California at Davis134 14University of California at Los Angeles University of Chile1-1 16Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México-19 17University of Oregon145 18University of Southern California University of Sydney123 20University of Washington156 21Waseda University112 Total Number of Responded Universities and Schools

APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004 Respondents by Region

APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004 Respondents by Discipline

APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004 Priority for Internationalization Difference between University and Schools Universities have higher mean and lower standard deviation than Schools. University-wideSchool * Priority for internationalization is significantly different between university and school mean (p = 0.05).

APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004 Priority for Internationalization Difference between Regions University-wide School No significant difference between regions. Means are significantly different between regions (p=0.05). The gap between university and schools is larger in North America/Oceania than Asia

APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004 Where Is Internationalization Stated? Comparison between university and school B2 Mission stateme nt B3 Strategi c plan B4 Recruitin g materials B5 Other Valid % % % % Yes % % % 9 50% No % % % 9 50% Missing1111 Total19 B2 Mission stateme nt B3 Strategi c plan B4 Recruitin g materials B5 Other Valid % % % % Yes % % % % No % % % % Missing20 Total113 University-wide School 83.3% of universities stated in mission statement 45.2% of schools stated in strategic plan Most universities stated internationalization as a priority in written documents. But more than half of schools did not state it as a priority.

APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004 Responsible person for promoting internationalization Comparison between university and school University-wide School At university level, most universities have responsible person in internationalization. At school level, 40.9% of schools do not have one.

APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004 Responsible person for promoting internationalization Comparison by region (at school level) At school level, schools in Asia have more ‘responsible person in internationalization’ than those in North America/Oceania.

APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004 Importance of Factors to Internationalization Comparison between university and school C1 Expressed support by school board C2 Strong interest among faculty C3 Availability of internal funding C4 Availability of external funding C5 Importance of international expertise (hiring, promotion, tenure policies) C6 Presence of experienced personnel for internationalization C7 Integration of internationalization into school plan and budgeting C8 Existence of office for support and coordination 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)

APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004 Gap between Priority and Importance to Internationalization Schools are more consistent between priority and importance to internationalization. UniversitySchool

APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004 Success of Outcomes Stimulated by Internationalization Comparison 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. D1 Preparing internationally competent graduates D2 Improving hiring potential of graduates D3 Recruiting and retaining internationally experienced faculty D4 Developing international activities with stakeholders D5 Maintaining international competitiveness of the school D6 Maintaining international competitiveness of the country D7 Developing international research and scholarship D8 Generating additional sources of income

APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February 2004 Introduction to Workshop Sessions

APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February st Day 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

APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February st 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

APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February st 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” –Akira Kohyama, 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

APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February nd Day 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)

APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February nd 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

APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February nd 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.:

APRU Internationalization Workshop, Beijing, February nd 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