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
Benchmarking –A Driver for Internationalization
• 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
Benchmarking –A Driver for Internationalization
• 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.
Benchmarking –A Driver for Internationalization
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
Benchmarking –A Driver for Internationalization
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
Case Studies: Western Michigan University
Evidence-Based Internationalization
Case Studies: Western Michigan University
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
Case Studies: Western Michigan University
Case Studies: Western Michigan University
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
Case Studies: Western Michigan University
First Set of Metrics Adopted
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
Case Studies: Western Michigan University
First Set of Metrics Adopted
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
Case Studies: Western Michigan University
First Set of Metrics Adopted
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
Case Studies: Western Michigan University
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?