22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
Rethinking Academic Curriculum through Embedded Mobility. A Structural Approach
Alexandru Cartis, Romita Iucu
University of Bucharest, Romania
Presenting Author: Cartis, Alexandru
The freedom of learning and the possibility for students to access a much wider educational offer are key elements for reshaping the European higher education landscape. Students are more mobile than ever, and new formats for teaching and learning readdress the need to rethink how academic curriculum is designed and developed. New tendencies and innovative approaches to education, such as micro-credentials, embedded mobility, digital credentialing, and flexible learning pathways open the way for true ‘universities without walls’ (EUA, 2021) across Europe. The global academic community is constantly changing; cooperation among universities grew in the past 20 years, facing a significant increase in student mobility, in Europe mainly due to Erasmus+ funding and mobility schemes and other Bologna Process tools (de Wit & Hunter, 2015, p. 1). Moreover, European universities intensified cooperation not only with partners from other European countries, but at an international level also, with partner from other continents (Claeys-Kulik, 2020, p. 10).
In such a global educational context, universities and policy makers can ask whether the increase in mobility can represent a tool for designing new curricular models, creating new educational programmes in which mobility and cultural exchanges become functional components and in which all graduates become international students. Such an approach could be done through academic degrees and programmes where mobility is embedded in the curriculum, in the shape of small mobility windows (up to one semester), taking advantage of new mobility schemes such as the Blended Intensive Programmes (European Commission, 2022, p. 49) or modular approaches, such as the ones proposed by some European Universities Alliances (Iucu et al., 2022, p. 26), based on a `micro-credentials philosophy`.
While setting up such a process can require significant changes in legislation, funding, pedagogical design, and administrative practices, the real impact of these changes need to be addressed to the potential beneficiaries, the students. In fact, the importance and relevance of physical mobility has been several times mentioned by students, stating the “physical mobility should be accessible to all students, and should not exclude certain groups” (ESU, 2020, p. 2), emphasising that reaching the 50% mobile students need to remain a constant desiderate of higher education policies across Europe.
In this regard, our research aims at understanding what is the students’ perception on embedded mobility in higher education programmes. The research proposes an exploratory analysis on how students view mobility as part of their educational pathway and possible downsides of transforming mobility as an opportunity to mobility as a necessary experience. Motivations for studying abroad by European exchange students have been addressed in a range of studies (Bryntesson et al., 2018; European Commission, 2017; Hovdhaugen & Wiers-Jenssen, 2021; Krzaklewska, 2008; Lesjak et al., 2015; Maiworm & Teichler, 2002; Murphy-Lejeune, 2002), the present research aiming to see, on top of motivational aspects, if differences appear when changing the scope of mobility and its relation with the degree. Different types of students will be included in the research, both junior students prior any mobility experience during their academic studies, as well as students who already participated in different mobility opportunities during their studies. Also, the research will focus on understanding what students value most in a mobility experience, to understand what aspects need to be intensified further in developing new mobility models and opportunities for higher education students.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe dependent variable of the analyses will be a 20-30 item survey battery, starting from a similar version had been used in a previous study (Wiers-Jenssen, 2003), with items ranging from `very important` (4) to `not important` (1). The model will not be a Likert scale, but a scale measuring the importance of a particular item, in relation with personal perceptions of the respondents. The data collected will be used in descriptive analyses and analyses of average scores. Other variables will be collected thorough the survey, such as the students’ gender, level of study, field of study, parents’ level of education (highest graduated level), foreign language proficiency, and mobility capital (differentiating from students with previous foreign travel / living experience and those with none). For data analysis, three statistical methods will be used: factor analysis or correlations between items to explore latent variables influencing motivation for studying abroad, t-tests to investigate statistical significance between group means on summative indexes based on the factor analysis, and linear regression analysis on the factors extracted from the factor analysis, to investigate the influence of several background variables at the same time.
