University Leadership CouncilUniversity Leadership Council · 2014. 12. 17. · Victor Betancourt-Santiago Director, Center for Global Education Marymount University Harvey Charles

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company • Washington, D.C.

Global Learning in the Undergraduate Curriculum

Preparing Students to Live and Work in an Interconnected World

U n i v e r s i t y L e a d e r s h i p C o u n c i lU n i v e r s i t y L e a d e r s h i p C o u n c i l

ii © 2009 The Advisory Board Company • 19286

LEGAL CAVEAT

The Advisory Board Company has made efforts to verify the accuracy of the information it provides to members. This report relies on data obtained from many sources, however, and The Advisory Board Company cannot guarantee the accuracy of the information provided or any analysis based thereon. In addition, The Advisory Board Company is not in the business of giving legal, medical, accounting, or other professional advice, and its reports should not be construed as professional advice. In particular, members should not rely on any legal commentary in this report as a basis for action, or assume that any tactics described herein would be permitted by applicable law or appropriate for a given member’s situation. Members are advised to consult with appropriate professionals concerning legal, medical, tax, or accounting issues, before implementing any of these tactics. Neither The Advisory Board Company nor its offi cers, directors, trustees, employees and agents shall be liable for any claims, liabilities, or expenses relating to (a) any errors or omissions in this report, whether caused by The Advisory Board Company or any of its employees or agents, or sources or other third parties, (b) any recommendation or graded ranking by The Advisory Board Company, or (c) failure of member and its employees and agents to abide by the terms set forth herein.

The Advisory Board is a registered trademark of The Advisory Board Company in the United States and other countries. Members are not permitted to use this trademark, or any other Advisory Board trademark, product name, service name, trade name and logo, without the prior written consent of The Advisory Board Company. All other trademarks, product names, service names, trade names, and logos used within these pages are the property of their respective holders. Use of other company trademarks, product names, service names, trade names and logos or images of the same does not necessarily constitute (a) an endorsement by such company of The Advisory Board Company and its products and services, or (b) an endorsement of the company or its products or services by The Advisory Board Company. The Advisory Board Company is not affi liated with any such company.

IMPORTANT: Please read the following.

The Advisory Board Company has prepared this report for the exclusive use of its members. Each member acknowledges and agrees that this report and the information contained herein (collectively, the “Report”) are confi dential and proprietary to The Advisory Board Company. By accepting delivery of this Report, each member agrees to abide by the terms as stated herein, including the following:

1. The Advisory Board Company owns all right, title and interest in and to this Report. Except as stated herein, no right, license, permission or interest of any kind in this Report is intended to be given, transferred to or acquired by a member. Each member is authorized to use this Report only to the extent expressly authorized herein.

2. Each member shall not sell, license or republish this Report. Each member shall not disseminate or permit the use of, and shall take reasonable precautions to prevent such dissemination or use of, this Report by (a) any of its employees and agents (except as stated below), or (b) any third party.

3. Each member may make this Report available solely to those of its employees and agents who (a) are registered for the workshop or membership program of which this Report is a part, (b) require access to this Report in order to learn from the information described herein, and (c) agree not to disclose this Report to other employees or agents or any third party. Each member shall use, and shall ensure that its employees and agents use, this Report for its internal use only. Each member may make a limited number of copies, solely as adequate for use by its employees and agents in accordance with the terms herein.

4. Each member shall not remove from this Report any confi dential markings, copyright notices and other similar indicia herein.

5. Each member is responsible for any breach of its obligations as stated herein by any of its employees or agents.

6. If a member is unwilling to abide by any of the foregoing obligations, then such member shall promptly return this Report and all copies thereof to The Advisory Board Company.

University Leadership Council

Project DirectorsCarla Hickman

David Attis

Executive DirectorChristopher Miller

Lead DesignerKevin Matovich

Creative Services

Allison Driscoll • Kate Foley • Karen Ressue • Joy Turner

iii © 2009 The Advisory Board Company • 19286

University Leadership Council

Global Learning in the Undergraduate Curriculum (19286)Preparing Students to Live and Work in an Interconnected World

Number of Copies Requested

Order Form

Fax to: Delivery Services

202-266-6550

Name and Title __________________________________________________________

Institution __________________________________________________________

Address __________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

Telephone ______________________ E-mail ____________________________

Unlimited Copies

Copies of Advisory Board publications are available to members without charge. Should we be able to serve you by forwarding additional copies of this study, please e-mail us at [email protected] with the order-request number listed below. Publications may also be ordered by faxing this form to Delivery Services at 202-266-6550 or by calling 202-266-5920 to speak with a Delivery Services Associate.

iv © 2009 The Advisory Board Company • 19286

v © 2009 The Advisory Board Company • 19286

Table of Contents

About the Education Advisory Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vi

Advisors to Our Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Top Lessons from the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

Understanding Your Current State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv

Global Learning in the Undergraduate Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii

Meeting Demand for Global Competence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Engaging Faculty in Curriculum Reform. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

I. Aligning Institutional Incentives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Practice #1: Outcomes-Focused International Travel Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Practice #2: Explicit Global Tenure and Promotion Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

II. Bridging the Expertise Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Practice #3: Peer-to-Peer Cross-Disciplinary Course Redesign. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Practice #4: Global Virtual Team Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Designing Opportunities to Maximize Student Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

III. Infusing Global in All Disciplines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Practice #5: Global Learning Certifi cation Within Majors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

Practice #6: Flexible Upper Division Global Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

IV. Building Global into the Core . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

Practice #7: Signature Core Global Courses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

Practice #8: Alternative Foreign Language Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

V. Defi ning the Global Citizen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

Practice #9: Clear, Measurable Global Learning Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

Practice #10: Multi-method Global Learning Assessment Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

Pursuing Excellence in On-Campus Global Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

vi © 2009 The Advisory Board Company • 19286

About the Education Advisory Board

A New Practice in Higher Education

Encouraged by academic medical centers that our model and experience serving nonprofi t institutions might prove valuable to universities, the Advisory Board began a higher education practice in 2007, with memberships serving the provost (the University Leadership Council), student affairs (the Student Affairs Leadership Council), and business and fi nance executives (the University Business Executive Roundtable).

A Member-Led Agenda

Provosts set the agenda for the University Leadership Council's research. Each year, we poll the membership to better understand their “up-at-night” issues—topics of genuine aspiration or urgency. The most widely voiced issues become the focus of our best practice work.

Casting the Net Wide

Our search for innovative practice is not limited to the membership. We scan the entirety of the higher education, not-for-profi t, and corporate sectors for effective and replicable models, typically reviewing thousands of pages of literature and interviewing hundreds of institutions to fi nd the top ideas worthy of provost's attention.

Specializing in Best Practice Inquiry, Not Policy Analysis

New to the higher education community, we are acutely aware of how much we have to learn and modest in our ambitions in serving provosts. Our work is not intended to propose national policy or to lobby policy makers, nor is it peer-reviewed academic research. Our narrower intention is to distill the experiences of institutions like yours, profi ling success stories (and failure paths) to help prioritize investments and improve performance. At our best, we offer original insight into “what’s working” in higher education and critique the popular wisdom and fad-like trends that take hold in all fi elds and industries.

Since 1979, The Advisory Board Company has been providing best practice research to the world’s leading hospitals, academic medical centers, and health systems. With a staff of more than 900 in Washington, D.C., we serve health care CEOs, administrators, and clinical leaders at 2,700 institutions, publishing 55 major studies and 10,000 customized research briefs yearly on progressive management practices. The work focuses on the industry’s best (and worst) demonstrated practices, helping member institutions benefi t from one another’s hard-learned lessons.

vii © 2009 The Advisory Board Company • 19286

We are grateful to interviewees for allowing us to benchmark practices and garner institutional insights into the challenges of integrating global learning opportunities into the undergraduate curriculum.

