- Darla K. Deardorff raises several questions about the rationales for engaging in internationalization in her chapter--Why Engage in Mobility? Key Issues within Global Mobility. She argues for the role of research in gaining a deeper understanding of outcomes, impact, access, virtual mobility and a changing global landscape.
- Jane Knight argues in Three Generations of Crossborder Higher Education that cross-border education is now in its third generation characterized by competitiveness-driven commercial model and it has moved away from a development cooperation framework and a collaborative/partnership model.
- Bernd Wächter in his chapter Recent Trends in Student Mobility in Europe takes a closer look into the diversity of mobility patterns in Europe. He illustrates the need for better data collection and analysis to deconstruct the complexity and nature of mobility in Europe.
- Anthony C. Ogden, Bernhard Streitwieser & Emily R. Crawford in their chapter Empty Meeting Grounds: Situating Intercultural Learning in US Education Abroad critique the traditional programming components of US study abroad and argue for a change in the way transformational learning experiences are conceptualized and assessed for their impact.
Internationalisation of Higher Education and Global Mobility is a recent book which brings together perspectives and reflections of several experts in international higher education.
The book is edited by Bernhard Streitwieser, PhD Assistant Professor of International Education The George Washington University Washington, DC.
The book is organized in three major sections. It starts with big picture trends on internationalization and then focuses on the regional perspectives and finally, concludes with institutional experiences.
In the opening chapter, Challenges and Opportunities for Global Student Mobility in the Future: A Comparative and Critical Analysis, I and Hans de Wit take a deeper drive into the nature and drivers of global mobility and how the future of mobility may look like. We look into the dramatic effect of two external events--9/11 and global financial crisis of 2008--on destination countries along with the demographic changes and economic development at the source countries to take a comparative perspective on the mobility patterns.
It includes expert views from
In sum, the book is a fine collection of diverse, insightful and critical perspectives from higher education experts on the changing nature of internationalization and global mobility.
Author Rahul Choudaha, PhD
Statistics on enrollment of international students in STEM programs in the US universities
Aug 3, 2014
Demand for STEM programs among international students have been consistently increasing as the pathways for career opportunities in the US have been expanding with more jobs and availability of additional 17-months for students on Optional Practical Training (OPT) in STEM programs. In addition, industry demand for new fields like cyber security and data science and pressure to expand new sources of revenue has let to launch/expansion of programs by universities.
A recent article in World Education News & Reviews by Li Chang and Yoko Kono analyzed global mobility trends in STEM programs. Given below are three insightful slides from SEVP of USICE on enrollment pattern of STEM students in the US.
The statistics reveal concentration by source countries, field of studies and destination states. This poses challenges for institutions not in the natural destination states to attract international students and for institutions in the top states to diversify the source countries of students.
1. More than one-third (35%) of all international students in the US are enrolled in STEM programs. Nearly one-sixth (15%) of all international students in the US are enrolled in "Engineering" programs.
2. Nearly one-third (31%) of all international students in STEM programs are enrolled in only three states--California, New York and Texas. Interestingly, nearly 45% of all international students in Indiana, Texas and Michigan are enrolled in STEM programs.
3. Three out of four students (78%) from India is enrolled in STEM program--highest proportion than any other country. Saudi Arabia and China are more STEM-focused than Japan and South Korea.
Author Dr. Rahul Choudaha
Here are two interesting research articles, I came across on international student mobility.
1. How to Attract Foreign Students by Arnaud Chevalier
In this paper, author provides an overview on how international student mobility can be beneficial for all participants including migrating students and those who remain at home, as well as home and host countries.
It shares a simple model of student migration based on the economic models where "individuals invest in education to increase future income. They choose to invest if the income increase over their lifetime is greater than the cost (including effort) incurred for their education. The decision to study abroad is determined in this model by the costs of education in both countries, the differences in the returns to skills in both countries, and the costs of (return) migration—including non-financial costs such as family circumstances."
The author asserts that "[o]pen-visa policies that allow foreign graduates to remain in the country after completing their studies and a thriving labor market are two factors that attract more and better student migrants."
2. The Determinants of International Mobility of Students by Michel Beine, Romain Noël and Lionel Ragot
In this paper, authors have analyzed the determinants of the choice of destination of international students. They use a multi-origin multi-destination framework to identify the main factors at stake. "Relying on a small theoretical model of human capital investment, [they] focus on two types of factors: those aﬀecting the migration costs such as distance and migrants’ network at destination and those aﬀecting the attractiveness of the destination such as the quality of universities, education costs and host capacity." The authors estimate the importance of those factors using data covering more than 180 origin countries and 13 OECD destination countries which cover more than 75 % of the total international student migration ﬂows. Two major findings are:
- Network effect: The presence of home country nationals at the destination country increases its attractiveness.
- Quality of education: The perception of quality of institutions adds to the attractiveness of the destinations.