For in-depth qualitative information on the students’ perception on embedded mobility, several focus-groups will be conducted with several students that responded to the survey. For organising the focus-groups, students will be asked to mention if they are open to take part in further discussions on the topic and accept to be contacted by the research team after filling the survey. The focus-groups will consist of 10-12 participants which will be guided in discussions based on a set of 5-7 open questions. The meetings will be recorded, and the data will be coded, and the information will be corroborated with the results of the survey.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsConsidering the novelty of mobility embeddedness in academic curricula and the mobility gap caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, it is difficult to foresee what will the students’ perceptions will be, as well as what are the motivations for students’ participation to learning mobilities and new educational experiences. Whereas the academic mobility numbers constantly increased before the pandemic, we are now witnessing a new start, in which students’ expectations and needs are changing, and new models for designing mobility opportunities appear. The present research will provide a valuable input in the discussions on reshaping academic curricula through embedded mobility, bringing the perspectives of potential beneficiaries, the students, and a clearer image on what is expected and needed from their side. Such information is valuable for any decision-maker and any decision in this direction must be built to respond to the needs of students and society at its whole.
ReferencesBryntesson, A., Börjesson, M., & Haru, A. (2018). From Sweden with ERASMUS+: The experiences, practices and preferences of outgoing exchange students (UHR Report Series 13). Swedish Council of Higher Education. http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1297943&dswid=6655
Claeys-Kulik, A-L., Jorgensen, T., & Stöber, H. (2020). International strategic institutional partnerships and the European Universities Initiative. Results of the EUA survey. European University Association. https://eua.eu/resources/publications/925:international-strategic-institutional-partnerships-and-the-european-universities-initiative.html
de Wit, H., & Hunter, F. (2015). The Future of Internationalization of Higher Education in Europe. International Higher Education, 83, 2-3. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2015.83.9073
ESU. (2020). New European Universities and the old challenges. European Students’ Union. https://esu-online.org/?policy=new-european-universities-and-the-old-challenges
European Commission. (2022). Erasmus+ Programme Guide. Version 2 (2023). Publications Office of the European Union. https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2023-01/ErasmusplusProgramme-Guide2023-v2_en.pdf
European Commission. (2017). The Erasmus impact study: effects of mobility on the skills and employability of students and the internationalisation of higher education institutions. Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/75468
EUA. (2021). Universities without walls: A vision for 2030. European University Association. https://eua.eu/resources/publications/957:universities-without-walls-%E2%80%93-eua%E2%80%99s-vision-for-europe%E2%80%99s-universities-in-2030.htm
Hovdhaugen, E., & Wiers-Jenssen, J. (2021). Motivation for full degree mobility: analysing sociodemographic factors, mobility capital and field of study. Educational Review. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2021.1912712
Iucu, R., Ciolan, L., Nedelcu, A., Zus, R., Dumitrache, A., Carțiș, A., Vennarini, L., Fernández de Pinedo, N., & Pericică, A. (2022). Digitally enhanced mobility. CIVIS Handbook on Virtual Mobility. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6090251
Krzaklewska, E. (2008). Why study abroad? – An analysis of Erasmus students’ motivations. In M. Bryam & F. Dervin (Eds.), Students, staff and academic mobility in higher education (pp. 82-98). Cambridge Scholars Press.
Lesjak, M., Juvan, E., Inteson, E. M., Yap, M. T. H., & Axelsson, E. P. (2015). Erasmus student motivation; Why and where to go. Higher Education, 70(5), 845-865. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9871-0
Maiworm, F., & Teichler, U. (2002). The students’ experience. In U. Teichler (Ed.), Erasmus in the Socrates programme (pp. 83–116). Lemmens.
Murphy-Lejeune, E. (2002). Student mobility and narrative in Europe. Routledge.