Stephen DunnettVice Provost for International EducationUniversity at Buffalo,The State University of New York

Everett EggintonDean of International and Border EducationNew Mexico State University

Royce EngstromProvost and Vice President,Academic AffairsUniversity of Montana

Brian FosterProvostUniversity of Missouri-Columbia

Rosalie Giacchino-BakerDirector, International InstituteCalifornia State University,San Bernardino

Lesa Griffi thsAssociate Provost and Director,Center for Global PartnershipsUniversity of Delaware

J. Kline HarrisonAssociate Provost for International AffairsWake Forest University

Marc HendrixProfessor, GeologyChair, International CommitteeUniversity of Montana

Dennis JacobsVice President and Associate ProvostUniversity of Notre Dame

Sabine KlahrDirector of International ProgramsBoise State University

Hilary LandorfDirector, Offi ce of GlobalLearning InitiativesFlorida International University

Ian McIntoshDirector, International PartnershipsIndiana University–PurdueUniversity Indianapolis

Steven McLaughlinVice Provost for International InitiativesGeorgia Institute of Technology

Mark McNameeSenior Vice President and ProvostVirginia Polytechnic Instituteand State University

Michael RennerProvostDrake University

Jeffrey RiedingerDean, International Studies and ProgramsMichigan State University

Donna ScarboroAssistant Vice President forSpecial Academic ProgramsThe George Washington University

Barry ScherrProvostDartmouth College

Gary SchusterProvost and Vice Presidentfor Academic AffairsGeorgia Institute of Technology

Jason ScorzaAssociate Provost for Global LearningFairleigh Dickinson University

David SkidmoreDirector, Center for Global CitizenshipDrake University

Susan Buck SuttonAssociate Dean for International AffairsIndiana University–PurdueUniversity Indianapolis

Ronald TroyerSenior Counselor for International InitiativesDrake University

Daniel WeinerDirector, Center for International StudiesOhio University

James V. WertschDirector, McDonnell InternationalScholars AcademyWashington University in St. Louis

Advisors to Our Work—With Special Thanks

Sona AndrewsProvost and Vice Presidentfor Academic AffairsBoise State University

Lawrence BellDirector of International EducationUniversity of Colorado at Boulder

Victor Betancourt-SantiagoDirector, Center for Global EducationMarymount University

Harvey CharlesVice Provost for International InitiativesNorthern Arizona University

Diana CvitanDirector, Offi ce of Global LearningFairleigh Dickinson University

Julia DouthwaiteAssistant Provost for International AffairsUniversity of Notre Dame

Steven DukeDirector, Center for International StudiesWake Forest University

viii © 2009 The Advisory Board Company • 19286


Traditional Levers of Undergraduate “InternationalExperience” Reaching the Few, Not the Many

1. Universities are not narrowing ambitions for internationalization despite the economic downturn; if anything, the drumbeat from external stakeholders and faculty to impart skills and attitudes for functioning in a global society is rising, with more institutions than ever elevating some variation of “Global Citizenship” to the highest echelon of institutional values, implicitly or explicitly promised to all students

2. A Widening Rhetoric-Reality Gap: Most provosts confess that the traditional measures of “Global Citizenship,” though modestly increasing, are falling far short of stated goals:

• Study Abroad—On the Rise, but Still Largely a “Luxury Item”: Though a majority of college-bound students express interest in studying abroad during their undergraduate career, only a fraction—1.5 percent or about 210,000 students in 2007—participate in programs for credit. Efforts to increase access to education abroad have led to the proliferation of short-term programs, raising concerns about the academic value of some experiences

• Foreign Language—Demand Shortfalls in Traditional Languages, Instruction Shortages in “Hot” Non-Western Programs: Faced with proportionately smaller enrollments (only 1.4 course enrollments per 100 students at the advanced level) and hindered by an institutional infl exibility in meeting student demand for instruction in non-Western languages, many institutions are eliminating foreign language graduation requirements—some even shuttering departments

• International Students—More, but Not Enough to Go Around: While many institutions have dramatically increased their census of foreign-born students to diversify international perspectives on campus (with full-pay tuition a happy side-effect), internationals still represent typically fi ve percent or less of the student body, too dilute to ensure consequential academic or social interactions with the majority of domestic undergraduates

Top Lessons from the Study

3. Even at schools aggressively resourcing study abroad or expanding international requirements, concern exists that these global experiences are in competition with (and losing to) the other student aims of on-time degree completion, co-curricular activities or personal obligations

4. Council View: Institutions continuing to rely predominantly on study abroad, language requirements, and international students to create “Global Citizens” risk making internationalization separate from the core undergraduate experience, and likely ensure that half or more of the undergraduate population will lack a consequential global learning experience programmed into their desired course of study

A More Inclusive Approach—Systematically EmbeddingGlobal Learning Throughout the Curriculum

5. A growing number of institutions are seeking to provide meaningful global learning opportunities to the majority of students through systematic curriculum redesign, changing global learning from “add-ons” to faculty and student workloads to explicitly expected yet minimally burdensome elements of the undergraduate education plan

6. The Goal: A Transformational Global Curriculum: Globally-focused educators and senior international offi cers frequently use the term of art

“Transformational Global Curriculum” to distinguish their approach from traditional, add-on international activities. This study will employ that term, which presumes four attributes:

• Global learning in general education and major programs of study

• Multiple modes of study (on and off campus)

• Diverse instructional techniques

• Well-defi ned global outcomes and assessments

ix © 2009 The Advisory Board Company • 19286

7. Focusing on the “Here to There”: Migrating to a transformational global curriculum has proved challenging for many institutions, as the breadth of course changes imagined requires synchronous participation of large faculty numbers (who have varied levels of individual international expertise and operative professional incentives) and consensus about core curriculum and assessment principles—not easy asks at most universities

8. Based on interviews with institutions pursuing a global curriculum as a major institutional priority, this study attempts to isolate the most common problems and promising best practices for systematically embedding global learning opportunities in the undergraduate curriculum

Engaging Faculty in Curriculum Reform

Fix Faculty Incentives and Support First

9. It goes without saying that the success of an institution’s strategic plan for internationalization rests with the willingness of the faculty to implement reform. Any effort to reform the curriculum will go only as far and fast as faculty allow, but Council research found this to be particularly true in the case of internationalization

10. At the majority of institutions, internationalization is hindered by a fundamental misalignment between global learning plans and the faculty incentive system. Likewise, progress can be prevented by a lack of faculty familiarity with and expertise in internationalization

11. Early career faculty have a disincentive to participate in global learning due to the lack of formal institutional rewards. Institutional recognition is not commensurate with the required effort to design global courses, especially for faculty members who typically lack familiarity with on-campus experts and support services

12. Innovators report that solidifying incentives, instilling accountability, and offering support services must precede global learning curricular reform

Aligning Institutional Incentives—Encouraging and RewardingFaculty Participation in Global Learning

13. Member Problem—International Travel Grants Lack Requirement to Incorporate Overseas Scholarship in Coursework: Few institutions link faculty’s international scholarship with on-campus global learning. Requiring faculty to demonstrate how proposed international travel will directly benefi t their own global professional development, their colleagues, students, and the curriculum can ensure that institutional investment has a broader (and longer-lasting) impact

14. Practice #1—Outcomes-Focused International Travel Funds: Council research fi nds that best practitioners make individual international travel funding contingent on demonstrated benefi t to broader campus internationalization. In addition to pursuing international research, faculty members are required to offer professional working sessions for colleagues on campus, develop global course components, and design student internship and study abroad opportunities

15. Member Problem—Faculty Face Unacceptable Trade-Off Between Supporting Global Learning and Advancing Professional Career: At a defi nitive 92 percent of institutions, no guidelines exist to specify that international contributions be considered in tenure and promotion decisions. With the tendency for departmental review committees to see international scholarship as marginal, faculty face the unacceptable trade-off between supporting global learning and pursuing scholarship that will advance their career

16. Practice #2—Explicit Global Tenure and Promotion Guidelines: A handful of progressive institutions are testing the waters with regard to recognizing international activities within the reward structure. While Council research uncovered no institution with formal weighting for international contributions, innovators are making explicit recommendations to faculty review committees that international scholarship (e.g., publication in international journals, developing student global learning programs, service on international committees) be counted as evidence of excellence in teaching, research, and service

x © 2009 The Advisory Board Company • 19286

Bridging the Expertise Gap—Providing Course Design andTeaching Technology Support to Elevate Faculty Practice

17. Few faculty have a rich reservoir of personal experience or familiarity with recommended teaching techniques and emerging technologies suffi cient to actively participate in curriculum internationalization

18. Even those who are willing to participate freely admit they could not design courses to satisfy all the desired attributes of transformational internationalization. Left on their own, faculty will either abandon global learning or take an “add-on” approach to course redesign—inserting international readings or an international guest lecturer in an existing course syllabus

19. Faculty often encounter administrative friction when attempting to work across departmental units on interdisciplinary global courses. Without a formal mechanism for institutional collaboration, global learning becomes the de facto responsibility of faculty in foreign language and area studies departments

20. Member Problem—Universities Unsystematic About Templatizing and Leveraging On-Campus Expertise: Council research fi nds most institutions rely solely on Teaching and Learning Centers to prepare faculty for curriculum internationalization, but these centers often lack the bandwidth, funding, or in some cases expertise to adequately address the full range of faculty concerns. With no systematic way to discover pockets of international knowledge across campus or leverage this expertise to train others, internationalization fails even before beginning

21. Practice #3—Peer-to-Peer Cross-Disciplinary Course Redesign: Innovators use competitive funding as a mechanism to identify and bring together on-campus experts to design replicable interdisciplinary models for internationalizing courses. After a semester of service, experts areredeployed to individual units to train colleagues in global learning