The research findings imply that while international student mobility is complex and it is important to understand its interconnection with national policies--both host and destination countries have a role to play in making sure that brain exchange pattern is mutually beneficial.
What are the trends with the international students enrolled in the US secondary schools? This is the overarching question addressed by a recent report published by the Institute of International Education “Charting new pathways to higher education: International secondary students in the United States” which offers insights for enrollment and recruitment strategies. It notes that in October 2013 there were nearly 73,000 international students were pursuing a secondary-level education in the US, with nearly two-third enrolled for a full diploma (48,632).
Here are the key highlights:
- What the leading source countries for international high school students?
US high schools are even more dependent on China as compared to universities and colleges.
- How do enrollment of high school students differ in terms of control of institution --private vs. public?
Majority of international high school students are enrolled in private institutions.
- How do enrollment of high school students differ by the size of private school?
Two-third of all international high school students on F-1 visa are enrolled in small to mid-size institutions.
Author: Dr. Rahul Choudaha
Why internationalization strategies of universities often deliver sub-optimal results? Why international efforts in many institutions struggle to get adequate resources? Why some institutions go through mission-creep and get distracted about their purpose and approaches of going global?
These are some of the question answered in our recent piece entitled "Higher Education Internationalization – What gets measured, gets funded" published in University World News by me and Eduardo Contreras Jr of Harvard Graduate School of Education.
We argue that despite growing interest in internationalization, institutions have not maximized its potential due to lack of attention to two extremes of the internationalization process.
"First, the definition of internationalization is not adapted to higher education institutions’ institutional mission and context. Second, adequate efforts are not being made in assessing the impact of internationalization on the campus community."
Defining internationalization: Mission over movement
The definition of internationalization must be localized to fit the specific needs of an individual campus in three critical areas: people, ideas and places. In establishing parameters for success in these areas, a principle of mission over movement can be applied.
"In the same way that ‘mind over matter’ can help the strong among us to avoid the empty calories in an extra slice of cake, mission over movement can help leaders focus on the substance of internationalization at their campuses over the perceived glory of goals that do not fit the mission of their institutions."
Assessing internationalisation: Impact over input
One of the reasons why internationalisation does not get the attention it deserves is the limited demonstrable impact of internationalisation at the campus level.
This is where, impact assessment can feed into strategy formulation as it helps in moving from anecdotal, intuition-driven strategies to more evidence-driven strategies.
Successful strategies for comprehensive internationalization would not only focus on asking for resources (inputs), but would also put corresponding efforts into assessing the impact of internationalization at all levels by investing in systematic data collection, analysis and dissemination.
We know that ‘what gets measured, gets done’, but perhaps the new mantra is ‘what gets measured, gets funded’.
|Source: ULM http://www.ulm.edu/assessment/|
Dr. Rahul Choudaha
How universities can improve experiences of international students? What are the best practices?
Jun 30, 2014
|Source: NAFSA research on international student research|
Here are the related links covering the research:
Infographic on NAFSA International Student Retention Research
International Students Coming to America for College More Than Ever, But Why Aren't They Staying?, University Herald
For U.S. Colleges, a Drive to Retain Foreign Students, The New York Times
Why They Stay or Leave, Inside Higher Ed
NAFSA Research Reveals Student Retention Perception Gap, The PIE News
Retention Is a Growing Issue as More International Students Come to U.S., The Chronicle of Higher Education
Dr. Rahul Choudaha
Quality Assurance Agency of UK released a very insightful report entitled "Review of UK Transnational Education in United Arab Emirates." It provides an overview of the scale and scope of the overseas branch campus activity of British universities in UAE. It is an important indicator as, according to the report "the UAE is the country hosting the largest number of international branch campuses in the world, currently hosting 37 from 11 different countries, with the UK being the highest sending country."
The report notes that "of all UK higher education institutions, 70 of them (over 40 per cent) were engaged in some form of TNE activity in the UAE in 2012-13. This activity involves just over 15,000 students, representing an increase of 37 per cent during the past two years. This increase has been most noticeable in the number of students studying in the two large branch campuses of Heriot-Watt University and Middlesex University, which account for 78 per cent of the students working towards a UK award in the Dubai free zones."
These numbers are quite small in terms of the overall scope of the activities. To put in perspective, The University of Manchester and University College London alone enrolled nearly 23,000 non-UK students in 2012-13 on their home campuses. Likewise, University of Southern California and University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign enrolled nearly 19,500 international students between two of them.
I have previously noted that international branch campuses get disproportionate amount of attention as compared to alternative models of transnational education engaged in by higher education institutions.
Here are three additional charts from the report:
1. While overseas branch campus activity (Type 1) has grown, it still forms only 7,000 students in branch campuses of UK universities in whole of UAE.
3. Student enrollment in Dubai is stagnating, showing a sign of saturation
Dr. Rahul Choudaha