Wiers-Jenssen, J. (2003). Norwegian Students Abroad: Experiences of students from a linguistically and geographically peripheral European country. Studies in Higher Education, 28(4), 391-411. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0307507032000122251
22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
An Evaluation Model Building for Internationalization of Higher Education Institutions
Meng-Huey Su1,2, Chi-Chen Chen3
1Department of Educational Studies, Ghent University, Belgium; 2Institute of Education, National Sun Yat-sen University, Taiwan; 3National Academy for Educational Research, Taiwan
Presenting Author: Su, Meng-Huey
In the context of globalization, the concept of "internationalization of higher education" is a broad and evolving phenomenon with diverse interpretations (De Wit & Altbach, 2021). At the institutional level, it involves integrating international, cross-cultural, or global dimensions into the purposes, functions, and implementation processes of higher education. This integration aims to enhance the quality of student education and the research output of academic staff, serving as a strategic approach and practice for academic systems, institutions, and individuals in the globalized academic environment worldwide, including in the European educational context (Altbach & Knight, 2007; De Wit, Hunter, Howard, & Egron-Polak, 2015; Knight, 2003; Knight & De Wit, 2018). Moreover, internationalization also helps institutions improve efficiency and aids government, stakeholders, and higher education units in understanding institutional performance (Mandinach & Gummer, 2013). On a personal level, internationalization contributes to cultivating the global competitiveness and employability of local students, providing opportunities for cross-cultural communication and a global perspective.
The International Association of Universities (IAU) (2006) defines the internationalization of higher education as a process that combines transnational and cross-cultural perspectives, atmospheres, and functions within higher education. This involves internal and external changes within universities, encompassing the implementation of policies through bottom-up and top-down approaches and shifts in institutional policy orientations. Over the past 25 years, internationalization is considered a strategic response to the inevitable impact of globalization on higher education, transforming from a marginal micro-level element into a mainstream global factor (Knight & De Wit, 2018). This evolution has shifted the concept from national-level international, cross-cultural, and global dimensions to factors within higher education, such as the diversity of educators and students' nationalities, research quality, and the quality of student education. Internationally renowned university rankings, such as THE (Times Higher Education) and QS (Quacquarelli Symonds), also include "internationalization" as one of the evaluation criteria. This makes internationalization a crucial part of the development of higher education institutions.
Current institutional research in Taiwan covers academic, student, and administrative aspects. In the main educational data bases, “(Higher Education) Course Information website (CIW)”, “Information Platform for College and University Institute Research (IPCUIR)”, “Academic Statistics Database of Ministry of Science and Technology (ASDMST)”, and “Scopus”, the wide-ranging scope of institutional research topics, including student admission, performance during the study period, post-graduation performance, and related administrative or university environmental aspects is evident. However, the previous research has touched upon international exchange aspects, yet there has been a lack of an investigation for the link between domestic education databases and internationalization indicators, and the exploration into the internationalization models of higher education applying existing national-level education database resources. Hence, the present research aims to consolidate diverse dimensions and manifestations of internationalization from existing research, to integrate data from different cross-institutional databases and explore relevant variables in internationalization of higher education institutes, and to establish a broader evaluation model for internationalization.
Based on above, the research questions are:
1. Through the integration of cross-platform database indicators and linking with relevant internationalization indicators from sources like THE and QS, what variables are pertinent to internationalization of higher education institutes?
2. What are including in the evaluation model for internationalization constructed based on the cross-platform database?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis study aims to enhance the objectivity and comprehensiveness of the model related to the internationalization of higher education institutions by utilizing various local higher education-related public databases.
1. Data collection
The databases include the “(Higher Education) Course Information website (CIW)”, “Information Platform for College and University Institute Research (IPCUIR)”, “Academic Statistics Database of Ministry of Science and Technology (ASDMST)”, and “Scopus” in Taiwan. In the meanwhile, the research also analyzes the results of higher education internationalization evaluations by comparing them with widely recognized international higher education ranking institutions such as QS World University Rankings and THE World University Rankings.