22. Member Problem—Limited Impact of Formal International Cooperative Agreements: The Council also sees an opportunity for institutions to better leverage the dozens (if not hundreds) of partnerships with institutions abroad to benefi t faculty global competence. At most institutions the overall impact of these relationships is limited by an over dependence on sending students and faculty overseas or hosting international faculty on campus

23. Practice #4—Global Virtual Team Teaching: Progressive institutions derive additional benefi t from international partnerships by facilitating virtual faculty collaboration. Providing the infrastructure and technical support needed for blended and fully-online, team-taught courses allows institutions to effectively “import” global perspectives into the classroom

Designing Opportunities to Maximize Student Participation

Solve Students’ “Either/Or” Conundrum by EmbeddingGlobal Learning in the Required Curriculum

24. At many institutions, study abroad and foreign language coursework are perceived as benefi cial but nonessential experiences, and while increasing participation is a worthy goal, few efforts have been made to overcome programmatic barriers preventing access:

• Global Learning Outside Requirements for the Major: Apart from explicitly global programs (e.g., foreign language, area studies, international relations), very few majors ensure exposure to global content in course requirements. Rigid preset course sequences can make global learning all but impossible for students in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM) and preprofessional fi elds without extending time to degree

• But Not Part of the General Education Curriculum Either: At 76 percent of institutions, students are not required to take a course on global themes and issues within the general education curriculum, failing to impart global knowledge to those students who do not choose or cannot pursue global learning in addition to other requirements

xi © 2009 The Advisory Board Company • 19286

25. Strategic plans for internationalization must ensure a transformational curriculum with four desired attributes:

• Global learning in general education and major programs of study

• Multiple modes of study (on and off campus)

• Diverse instructional techniques

• Well-defi ned global outcomes and assessments

Infusing Global in All Disciplines—Embedding GlobalContent and Experiences in All Programs of Study

26. Senior leaders should begin curriculum internationalization by embedding global learning in upper division courses. The relative small scale of department-level collaboration provides faculty with a familiar working environment in which to attempt what is often a fi rst-time effort. From department-level success, institutions can build to cross-disciplinary global learning in the general education curriculum

27. Member Problem—Students Currently Must Choose Between Global Learning and Other Academic Pursuits: Few undergraduate programs of study require global coursework or align with education abroad offerings. Students in STEM and preprofessional fi elds, in particular, may fi nd that participation in study, research, or work abroad extends time to degree as these courses rarely count toward completion of their majors

28. Practice #5—Global Learning Certifi cation Within Majors: Best practitioners develop global learning tracks—including education abroad—within existing undergraduate programs. Requirements for global learning are set centrally, but are designed with enough fl exibility to ensure adoption by a variety of majors. Units design global learning coursework and overseas study, work, and research opportunities to meet discipline-specifi c requirements. Foreign language instruction is focused on functional conversational competency rather than a traditional literary approach

29. Practice #6—Flexible Upper Division Global Content Requirement: In mandating global learning in all programs of study, innovative institutions provide a range of options to ensure all programs can and will participate. Departments may choose to develop new signature global courses, infuse global content into existing courses, or require students to take a course outside the department for credit in the major

Building Global into the Core—Expanding Accessto Global Learning through Signature Programs

30. Global learning in upper division courses provides students with a valuable disciplinary perspective on global knowledge; however, a globally competent student must also be able to make interdisciplinary global connections

31. Member Problem—Fear that Internationalizing the Core Curriculum Exacerbates Credit Creep: Institutional efforts to embed global learning in the general education curriculum are often stymied by concern that yet another check-the-box requirement will exacerbate credit creep and extend what is, in many cases, an already prolonged time to degree

32. Practice #7—Signature Core Global Courses: Best practitioners bring faculty from across campus together to design interdisciplinary global courses within existing general education knowledge domains. These signature courses wed global theory with disciplinary content (e.g., Foundations of Global Theory in the Humanities), and simultaneously satisfy a global learning requirement and earn distribution credit

33. Member Problem—New Foreign Language Demand Largely Unmet: While many institutions endeavor to expand access to study abroad and a smaller number aim to develop global courses, very few are meeting the new and changing student demand for instruction in foreign languages. Institutions struggle with the fundamental mismatch between the expertise of tenured faculty in long-standing departments and new demand for instruction in non-Western languages

xii © 2009 The Advisory Board Company • 19286

34. Practice #8—Alternative Foreign Language Instruction: Rather than allow the traditional structure of academic departments to limit instructional offerings, the most progressive institutions are adopting alternative, even radical, new approaches to foreign language program design. Embracing unique staffi ng solutions and online teaching and learning technologies, these institutions develop foreign language programs targeting cultural understanding and conversational, rather than literary, competence

Defi ning the Global Citizen—Moving Beyond Easy-to-CountInputs to Assessing Student-Centered Outcomes

35. Member Problem—Quantity Does Not Equal Quality: Admittedly the most challenging aspect of internationalizing the undergraduate curriculum is articulating student-centered metrics for evaluating global learning. Council research fi nds that the majority of institutions have made little progress in transitioning from easy-to-count metrics (e.g., enrollment in foreign languages, percentage of undergraduates who study abroad) to collecting evidence of students’ global competence

36. By building global competency into the broader conversation on learning outcomes and assessment, institutions ensure that internationalization is an academic enterprise. Rather than a collection of services, global learning is a central component of the undergraduate curriculum and the responsibility of faculty across the institution

37. Practice #9—Clear, Measurable Global Learning Outcomes: A central student learning outcomes committee should develop a general list of measurable global learning outcomes to be achieved by all undergraduates. Individual faculty and departments should also be tasked with developing discipline-specifi c lists of the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of globally-competent practitioners in their respective fi elds

38. Practice #10—Multi-method Global Learning Assessment Plan: To adequately measure the full range of student global competence, institutions are best served by developing a multiple method assessment plan. Using a mix of proprietary and homegrown, direct and indirect measures moderates institutional investment and provides a more complete picture of student progress

39. Institutions should develop a regular and systematic process for collecting, interpreting, and analyzing student global learning data. Assessment analysis should inform future curricular offerings as well as individual faculty practice in instructional design and delivery

Beyond Internationalization as Campaign—Advantaged ProvostRoles for Ingraining Global Learning in Campus Culture

40. Provosts and Senior International Offi cers lament the campaign mentality characterizing most internationalization efforts; leadership limited to

“cheerleading” role heavy on speeches, one-time campus events, and appeals to faculty values can produce temporary upticks in activity, but not the goal of transformational global learning

41. Leaders at progressive global learning institutions instead have pursued the role of market-maker, introducing subtle incentives and mandates to gradually shift faculty energies and new course offerings toward global content with the basic outlines of current incentive structures and administrative activities, holding departments and instructors accountable for making progress towards goals, but not expecting unrealistic levels of effort outside core teaching and research work

xiii © 2009 The Advisory Board Company • 19286

42. Change Management Lessons from Global Leaders:

• Link Individual Scholarship Incentives to Institutional Internationalization Goals: Provosts should make creative use of internal competitive funding opportunities, requiring faculty to demonstrate how individual international travel and research benefi ts the broader campus community

• Firm Mandates with Flexible Implementation Options andJust-in-Time Support: Successful institutions share a “tight-loose” approach to pursuing a internationalized curriculum, with the provost setting dates by which meaningful curriculum reform is expected, complemented by wide latitude for how goals are to be achieved and multiple, reinforcing centrally funded support services(e.g., peer-to-peer mentorship programs, global course redesign templates, team teaching technologies, etc.) among which faculty may choose on an individual basis

• Take Advantage of Accreditation Self-Study: A growing number of schools are reporting signifi cant progress on curriculum and cultural redesign by focusing accreditation reaffi rmation self-study on internationalization; focusing the thousands of FTE hours required for site visits on an aspirational objective with external deadlines and end product has helped galvanize widespread faculty mindshare without creating “extra” administrative or committee time

Clarifying Terms

Global LearningThis study adopts the common use of the shorthand term global learning to refer to the study of global (systems and phenomena transcending national borders), international (nations and their relationships), and intercultural (knowledge and skills to understand and navigate cultural differences) themes and content.

InternationalizationThe term internationalization as used in this study refers to the process by which institutions embed global learning in the existing curriculum, including courses and overseas activities, to ensure all students achieve global competence.

xiv © 2009 The Advisory Board Company • 19286

xv © 2009 The Advisory Board Company • 19286

Engaging Faculty in Curriculum Reform Yes No

1. Does the institution provide dedicated funding for faculty travel and course development that enhances the strategic plan for internationalization?

❏ ❏

2. Are recipients of international travel grants required to extend the benefi ts of their experience to undergraduate students by designing global course components or arranging overseas education opportunities?

