This paper explores Internationalization-at-Home (IaH) as a comprehensive model for preparing every student with the needed global competencies for today's interconnected and diverse society. The authors show how the goal of IaH is to redefine classrooms and campuses into common spaces that intentionally promote intercultural, international, and global learning. Practical models and analytical frameworks for pursuing IaH and curriculum internationalization are provided and anchored in multiple potential spaces for global/earning.
This article provides a summary and complete overview of the concept of Internationalisation at Home (sometimes abbreviated to IaH), including its origins ten years ago, its development since and its present situation…The article also provides an overview of the tools or instruments that constitute Internationalisation at Home and discusses some of the obstacles commonly faced by those seeking to implement Internationalisation at Home in their institutions. The article concludes with a brief discussion of the global state of affairs with regard to Internationalisation at Home anno 2011, with an emphasis on Europe.
Over the last two decades, the concept of the internationalization of higher education has moved from the fringe of institutional interest to the very core. While gaining moral weight, its content seems to have deteriorated. There is an increasing commercialization under the flag of internationalization. This attitude has exacerbated the devaluation of internationalization and the inflation of defensive measures. While in need of more philosophy, we also require a greater sense of reality. We need to rethink and redefine the way we look at the internationalization of higher education in the present time.
This handbook serves as a guide to internationalization of higher education and offers new strategies for its further development and expansion. With a decidedly global approach, this ground-breaking volume brings together leading experts from around the world to illustrate the increasing importance of internationalization. It also encompasses the diversity and breadth of internationalization of higher education in all its thematic facets and regional impacts.
This book stems from internationalization of curriculum efforts at a higher education institution (Georgia Gwinnett College-GGC). The goal of this book is to provide a platform for faculty not only at GGC but also in other colleges and universities to share their experiences with curriculum internationalization and research. Our target audience are faculty and administrators who are invested in globalizing education in higher education institutions and looking for ways to incorporate international content into their curricula. We believe that this book fills in a gap internationalized education as most books focus solely on the theory or policy with little or no emphasis on actual faculty experiences and challenges they face. This book, however, is one of the handful publications that focuses on the perspectives of faculty and includes examples of successful.
Increased international student mobility worldwide necessitates studying its impact on students, particularly for domestic students who have been neglected in research but who are greater in number than mobile students. It is also important that higher education institutions facilitate domestic students’ relationships with international students and promote their international education. Using mixed methods, this study examined the effect of institutional intervention to promote domestic students’ interaction with international students and its impact on intercultural competence in Korean higher education. The results of a path analysis showed that campus programs involving Korean and international students had a positive and direct effect on Korean students’ interaction with international students, and a positive and indirect effect on their intercultural competence. Interview findings also revealed that Korean students’ interactions with international students enabled their meaningful intercultural experience and influenced their future educational and career decisions. Implications of this study for higher education internationalization efforts, the contact hypothesis, and the larger host society are discussed.
By clarifying what global learning is and how it is essential to higher education, this article considers what global learning provides for teaching, learning, and internationalization in higher education. It demonstrates how the global nature of knowledge and learning in the 21st century requires a re-definition of classrooms and learning environments that recognizes how knowledge production today is a collective, global, and diverse process. The article suggests a number of foundational principles for global learning, including relational approaches, reflection, contextualized knowledge, perspective shifting, disorientation, responsibility, and an ability to navigate the general and the particular. It concludes by revealing how a global learning framework has benefits beyond teaching and learning and how it can contribute to the deliberate internationalization of higher education.
Globalization has a profound impact on the higher education institutions to build graduates capable to work and compete in the fourth industrial revolution. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) region is no exception to this movement. The students graduated from overseas gain a global exposure through intercultural competencies in the diverse and multicultural environment. However, the ratio of the immobile students is very high who are in need to be skilled with global competencies such as intercultural communication, knowledge, and awareness about diverse cultures, and understanding of international and global challenges. Internationalization at home is considering an apt solution for such challenges but, unfortunately, neglected by higher education institutions (HEIs) administration and policymakers in ASEAN due to the incomprehension regarding potential benefits linked with this change. The aim of this proposed project is to identify and operationalize the solutions for the deficiency of global and international competencies among the immobile students in ASEAN countries. Through involving professionals from diverse culture and backgrounds, and by conducting information sharing activities on internationalization at home (IaH) i.e. workshops, symposiums, and training, it is expected that this project will bring a societal change through signifying the need of internationalization at home. The findings of the project would be highly significant for HEIs administration, education ministries, and corporate professionals to achieve the workforce demands such as global graduates capable to move efficiently in the rapidly changing global markets.
Internationalization has transformed higher education institutions and systems but there is much confusion as to what an international, binational, transnational, cosmopolitan, multinational, or global university actually means. There is no standardized model for an international university, nor should there be, but a deeper understanding of different types of international institutions is necessary. This article examines key characteristics of three generic models or generations of international universities. The classic model or first generation is an internationalized university with a diversity of international partnerships, international students and staff, and multiple international and intercultural collaborative activities at home and abroad. This is the most common model. The second generation is called the satellite model, which includes universities with satellite offices around the world in the form of branch campuses, research centers, and management/contact offices. Internationally co-founded universities constitute the third and most recent generation of international universities. These are stand-alone institutions co-founded or co-developed by two or more partner institutions from different countries. This article elaborates on the three models, provides examples of international co-founded institutions, identifies a number of issues and challenges, and poses the question as to what the next model of international universities might look like.
There has been a resurgence of interest in internationalization of the curriculum in theory and in practice in recent years. Internationalization of the curriculum does have the potential to connect broader institutional agendas focused on internationalization with student learning.
The Link Class Project presented in this article provides an example of established collaborative groupactivities to negotiate and build a report together in virtual teams composed of students at UniversidadESAN, Lima (Peru) and Tilburg University, Tilburg (Netherlands). It further analyzes the effects of a campusbased internationalization strategy supported by the use of technology.Based on previous experiences with virtual classrooms, the authors adhere to the ancient Chinesephilosopher’s, Lao Tzu, quote: «If you tell me, I will listen; if you show me, I will see; but if you let meexperience, I will learn».
Telecollaboration, or ‘Virtual Exchange’ refers to the application of online communication tools to bring together classes of learners in geographically distant locations with the aim of developing their foreign language skills, digital competence and intercultural competence through online collaborative tasks and project work. In recent years approaches to Virtual Exchange have evolved in different contexts and different areas of university education and these approaches have had, at times, very diverse organisational structures and pedagogical objectives. This article provides an overview of the different models and approaches to Virtual Exchange which are currently being used in higher education contexts and outlines how the activity has contributed to internationalising university education to date.
Many people--international relations officers, teachers, coaches and people active in the international programmes in national agencies - have often asked me why it is so difficult to promote and implement international programmes? Why is there such resistance - often hidden - against internationalising the curriculum or mixing international students with domestic students? Not to speak of why it remains an everlasting challenge to promote mobility among domestic students. And the list is by no means complete. The same people also tell me they love the job, enjoy the intercultural contacts with colleagues in other universities, and take pleasure in working with students from around the world and visiting foreign universities and interesting international conferences. They wouldn't want to do anything else. Statistics on student mobility, international cooperation and budgets spent - both individually, organisationally and internationally - show rising figures and increased impact. Various voices argue that internationalisation has become a core activity for higher education in most places around the world. But the reality remains complicated.