2. Sample Description
Due to variations in weighting based on different school backgrounds in the QS World University Rankings, reflecting diverse levels of internationalization, this study classifies institutions by their establishment type (public and private).
3. Variables Description
Following Knight's (2006) definition, "Internationalization Abroad" encompasses all forms of cross-border education, including subsidies for students and faculty to go abroad. In this study, applications for the Ministry of Science and Technology's projects, such as "Subsidies for Ph.D. and Postdoctoral Researchers to Conduct Research Abroad," "Domestic Graduate Students Attending International Academic Conferences," and others, are considered as part of internationalization abroad. The former two pertain to student internationalization, while the latter four are related to faculty internationalization. Additionally, indicators include the Scopus database's "Proportion of Internationally Co-authored Papers" and "Impact of Internationally Co-authored Papers." For "Local Internationalization," indicators include "Proportion of International Teachers," "Proportion of International Students," "Proportion of Courses Taught in English," "Hosting International Academic Conferences in the Country," and "Inviting Technological Professionals for Short-term Visits."
4. Analysis
This study initially employs descriptive statistics to explore the distribution and range of different indicators, deleting inappropriate variables based on their characteristics. Subsequently, a correlation analysis, specifically the Pearson correlation coefficient, is conducted to examine the correlation between various variables. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) is then applied to understand the structure of internationalization preliminarily. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) is utilized to validate the model structure of these indicators, providing evidence for the construct validity of internationalization measurement. Additionally, factor scores are computed and compared with the indicators' scores in world university rankings. Considering the limited number of Taiwanese universities participating in global rankings, a non-parametric Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test is used to test the difference between the domestic ranking and the university's ranking in the internationalization model.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThis research distinguishes itself from previous research by pioneering the integration of cross-platform higher education-related databases. It delves into a more thorough exploration of an international evaluation model to comprehend the current state of internationalization of higher education institutions. The integration of multiple databases yields a prototype framework for international and comprehensive model for university internationalization: a model with four indicators (“university internationalization environment construction (domestic) ”, “internationalization of academic environment (domestic)”, “international academic exchange (abroad)”, and “international academic cooperation and exchange”) to help explore the status quo of internationalization, and a preliminary probe on the internationalization of domestic higher education institutions. This endeavor seeks to render more robust evaluation models along with adequate information required for decision making in higher education institutions with reference to internationalization.
Based on the study's findings, it is recommended that academic researchers and decision-makers in higher education institutions avoid solely relying on university ranking survey indicators. Instead, they should broaden their scope by extensively collecting information from various sources, defining specific internationalization indicators, and validating them with multiple stakeholders. This approach ensures a nuanced understanding of the internationalization in higher education. Therefore, when addressing university affairs-related issues and making decisions, supplementing World University Rankings indicators with data from diverse databases can help formulate a more comprehensive view of the higher education institutes' international profile, establishing relevant internationalization indicators. The findings will be the considerable value for reference for EU countries which attach the importance to higher education policies in the context of internationalization.
ReferencesAltbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of studies in international education, 11(3-4), 290-305. doi:org/10.1177/1028315307303542
De Wit, H., Hunter, F., Howard, L., & Egron-Polak, E. (2015). Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies: Culture and Education. Internationalisation of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/540370/IPOL_STU(2015)540370_EN.pdf
De Wit, H., & Altbach, P. G. (2021). Internationalization in higher education: global trends and recommendations for its future. Policy Reviews in Higher Education, 5 (1), 28-46. DOI: 10.1080/23322969.2020.1820898
International Association of Universities (2006). Towards a century of cooperation: Internationalization of higher education IAU statement. Retrieved form http://www.unesco.org/iau/tfi_statement.html
Knight, J. (2003). Updated definition of internationalization. International higher education, 33, 2-3. doi:10.6017/ihe.2003.33.7391
Knight, J., & De Wit, H. (2018). Internationalization of higher education: Past and future. International Higher Education, 95, 2-4. doi:10.6017/ihe.2018.95.10715
Kovács, I. V., & Tarrósy, I. (2017). The Internationalisation of Higher Education in a Global World. In R. Egetenmeyer, P. Guimaraes & B. Németh (Eds.), Joint Modules and Internationalisation in Higher Education (pp. 39-52). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.