❏ ❏

3. Does the institution have a formal policy for recognizing facultyinternational scholarship in tenure and promotion decisions?

❏ ❏

4. Does the institution offer regular professional development sessionsto develop the global knowledge and skills of the faculty?

❏ ❏

5. Are faculty members from across campus brought together to collaboratively design interdisciplinary, replicable models for “internationalizing” courses?

❏ ❏

6. Are faculty global learning advocates asked to train and support less enthusiastic departmental colleagues in the development ofglobal courses?

❏ ❏

7. Has the institution invested in technology and technical trainingto facilitate virtual collaboration between home campus facultyand international partners?

❏ ❏

If you answered “no” to any of the above questions, please turn to page 11.

Designing Opportunities to Maximize Student Participation

8. Has the institution developed a general list of the desired knowledge, skills, and attitudes of a globally competent citizen?

❏ ❏

9. Are department chairs and faculty required to articulate discipline-specifi c global learning outcomes?

❏ ❏

10. Has the institution developed a multiple method assessment planfor measuring and monitoring the global competency of undergraduate students?

❏ ❏

Understanding Your Current State

Diagnostic Questions

The following questions are designed to guide member evaluation of their current approach to global learning. These categories should be used to spotlight practices that map to institutional challenges.

Yes No

11. Does the institution regularly analyze student learning evidence to identify areas of strength and areas in need of improvement?

❏ ❏

12. Does the institution use assessment data to inform future global learning investments and programmatic offerings?

❏ ❏

13. Does the institution offer a range of on- and off-campus global learning opportunities?

❏ ❏

14. Do undergraduates in all programs of study have the opportunity to participate in global learning without delaying time to degree?

❏ ❏

15. Are all undergraduate students required to complete global coursework in their chosen program of study?

❏ ❏

16. Are departments provided a range of fl exible course development options to facilitate the implementation of an upper division global course requirement?

❏ ❏

17. Are undergraduate students exposed to global theory and content in the general education curriculum?

❏ ❏

18. Has the institution designed transformational global core curriculum courses to provide students a strong foundation in global theory and to differentiate the academic program from otherinstitutions’ offerings?

❏ ❏

19. Does the institution offer students the opportunity to pursue studies in a range of modern foreign languages?

❏ ❏

20. Does the institution draw on native speakers in the student population and greater community to expand foreign language offerings?

❏ ❏

21. Is foreign language instruction focused on conversational profi ciency and intercultural competency?

❏ ❏

If you answered “no” to any of the above questions, please turn to page 23.

xvi © 2009 The Advisory Board Company • 19286

xvii © 2009 The Advisory Board Company • 19286


Preparing Students to Live and Work in an Interconnected World

I

AligningInstitutional Incentives

#1 Outcomes-Focused International Travel Funds

#2 Explicit Global Tenure and Promotion Guidelines

II

Bridging theExpertise Gap

#3 Peer-to-Peer Cross-Disciplinary Course Redesign

#4 Global VirtualTeam Teaching

V

Defi ning theGlobal Citizen

#9 Clear, Measurable Global Learning Outcomes

#10 Multi-method Global Learning Assessment Plan

III

Infusing Globalin All Disciplines

#5 Global Learning Certifi cation Within Majors

#6 Flexible Upper Division Global Requirement

IV

Building Globalinto the Core

#7 Signature Core Global Courses

#8 Alternative Foreign Language Instruction


Designing Opportunities to Maximize Student

Participation

xviii © 2009 The Advisory Board Company • 19286

1 © 2009 The Advisory Board Company • 19286

Meeting Demand for Global Competence


Higher Education Called on to Prepare Globally Competent Citizens

A Topic with Global Appeal

Higher education institutions are being called on by a range of external stakeholders to prepare college students for participation in today’s global society. Citing the importance of foreign language profi ciency and knowledge of global themes and issues to personal and professional success, employers, prospective students, and the broader public are looking to colleges and universities to offer students a range of curricular and co-curricular global learning opportunities.

General Public

• 90 percent believe it is important or very important to prepare future generations of Americans for a global society

• 92 percent agree that knowledge of a foreign language provides a competitive advantage in career opportunities

Employers

• 72 percent want more emphasis on global issues and developments in the general curriculum

• 63 percent believe recent college graduates do not have what it takes to survive in the global economy

College-Bound Students

• 70 percent plan to learn and speak a foreign language fl uently or at least well enough to converse with others

• 74 percent indicate it is very or somewhat important for their college of choice to offer international courses

Source: NAFSA: Association of International Educators, “Americans Call for Leadership on International Education: A National Survey on Preparation for a Global Society,” http://www.nafsa.org/uploadedFiles/NAFSA_Home/Resource_Library_Assets/Public_Policy/americans_call_for_leadership.pdf?n=9018, (accessed May 24, 2009); Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc., “How Should Colleges Prepare Students to Succeed in Today’s Global Economy?”, http://www.aacu.org/leap/documents/RE8097abcombined.pdf, (accessed May 12, 2009); American Council on Education, Art & Science Group, The College Board, “College-Bound Students’ Interests in Study Abroad and Other International Learning Activities, ”http://www.acenet.edu/AM/Template.cfm?Section=International&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentFileID=3997, (accessed May 18, 2009).


Traditional Institutional Offerings Failing to Satisfy New Student Demand

Participation in Select International Activities by Student Group

Yet an Insuffi cient Response

Global learning has traditionally been at the periphery of the academic experience—an add-on or reward for those students who can afford (in every sense of the word) to participate. Colleges and universities rely on study abroad programs and a handful of international majors to provide undergraduates with options for learning about global and international issues. Nontraditional students (part-time students, working adults) with personal and professional obligations, and undergraduates pursuing STEM and preprofessional degrees with rigid course sequences, are typically underserved by these limited programmatic options.

Source: University Leadership Council interviews and analysis.

InternationalRelations

STEMMajors

Preprofessional Majors

Part-TimeStudents

Study AbroadInternational

MajorsAdvanced Foreign

Language Coursework

Student Athletes


Higher Education Failing to Send Most Students to Study Out of Country

Despite Interest, Majority of Students Not Going Abroad

When asked their interest in a range of internationalization activities, 81 percent of college-bound students indicate a desire to participate in study abroad. Yet, only a fraction of the total U.S. undergraduate population—approximately 1.5 percent or 210,000 students in 2007—participates in a study abroad program for credit. Even with the signifi cant increase in student participation seen over the last two decades, study abroad programs continue to serve the few, not the many.

Source: American Council on Education, Art & Science Group, The College Board, “College-Bound Students’ Interests in Study Abroad and Other International Learning Activities,” studentPOLL, Baltimore, MD: Art & Science Group, 2008; Institute for International Education, “Meeting America’s Global Challenge: Current Trends in U.S. Study Abroad and the Impact of Strategic Diversity Trends,” New York: Institute for International Education, 2007.

While the majority of college-bound students express interest in study abroad…

…only a fraction of undergraduates participate in programs for credit

College-Bound Students’ Interest in Study Abroad

Student Participation in Study Abroad as Percentage of Total Enrollment

81%

6%

13%

Interestedin Studying

Abroad

Not Interested

Not Sure

98.5% 1.5%

Only 210,000 participants


Gap Between Federal Interest and Institutional Practice

Is Foreign Language Study Passé?

The news is even bleaker when examining instruction in modern foreign languages. Participation in advanced foreign language coursework has been on the decline for more than 40 years, with only a small percentage of institutions within any Carnegie classifi cation requiring undergraduates to complete foreign language coursework for graduation. Following the events of September 11, 2001, the federal government emphasized that increasing the number of U.S. residents learning, speaking, and teaching foreign languages is critical to ensuring our national security. However, faced with decreasing enrollments and often ill-prepared to offer advanced coursework in non-Western languages, colleges and universities are shuttering departments and developing a global strategy devoid of foreign language preparation.

National Security Language Initiative

Interagency effort to dramatically increase the number of U.S. residents learning, speaking, and teaching critical foreign languages

Percentage of Institutions with Foreign Language Requirements for All Students

Doctoral Master's Baccalaureate Associate's

18%23%

41%

2%

Source: Wasley, Paula, “U. of Southern California to Shutter Its German Department,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, August 11, 2008, http://chronicle.com/article/v/683/ (accessed August 3, 2009); Committee for Economic Development, “Education for Global Leadership: The Importance of International Studies and Foreign Language Education for U.S. Economic and National Security,” Washington DC: Committee for Economic Development, 2006; U.S. Department of Education, “Enhancing Foreign Language Profi ciency in the United States: Preliminary Results from the National Security Language Initiative,” Washington DC: US Department of Education, 2008.

