INTERNATIONALIZATION OF APRU UNIVERSITIES -LOCAL PRACTICES AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS- *Based on materials presented by Professor Wan-hua Ma, Peking U. and Professor K. Ravi Kumar, USC at the APRU Workshop which was co-sponsored by Peking University & USC, Feb 25-27, 2004 Summary Report for APRU Senior Staff Meeting Stanford University, April 13-15, 2004 Richard Drobnick, University of Southern California*

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 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 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 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 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 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