Mandinach, E. B. & Gummer, E. S. (2013). A systemic view of implementing data literacy in educator preparation. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 30-37. doi:10.3102/0013189X12459803
Quacquarelli Symonds (2020). QS World University Rankings: Methodology. Retrieved from https://www.topuniversities.com/qs-world-university-rankings/methodology
Times Higher Education (2020). THE World University Rankings 2020: Methodology. Retrieved from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/world-university-rankings-2020-methodology
Tóth, J. & Tarrósy, I. (2002). Co-operation between science and economy in Hungary: The place and role of universities. Der Donauraum, 42(4), 62-72. doi:10.7767/dnrm.2002.42.4.62
22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
Migrant Students in European Higher Education: An Anti-genealogy of the Im/Possible Students and the Present/Future University
Antigoni Stavrinou, Zelia Gregoriou
University of Cyprus, Cyprus
Presenting Author: Stavrinou, Antigoni;
Gregoriou, Zelia
This paper maps and questions the discursive limits of current debates about student migration in postcolonial global context and the challenges this poses on the definition and self-fashioning of the university as autonomous, inclusive and open to new kinds of students (Derrida, 2002). The standpoint for the mapping and questioning of discourses and the genealogical critique of the institution of the university is from the positionality of those whose lives have been mostly affected by intersecting axes of migration and race, namely, migrant students’ precarious lives. It is argued that despite their seeming discontinuity, the discourse of unconditional endorsement of global student mobility, on the one hand, and the harsh critique on institutional/educational policies and practices, on the other hand, both participate and interlock in rendering invisible or inconsequential the kinds of racialization and securitization they produce or reproduce (Stein & Andreotti, 2017)
Student mobility across state borders is not a new phenomenon. What transforms, and not just increases, student mobility is large-scale processes that invested in the attractiveness of European higher education and repositioned it within, (a) the global economy of educational and psychic life of power (Butler, 1997) in a precarious world, and (b) the globalization of scapes of (post)modernity (Appadurai, 1990) within and across which student migration takes place.
Attracting the most talented foreign students has been perceived by receiving countries as beneficial for both the governments and educational institutions. However, beneficial aspects have not been accepted without cautioning voices. The scholarly conversation about the risks involved in the growing numbers of migrant students is usually bound by concerns about the commodification of higher education and the decline and compromise of the quality of the education provided. On the one hand, those against the entrepreneurial character of higher education express their concerns about the weakening role of higher education as a public good and the undermining of its democratic character (Brown, 2015; Giroux, 2003). On the other hand, even those who, despite and beyond market rationalities, acknowledge the positive effects of student mobility and higher education internationalization for students, institutions and societies, they stressed from early on that this would backfire and warned of “unintended consequences” and “worrisome trends” (Knight, 2012). Cautionary discourse revolves around “diploma mills” and “sham students”. Diploma mills, as a by-product of the growing demand for university degrees and implicitly associated with less privileged and mostly migrant students, are considered a threat that needs to be combated. What is at risk is not only the quality of education but also the excellence and earned entitlement of those “who have worked hard for years to obtain their degrees” (Odou & Ogar, 2022). This seeming deregulation of quality and equality (among the excellent) is alleviated through new lines and borders, such as the line between highly appreciated ‘genuine’ students, and unwelcomed ‘bogus’ students. The latter are perceived to abuse student visa in order to secure entrance to and residency in the country of studies, sidestepping the reach of immigration policies and compromising the very integrity of the universities (Brooks, 2018).