University News

Administrators decide to shutter German department based on declining enrollment and shifting priorities…


Percentage of Institutions Requiring Undergraduates to Complete a Course Focused on Global Trends or Issues

Few Institutions Require Globally-Focused General Education Coursework

Global Learning at the Periphery, Not the Core

Most universities and colleges reserve global content for a handful of specialized degree programs. For the majority of students who will earn degrees in programs other than global and international studies, the general education curriculum presents the best opportunity to develop global knowledge and skills. While more than half of all baccalaureate, master’s, and doctoral institutions require students to complete a course on countries or areas outside the U.S., approximately half of these institutions allow courses on Canada, Australia, and Western Europe to fulfi ll the requirement. A much smaller percentage of institutions in all Carnegie classifi cations are using the general education curriculum to expose students to interdisciplinary global trends and issues.

Source: Green, Madeleine F., Dao Luu, and Beth Burris, Mapping Internationalization on U.S. Campuses: 2008 Edition, Washington DC: American Council on Education, 2008.

Percentage of Institutions Requiring Undergraduates to Complete a Course Featuring Countries or Areas Outside the U.S.

Doctoral

Master's

Baccalaureate

Associate's 18%

56%

55%

57% Doctoral

Master's

Baccalaureate

Associate's 16%

32%

33%

30%


Stepping Down from the Dais

In order to achieve the goal of preparing all students for global citizenship, the provost and senior leadership team must move beyond rhetoric—beyond speeches emphasizing the importance of international education—to making the diffi cult decisions required to implement ambitious global learning reform. While faculty members will do the heavy lifting here, designing courses and new overseas programming opportunities, the central administration plays a critical role in facilitating the process, allocating resources and highlighting good work.


Making the Difficult Decisions Required to Close the Rhetoric-Reality Gap

Questions for the Provost’s Consideration

If I fund an international research partnership, will more STEM students be able to study abroad?

?

How much seed funding is needed to support faculty efforts to design global learning courses?

Enrollment numbers are down in the foreign language departments. How many full-time positions can we support?


Focus on Student Learning

“Many institutions articulate global education as essentially consisting of services: what you do for international students, what you do for study abroad students, how you recruit international students. I contend that these are important pieces of global education, but global education best understood has to be grounded in the curriculum. In other words, it has to be an academic enterprise about what we teach and what students learn.”

Vice Provost for International AffairsLarge, Public Research University

Parts of the Curriculum

• General education courses

• Majors and minors

• Capstone courses

Modes of Study

• On-campus coursework

• Education abroad

• Service learning opportunities

Pedagogies

• Experiential learning

• Collaborative grouping

• Distance learning

Progressive colleges and universities articulate their commitments to global education as more than a collection of services. They do more than provide exemplary support to students studying abroad or to international students on the home campus. They place global learning at the heart of the academic curriculum, ensuring all students have ample opportunity to acquire the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of globally-competent citizens. These institutions integrate global learning opportunities into every aspect of the curriculum, embracing various modes of study and diverse pedagogical techniques.

Curriculum at the Heart of International Education

More than a Collection of Services

Source: Olson, Christa, “Mapping Internationalization: Implications for Campus Practice,” American Council on Education Internationalization Collaborative Regional Meeting, Tempe, AZ, November 13–14, 2008; University Leadership Council interviews and analysis.

PASSPORT

United Statesof America


Seizing the Moment

Best practitioner institutions seize the occasions of reaffi rmation of accreditation and strategic planning cycles to implement ambitious global education reform. There are a number of advantages to this approach. External reviewers offer oversight and constructive feedback that informs institutional practice. Dedicated funds, established timelines, and assessment metrics ensure timely implementation of global goals. And fi nally, reaffi rmation of accreditation requires the broad-based support and participation of administrators, faculty, staff, and students across campus necessary for curricular transformation.

Reaccreditation and Strategic Planning as Platforms for Global Initiatives

Advantages to Building Global Learning Programsinto Institutional Planning and Effectiveness

A Question of Outcomes

“Accrediting bodies have moved away from just counting credit hours to actually focusing on student outcomes. This is a sea change in the accrediting business and has really made it possible for internationalization to thrive.”

ProvostLarge, Public Research University

Offers oversight by external stakeholders

Establishes timeline and assessment milestones

Provides dedicated pool of institutional funding

Encourages broad-based participation and support






Willing, but Unable

While most faculty members support the idea of providing students with additional opportunities to develop global competence, few feel they are able to do so.

Common faculty objections indicate a perceived lack of institutional recognition for international scholarship and also an unmet need for ongoing pedagogical and technical support. In the best of situations, faculty defer to colleagues in foreign language and area studies departments; in the worst of cases, faculty refuse to devote time and attention to meeting students’ global learning needs.

Faculty Lack Incentives, Opportunities to Engage in Global Learning Reform

Typical Faculty Responses to Global Course Development Initiatives

I think other disciplines are better suited to addressing global issues.

I’m interested in global learning, but I don’t have the time or expertise to redesign my courses.

I need to focus on scholarship that will be rewarded at tenure review.

I want to work with my international colleagues but coordination has proven diffi cult.



I. Aligning Institutional Incentives


• The success of strategic plans for internationalization depends largely on the willingness of faculty to implement reform. However, at most institutions, the lack of formal incentives and resources discourage even willing faculty from designing new opportunities for students to achieve global competency.

• In awarding grants for international travel and research, few institutions require recipients to demonstrate how their scholarship directly benefi ts the campus plan for internationalization. Faculty international research ultimately has little impact on students or the curriculum. Students rarely directly benefi t from faculty’s international engagement.

• At most institutions, faculty engagement in international scholarship is not considered in formal review decisions. Faculty face an unacceptable trade-off between supporting global learning initiatives and pursuing scholarship that will bolster their case for tenure or promotion.

Typical University Problems

Require faculty awarded international travel funding to design new global learning opportunities (i.e., courses, internships, study abroad programs) that advance students’ global competency

Best Practitioner Approach

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and

State University

CaliforniaState University,San Bernardino

Recognize faculty’s international contributions as examples of excellence in teaching, research, and service in the institution’s formal guidelines for tenure and promotion


Practice #1: Outcomes-Focused International Travel Funds

While many institutions support small, recurring seed funds for faculty international travel, few require faculty to demonstrate the broader impact of their research on campus internationalization. The Professors Across Borders program at the California State University, San Bernardino, makes explicit the link between faculty’s international travel and on-campus global learning.

In addition to international research, faculty who receive Professors Across Borders grants are strongly encouraged to fulfi ll additional objectives that enhance campus internationalization. Faculty may choose to add an international component to an existing course, propose a new global course, or develop a student internship program in the country visited. These global courses and internship programs must be offered in the year directly following the faculty member’s travel to ensure an immediate benefi t to students and a prompt and clear return on the institution’s investment.

Central Resources Essential to Internationalization

Linking Faculty International Travel Funding to CampusInternationalization at California State University, San Bernardino

International Institute offers travel funding for scholarship that supports campus internationalization

122 grants awarded to faculty for collaborative research, language training, and international fi eld work

Faculty develop new courses refl ective of their travel and research, arrange student study abroad and internships, and share their experiences at faculty working sessions each semester

Source: California State University, San Bernardino, International Institute, http://www.ii.csusb.edu, (accessed on September 15, 2009); University Leadership Council interviews and analysis.

Professors Across Borders Grants, 2002 to 2009

'02–'03 '03–'04 '04–'05 '05–'06 '06–'07 '07–'08 '08–'09

68

14

26

17

23

28

On-Campus Benefi ts

New Global Courses

Professional Development Support Through Recipient Presentations

Cross-Disciplinary Ownership for Internationalization

$250,000 in funding over seven years


Practice #2: Explicit Global Tenure and Promotion Guidelines

At a defi nitive 92 percent of institutions, there are no guidelines specifying that international contributions be considered in tenure and promotion decisions. While very few institutions are formally weighting international scholarship, a handful of progressive institutions are explicitly mandating review committees recognize these contributions at faculty review.

Virginia Tech considers a faculty member’s international activities, research collaborations, and international awards as evidence of inclusive excellence in teaching, research, and professional service—critical to advancing the institution’s strategic plan. While participation in international activities is not required, those who do promote and advance global education will be recognized and rewarded for their service.

Crediting Global Scholarship to Galvanize Support for Global Learning Goals

Factors Considered at Tenure Review at Virginia Tech

Inclusive Excellence

“[Our international strategic plan] provides a focus for our attention and investments in key areas. How do strategic plans translate to the individual faculty level in the context of promotion and tenure? Engagement in…international activities or scholarship stands as…an example of excellence in our learning, discovery, and engagement domains.”

Mark McNamee, Senior Vice President and ProvostVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

International and Professional Service

Faculty members should seek ways in which they connect their scholarship to enhance international or global understanding…

Guidelines for Promotion and Tenure

(05/2009)

International recognition and awards

International research collaborations

Other international activities (e.g., courses, study abroad, task forces)

1

2

3

Source: Green, Madeleine F., Dao Luu, and Beth Burris, Mapping Internationalization on U.S. Campuses: 2008 Edition, Washington, DC: American Council on Education, 2008; Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Offi ce of the Provost, http://www.provost.vt.edu/documents/8_Guidelines.pdf, (accessed September 4, 2009); University Leadership Council interviews and analysis.



II. Bridging the Expertise Gap


• Faculty trained in disciplines that are not explicitly global, i.e. other than foreign language, area studies, etc., often lack the knowledge and skill necessary to design pedagogically-sound global courses.

• Faculty and departments develop global courses and overseas programming in isolation, failing to benefi t from the collective wisdom of on-campus global learning advocates and experts. Lack of collaboration minimizes the chance that faculty will design courses that approach global theory and content from an interdisciplinary perspective.

• Administrators and faculty fail to capitalize on established relationships with international faculty, experts, and practitioners to “import” global perspectives and knowledge to the home campus.

Typical University Problems Best Practitioner Approach

Wake ForestUniversity

Florida International

University

Bring together faculty from across the institution for regular, specialized professional development sessions on the knowledge and skills necessary to design pedagogically-sound and academically-rigorous global learning opportunities

Fairleigh Dickinson University

Invest in and utilize technology to facilitate course delivery and team teaching models between on-campus faculty and experts, faculty, and practitioners at partner institutions around the world


Practice #3: Peer-to-Peer Cross-Disciplinary Course Redesign

Designing a transformative global course requires more than adding materials from international authors or inviting a guest lecturer from another culture to speak in class. Many faculty members require guidance and support to develop pedagogically sound global theory and content courses, but there are enthusiastic advocates and experts to be found on campus. These “early adopters” play a critical role in galvanizing support for global reform, inspiring and training their less prepared and less enthusiastic colleagues.

Florida International University brings together a small group of global learning advocates each semester to design replicable, interdisciplinary models for including global content in existing courses. Members of the Faculty Learning Community for Course Redesign take their newly acquired skills and knowledge back to their home departments, hosting workshops and professional development sessions that introduce colleagues to best practice in global course design.

Early Adopters Build Excitement, Guide Colleagues Through Process

Global Learning Advocates Design, Teach Course Redesign at Florida International University

RFP for Global Courses

• Offi ce of Global Learning and Provost fund course development

• 12 proposals selected from faculty across campus


Faculty Learning Community on Course Redesign

• Collaborate on replicable, interdisciplinary models for teaching international content

• $5,000 stipend per semester

Global CourseDevelopment Workshops

• Introduce best practices to departmental colleagues during professional development sessions

• Additional $5,000 stipend

1 2 3


In order to expand student participation in global learning, faculty members are also being asked to design and lead new study abroad programs. These programs provide an opportune occasion to develop intercultural competency. However, faculty are often uncertain how best to prepare students to understand and learn from their cultural interactions and experiences abroad. This results in many students missing out on the very hallmark of the overseas academic experience.

The Workshop on Intercultural Skills Enhancement hosted by Wake Forest University introduces faculty to concrete strategies for addressing intercultural competency in study abroad programming. Sessions during the two-day workshop feature expert practitioners and student and faculty panelists addressing a variety of topics—from what culture is and is not, to the cultural expectations for students living in home stays, to the appropriate occasions for speaking in the local language. Benefi ting from the experiences and expertise of others, the workshop provides a forum for faculty to collaborate, share insights, and collaboratively develop global and intercultural understanding.

Professional Development Workshop Supports Faculty Global Competence

Workshop on Intercultural Skills Enhancement at Wake Forest University

A Community of Refl ective Practitioners

Answering the Question:What is intercultural competency?

• Two-day professional workshop for faculty leading study abroad programs

• Identifi es strategies for integrating intercultural competency into education abroad programming

• Features presentations by expert practitioners from Wake Forest University, UNC-Greensboro, and Duke University

• 57 faculty attendees in its fi rst year

Source: “Navigating Study Abroad: Preparing Students Beyond the Classroom,” Wake Forest University, February 27–28, 2009; University Leadership Council interviews and analysis.

Navigating Study Abroad:Preparing Students Beyondthe Classroom

Friday, February 27, 2009

1:30–2:30 pm Culture—It’s Not Just a Way of Life

2:30–3:15 pm Surviving & Thriving: From CultureShock to Intercultural Competence

3:30–4:30 pm Cultural Identity Issues at

Home & Abroad

Saturday, February 28, 2009

8:30–9:15 am Diving into Language Issues

9:15–10:00 am Creating Culturally-BasedStudent Assignments

10:00–10:45 am Shock Treatment

11:00–11:30 am Managing Risk



Another strategy for bridging the faculty expertise gap is to use technology to connect on-campus faculty with their counterparts around the world. Through the use of interactive television, online learning platforms, webcams, and e-mail, institutions can effectively

“import” international perspectives into the classroom.

The Global Virtual Faculty (GVF)Program™ at Fairleigh Dickinson University (FDU) boasts a diverse roster of over 70 international experts, faculty, and practitioners from over 30 countries who offer global scholarly expertise and specifi c cultural knowledge to courses taught on the FDU campuses. Nominated by FDU faculty members, GVF may either co-teach a course full-time or serve as a part-time guest lecturer. All GVF are provided an honorarium based on level of participation.

The GVF program provides students an intercultural experience without leaving New Jersey—and it likewise makes it easier and more attractive for faculty to include global content and theory in the courses they teach on campus.

Using Technology to Bring International Perspectives to On-Campus Courses

Global Virtual Faculty™ at Fairleigh Dickinson University

Practice #4: Global Virtual Team Teaching


Diverse Roster of Experts

• Continuously expanding list of over 70 faculty and practitioners from over 30 countries

• Offer global scholarly expertise, particular cultural knowledge, and diverse points of view

Teaching with Technology

• Participate in blended and fully online courses designed by FDU faculty

• Use Blackboard, interactive television (ITV), webcams, and e-mail

Flexible Participation Options

• Full-time co-teaching, 14 weeks, one to two hours per week, $1,000 honorarium

• Part-time guest lecturer, seven weeks or less,three to four hours per week, $500 honorarium

1 2 3



Designing Opportunities toMaximize Student Participation


Overcoming Obstacles to Global Competence

Current study abroad participation rates are evidence that at most institutions, a global learning strategy that is overly dependent on getting students overseas fails to serve all but a minority of undergraduate students. Students with personal obligations or those facing fi nancial pressure often cannot afford to spend extended time away from home, and students in fi elds with rigid, pre-set course schedules fi nd participating in study abroad or registering for elective global courses can extend time to degree. In addition to expanding access to study abroad, the most progressive institutions address these students’ concerns by infusing global learning throughout all disciplines and building global competency into the core curriculum.

Addressing the Four Most Common Student Concerns

Challenges to Increasing Student Participation in Global Learning

Personal obligations prevent long-term travel

Costs prohibit participation in education abroad

Rigid major requirements force trade-off between education abroad and time to degree

Co-curricular commitments tie students to campus



III. Infusing Global in All Disciplines

• Implementation of the institution’s international education strategy is the de facto responsibility of faculty in foreign language and area studies departments instead of a collective effort by units across campus.

• International education strategy relies too heavily on increasing access to overseas programming without developing on-campus global learning opportunities. Students who cannot or choose not to participate in study abroad may graduate without any exposure to global content.

• Students must make an unacceptable trade-off between pursuing global competency and earning a degree in a STEM fi eld or preprofessional program.


Develop multiple options for integrating global learning opportunities in upper division course requirements to expose students in all majors to global content and theory


Florida International University

Georgia Institute of Technology

Design global learning certifi cation tracks within all academic programs of study to ensure that students achieve global competency without extending time to degree



The 2006 to 2011 Quality Enhancement Plan for the Georgia Institute of Technology focuses in part on strengthening the global competency of undergraduates. Any curricular changes would need to expose students to other cultures both on campus and abroad, support foreign language profi ciency, and provide diverse opportunities for research, study, and work abroad. Perhaps most importantly, Georgia Tech wanted to design global activities to cohere with degree programs in order to best serve the many students pursuing studies in science and engineering.

Georgia Institute of Technology’s International Plan

Global Competence in the Quality Enhancement Plan

Practice #5: Global Learning Certifi cation Within Majors

Global Learning Goals

Exposure to other cultures both on campus and abroad

Conversational profi ciency in a second modern language

Opportunities for international research, study, and internships

Global activities that cohere with degree programs


1

2

3

4

Georgia Instituteof Technology

Quality EnhancementPlan 2006–2011

Strengthening the Global Competence and Research Experiences of Undergraduate Students

International Plan Budget: $3.1 Million (FY 2006–2011)


Designing Requirements for Optimum Flexibility

The Georgia Tech International Plan is an academic program that develops students’ global competency within the context of their chosen major. Students complete 26 weeks of study, research, or work in an approved overseas education program, fulfi ll foreign language requirements aimed at developing oral profi ciency, and complete global coursework in the major. In addition, all International Plan participants must complete a senior year capstone course designed by their department. Students who satisfactorily complete all requirements receive an International Plan designation on their diplomas.