As argued in the paper, academic discourse on migrant students, despite its discontinuities and even fundamentally opposing views on the marketization of higher education, reenacts the colonial zero-point perspective to the world (Mignolo, 2010) and reproduces an elitist conception of the institution of the university. Failing to consider the racialization and precarization of migrant students through migration control apparatuses, but also the politics and epistemologies of resilience migrant students develop, we fail to grasp the complexities and the im/possibilities embedded in the ways migrant students navigate through and transform the landscapes of European higher education.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe paper uses critical discourse analysis to bring in juxtaposition the discourses of academic articles and the narratives of migrant students. The qualitative data analyzed and discussed in the paper were collected through interviews with migrant students in higher education institutions in Cyprus. The migrant students who participated in the research come from Nigeria, Uganda, Nepal and India, and they study in either public or private higher education institutions.
The paper adopts a decolonial methodological framework that is complicit with the recognition that racial and colonial violence provided the material and conceptual conditions of possibility for modern higher education institutions and the need to disrupt the epistemological, structural and normative colonial legacies (Andreotti, Stein, Ahenakew, & Hunt, 2015).
The analysis is also informed methodologically by Foucault’s critical problematization, a method of critical inquiry that evades high theory and turns to specificities and complexities rather than totalities and universalities (Koopman, 2018). This is of particular importance as it enables a way of thinking that does not slip into the impasses of predetermined dichotomies and inevitable contradictions (e.g., ‘bogus’ Vs. ‘genuine’ student). Instead, it offers a view ‘from below” (Haraway, 1988), from “all the in-between spaces” (Halberstam, 2011) that leave space for alternative possibilities of living, being and knowing.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe analysis highlights the limits of academic discourses around global student mobilities. It is suggested that a view from below, from the marginalized, from those who are a priori considered “bogus” until they prove otherwise, but they still remain attached to life and to their object of desire (Berlant, 2011), could provide different frames from which we would be able to attend to the University as a place of vulnerability but also as a place of hope and potentiality.
ReferencesAndreotti, V. d. O., Stein, S., Ahenakew, C., & Hunt, D. (2015). Mapping Interpretations of Decolonization in the Context of Higher Education. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 4(1), 21-40.
Appadurai, A. (1990). Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Economy. Theory, Culture & Society, 7, 295-310.
Berlant, L. (2011). Cruel Optimism. Durham: Duke University Press.
Brooks, R. (2018). Higher Education Mobilities: A Cross-National European Comparison. Geoforum, 93, 87-96.
Brown, W. (2015). Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism's Stealth Revolution. Zone Books.
Butler, J. (1997). The Psychic Life of Power: Theories in Subjection. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Derrida, J. (2002). The University Without Condition. In P. Kamuf (Ed.), Without Alibi (pp. 202-237). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Giroux, H. (2003). Selling Out Higher Education. Policy Futures in Education, 1(1), 179-200.
Halberstam, J. (2011). The Queer Art of Failure. New York: Duke University Press.
Haraway, D. (1988). Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575-599.
Knight, J. (2012). Student Mobility and Internationalization: Trends and Tribulations. Research in Comparative and International Education, 7(1), 20-33.
Koopman, C. (2018). Problematization in Foucault's Genealogy and Deleuze's Symptomatology: Or, How to Study Sexuality Without Invoking Oppositions. Journal of the Theoretical Humanities, 23(2), 187-204.
Mignolo, D. W. (2010). Introduction: Coloniality of Power and De-colonial Thinking. In D. W. Mignolo, & A. Escobar (Eds.), Globalization and the Decolonial Option (pp. 1-11). London: Routledge.
Odou, R. S. M., & Ogar, J. O. (2022). Degree Mills and the Question of Educational Quality. Management of Higher Education Systems (pp. 405-415). University of Calabar Press.
Stein, S., & Andreotti, V. d. O. (2017). Higher Education and the Modern/Colonial Global Imaginary. Cultural Studies, 17(3), 173-181.
|