Georgia Tech leverages its many international research partnerships to provide a varied portfolio of overseas academic offerings. Mindful that the best education abroad site may be in an English-speaking country, students may pursue either a foreign-language or an English-language track. The latter option requires completion of on-campus foreign language coursework, but places less emphasis on oral profi ciency. Global course development is owned by individual academic units and overseen by a central committee to ensure quality and consistency across the university.

Academic Units Own International Plan Implementation

International Plan Components

26 weeks of international work, research, or study

Profi ciency in a second language

Internationally-oriented coursework within the major

Senior year capstone course

International partnership sites support research and study abroad

Focus on conversational profi ciency in a modern foreign language

Academic units design international courses within each major

Central Oversight Committee approves all International Plan capstone courses

Ich studiere technische Chemie


International Plan


Having made a signifi cant and long-term institutional investment, Georgia Tech is committed to assessing the impact of the International Plan on students’ global competency. The university has adopted a range of assessment methods and instruments to gauge global, international, and intercultural profi ciency. In addition, Georgia Tech tracks participation by discipline, gender, race, and numerous other variables to identify students most benefi ting from the program and those who may require additional intervention to ensure adequate global preparation.

In just a short three years, the International Plan has extended its reach across the university. It is currently offered by 24 programs of study and has attracted over 500 student participants.

Georgia Tech’s Ongoing Assessment Efforts Gauge Student Interest and Progress

Global Competence Assessment Instruments

Promoting Students’ Global Competency

Source: Rollins, Howard, “International Plan and the Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program: Report to the Executive Board:, GT Quality Enhancement Plan,” June 19, 2007, http://www.facultysenate.gatech.edu/EB2007-061907-A-Attach2.pdf, (accessed September 14, 2009); University Leadership Council interviews and analysis.

Data

Enrollment, completion, gender, ethnicity, GPA, time-to-degree, major, post-graduate placements

Surveys

Student pre- and post-education abroad, faculty, alumni, employers

Standardized Tests

ACTFL Foreign Language Oral Interview, Intercultural Development Inventory, Global Knowledge Inventory (home grown)

Refl ection

Post-education abroad essays and capstone coursework

Increasing the International Plan's Reach

Participating Majors Enrolled Students

2005 2007

12

24

2005 2008

125

550


Practice #6: Flexible Upper Division Global Requirement

In an effort to support discipline-specifi c global outcomes, Florida International University requires all departments to develop upper division global courses. To facilitate compliance by preprofessional and STEM departments with infl exible course requirements, the university provides three options for global coursework. Departments may choose to develop one required global course, may infuse two courses with global content (at least 25 percent of course content addresses global content and themes), or may require students to complete one global course outside the department for credit in the major.

Global upper division courses are required to articulate discipline-specifi c learning outcomes, include course content and instructional activities that focus on global, international, and intercultural issues, and develop a global assessment plan.

Global Learning Requirement for All Majors at Florida International University

Options for Meeting GlobalCourse Requirement

Source: “Strategies for Course Internationalization,” Centre for Teaching Excellence, University of Waterloo, http://www.trace.uwaterloo.ca/teaching_resources/teaching_tips/tips_international/StrategiesforCourseInternationalizationF08doc.pdf, (accessed September 10, 2009); University Leadership Council interviews and analysis.

Learning Outcomes

Knowledge of international perspectives on the discipline

Course Content

Diverse readings and case studies, intercultural issues in the profession

Instructional Activities

Collaboration between international and domestic students, research with international components

Assessment Methods

Self-refl ection, presentations to international audiences

Global learning as focus of one course in the department

Global learning infused into two courses in the department (25 percentof the course material)

Require one course outside the department with global learning as central component

Components of InternationalizedCourse Design

Global Coursesin the Major



IV. Building Global into the Core

• Institutions rarely leverage the general education curriculum as a vehicle for introducing all students to global and international content and theory.

• Global education distribution requirements are usually satisfi ed by any existing course addressing international or global content. This approach provides students with a limited and often discipline-specifi c view of global theory.

• Few students pursue advanced foreign language coursework and those who do are demanding instruction in non-Western languages not supported by the institution’s current full-time tenured foreign language faculty.


Develop signature interdisciplinary global core courses that wed global theory with content in existing knowledge domains


Florida International University

Drake University

Expand foreign language options through alternative programming focused on functional profi ciency and cultural knowledge



Practice #7: Signature Core Global Courses

Florida International University is implementing an ambitious global curricular framework that represents the most serious attempt in their history to embrace the “International” in the institution’s name.

Faculty and administrators recognized the general education curriculum to be the best vehicle for delivering global theory and content to all students, but worried that yet another check-the-box distribution requirement would overburden students. New courses would require faculty to collaborate across disciplines, taking an interdisciplinary approach to the introduction of global content and theory.

Common Challenges to Including a General Education Global Requirement

Implementing Florida International University’s Global Learning QEP

Credit Creep

Can we meet our global learning objectives without overloading students with core curriculum requirements?

Faculty Resistance

What would convince faculty to design new signature courses instead of simply re-categorizing existing ones?

Disciplinary Divisiveness

How do we overcome academic silos to create courses with interdisciplinary approaches to global learning?

Global Learning for Global CitizenshipQuality Enhancement Plan

“The goal of FIU’s Global Learning QEP is to ensure that every FIU graduate has the educational opportunity to achieve the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of global citizenship in the 21st century. This foundational change calls for an overhaul of both the curricular and co-curricular aspects of undergraduate education."



The new global course requirement aligns with four knowledge domains within the existing general education curriculum. Faculty teams submitted proposals for foundational global learning courses within the natural sciences, arts, humanities, and social sciences, wedding global theory and content with disciplinary concepts and themes. The signature core global courses fulfi ll both the domain requirement and the global learning requirement, preventing credit creep.

Foundations of Global Learning Aligned with Disciplinary Requirements

Global courses within existing core curriculum domain areas…

Working Within the Existing Framework

1. Natural Sciences

2. Social Inquiry

3. Humanities with Writing

4. Arts

5. Quantitative Reasoning

6. English Composition

Foundations of Global Learning in the Natural Sciences

SYLLABUS


Domain Area Requirement

Global Learning Requirement

Coastal Environment from the Biscayne Bay to the World (and Back)

Natural Sciences

Comparative study of world coastal ecosystems

…fulfi ll two core requirements in one course


Six course proposals were selected by the Offi ce of Global Learning Initiatives and the Offi ce of the Provost for development. These courses are the product of collaboration among at least three faculty members from different disciplines. The faculty group is awarded a stipend for course development and required to select a team teaching model for course delivery. The large 250-student lecture courses require a common reading and take a common approach to learning assessment.

Florida International University provides a vertically-integrated course of global study. Students must complete a one-course prerequisite in the domain area to prepare to make interdisciplinary connections in the signature global course, and must also complete global coursework within their major.

Bringing the Disciplines Together Through a Common Approach

Key Elements of Florida International University’s Foundational Global Courses

Achieving Interdisciplinary Collaboration

Faculty Collaboration

Minimum of three faculty from different disciplines design courses and co-deliver instruction

Vertical Integration

One-course disciplinary prerequisite sets the stage for interdisciplinary connections

Common Reading

Touchstone for refl ection and analysis throughout the global learning sequence


Global Learning Foundations Seminar

• Intensive seminar for development of six foundational courses

• 15 different departments

• 16 faculty from six colleges/schools


With the proportion of students studying foreign languages declining for over 40 years and enrollment in advanced coursework dwindling, many institutions are shaping a global learning strategy that all but ignores profi ciency in a modern foreign language.

In 2001, following a campus-wide program review, the Faculty Senate at Drake University made the bold, albeit controversial, decision to eliminate the Department of Modern Languages. To best serve the practical foreign language needs of students, faculty and administrators, Drake developed a new instructional program based on conversational competency and cultural knowledge. The Drake University Language Acquisition Program (DULAP), fi rst introduced in 2006, offers instruction in nine modern languages, utilizing online technology and native language speakers to offer students a unique pathway to communicative competence.

New Student-Centered Language Programming at Drake University

Evolution of Foreign Language Offerings

Practice #8: Alternative Foreign Language Instruction

Department Phase-Out

• French, German, and Spanish programs eliminated

• Faculty and instructors dismissed

Conversational Competency Model

• Study in seven modern languages

• Focus on conversational profi ciency and cultural knowledge

Virtual Partnerships

• Online video conferencing for Russian and Chinese

• Partnering with other smalland mid-sized institutions

Source: Jaschik, Scott, “Languages Without Language Faculty,” Inside Higher Ed, February 21, 2007, http://www.insidehighered.edu/new/2007/02/21/language, (accessed September 15, 2009); Drake University, http://www.drake.edu, (accessed September 15, 2009); University Leadership Council interviews and analysis.

2001 2007 2009


The DULAP program is directed by fi ve full-time faculty coordinators, each a specialist in language acquisition and instruction. Coordinators oversee the program and meet with students during weekly seminars to cover grammar, develop study skills, and review language assignments. In addition, the program benefi ts from the support of native speaker language partners. These native speakers—typically currently enrolled international students or members of the community—receive specialized training and mentoring from the full-time coordinators to design seminars to promote conversational competence. Outside faculty examiners conduct interviews and administer written examinations to measure student’s progress toward conversational profi ciency.

Requirements also include a language learning seminar taught by a faculty coordinator and a technology specialist to prepare students to participate in an online culture blog and to keep electronic portfolios where evidence of their language learning is captured.

Program Geared Towards Using, Not Just Studying, a Second Language

Drake University Language Acquisition Program

Achieving Conversational Competency

Staffi ng

• Native speakers from campus and greater community

• Five full-time faculty coordinators

• Faculty examiners from partner institutions

Course Requirements

• Two-semester Language Learning Strategies course

• Conversational Practice with Native Speaker(three hours per week)

• Seminar with Professor(one hour per week)

Learning and Assessment

• Readings, assignments, and online culture blog

• ePortfolio to document progress

• Oral interview at midterm and fi nal

Certifi cate of Competence in Language and Culture



V. Defi ning the Global Citizen

• Strategic plans for internationalization too often rely on easy-to-count metrics (number of students studying abroad, enrollment in foreign language majors) as sole indicators of success, failing to capture the full picture of students’ global learning and providing little guidance for future institutional investments in global reform.

• Most institutions aim only to assess the global competency of the small percentage of students participating in study abroad programs. Institutions do not invest the time or fi nancial capital to expand assessment practices to the entire undergraduate student population.

• Analysis of student global learning rarely informs curricular planning, course design, or instructional practice, indicating an institutional inability to close the feedback loop and hardwire outcomes-centered practice into institutional planning and effectiveness.

Typical University Problems Best Practitioner Approach


Require all departments to develop discipline-specifi c, measurable indicators of global knowledge, skills, and attitudes

Task a central committee comprised of representatives from multiple campus units with developing a general list of desired global learning outcomes

Hardwire global learning assessment into institutional planning and effectiveness, using analysis of student progress toward global competency to inform instructional practice, curricular design, and institutional investments


Practice #9: Clear, Measurable Global Learning Outcomes

Successful global learning initiatives begin with an institution-wide effort to articulate clear, measurable student learning outcomes. Global learning proponents advocate shifting the institutional conversation from a focus on easy-to-count inputs (e.g., number of international students, foreign language enrollments) to a focus on collecting evidence of students’ global competency.

Articulating the attributes of global citizenship should be part of the broader institutional discussion of student learning outcomes and assessment. A central committee of faculty representing multiple units on campus should begin by developing a general list of desired global knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Individual academic units should then be tasked with selecting discipline-specifi c outcomes that will inform global course design and global requirements for programs of study.

Grounding Curriculum Design in Student-Centered Learning Outcomes

Building Consensus to Defi ne Global Competency

Source: Olson, Christa, Madeleine F. Green, and Barbara A. Hill, A Handbook for Advancing Comprehensive Internationalization: What Institutions Can Do and What Students Should Learn, Washington DC: American Council on Education, 2006; University Leadership Council interviews and analysis.

Develop anInstitution-Level Draft

• Multidisciplinary committee designs a general, inclusive outcomes list

• Adapt a preexisting list(e.g., ACE, Stanley Foundation, other institutions) or start from work already completed on campus

Garner Broad-Based Support and Consensus

• Solicit feedback and revisions from deans, department chairs, faculty, and assessment directors

• Require departments to write concrete, specifi c outcomes for programs and courses

Facilitate Ownership and Implementation

• Leverage early adopters, provide incentives, and incorporate feedback at all stages

• Identify assessment success and celebrate good practice

1 2 3

List of Sample Learning Outcomes

Disciplinary Knowledge

• Synthesize academic content with real-world phenomena

• Gain an international perspective of career options

• Improve critical thinking skills

Intercultural Competence

• Become conscious of one’s own cultural perspective

• Adapt effectively in cross-cultural settings

• Gain specifi c knowledgeof host culture

Social/Emotional Growth

• Develop self-awareness

• Build independence

• Increase tolerance for ambiguity

• Develop empathy


Practice #10: Multi-method Global Learning Assessment Plan

After developing global learning outcomes, the next (and often more challenging) task is to hardwire global assessment into regular institutional practice. Given higher education’s relatively recent interest in assessing global competency, few tools exist that would adequately capture the full range of global learning outcomes. Institutions are well-served by developing a global assessment plan that utilizes multiple methods of assessment including proprietary and homegrown inventories, tests, surveys, portfolios, and oral examinations. Assessment instruments should aim to collect direct and indirect evidence of student learning at various points within the undergraduate curriculum, and during both on- and off-campus academic experiences. Institutions may require all students to complete certain assessments within the general education curriculum while allowing individual faculty and departments to develop appropriate tools for measuring discipline-specifi c outcomes.

Promote Multiple Assessment Methods and Instruments

Source: Olson, Christa, Madeleine F. Green, and Barbara A. Hill, A Handbook for Advancing Comprehensive Internationalization: What Institutions Can Do and What Students Should Learn, Washington DC: American Council on Education, 2006; University Leadership Council interviews and analysis.

Assessment Considerations

Implementation Costs

• Expensive third-party assessment tools

• Funds for faculty and administrative support

Faculty and Student Time

• Developing an assessment plan and home-grown tools

• Assessment completion, evidence collection, and data analysis

Ease of Administration

• Web-based versus paper-based tools

• Laborious grading and analysis

A global assessmentplan must include:

Quantitative and qualitative assessment methods

Direct and indirect evidence of student learning

Embedded and performance assessment instruments

Direct and Indirect Measures of Global Competence

Inventories

• InterculturalDevelopmentInventory

• The Beliefs, Events, and Values Inventory

Surveys

• Arcadia University Internationalization Questionnaire

• International Experience Demographic Form

Tests

• National Geographic Global Literacy Survey

• Global Awareness Profi le

Interviews/Oral Examinations

• ACTFL Oral Profi ciency Interview

• Interagency Language Roundtable Skill Levels


Institutions must develop a systematic process for collecting, interpreting, and using data to improve institutional and individual practice. Progressive institutions create a culture of assessment by regularly convening faculty groups to review data, identifying student groups who may be outperforming expectations and also subsets of students who are failing to make desired progress. Assessment data is only useful, and only worth the signifi cant investment of faculty time and institutional resources, when it is regularly used to inform programmatic decisions, course development, and instructional technique.

Assessment Should Inform Instructional Practice to Improve Student Learning

Still a Largely Unmet Challenge

Closing the Loop

A commitment to collecting and analyzing student assessment data…

…must be matched by a commitment to continuous institutional improvement

Data

• Results of global tests and inventories

• Course grades and portfolio ratings

• Exit interviews and focus group fi ndings

Analysis

• What categories of students are performing better than others?

• What instructional strategies help students learn more effectively?

Source: Olson, Christa, Madeleine F. Green, and Barbara A. Hill. A Handbook for Advancing Comprehensive Internationalization: What Institutions Can Do and What Students Should Learn, Washington DC: American Council on Education, 2006; University Leadership Council interviews and analysis

Improvements

• Changes to curriculum design

• New teaching techniques

• Additional assessment methods


Pursuing Excellence in On-Campus Global Learning

A Maturity Model for Global Learning


Strategic Plan

Faculty

Funding

Curriculum

Students

Individual InitiativeLack of institutional support and recognition leads to “make your own opportunity” internationalization in a handful of departments

Small Group of AdvocatesTentative institutional support for faculty-led internationalization efforts serves only some faculty and students

Institutional EffortBroad-based support for institution-wide internationalization ensures all faculty and students are exposed to global learning

International “strategy” is merely the sum of individual faculty and student activities

Traditional program offerings include foreign language, study abroad, and certain specially-designed international majors

Few faculty are engaged and those who are, receive little formal recognition or reward

Motivated students pursue global learning opportunities on their own

Faculty and students seek external funding for international travel and scholarship

Internationalization is a stated priority in the institutional strategic plan

Some upper division global course requirements across multiple majors

Handful of faculty incorporate global methods in their courses and lead study abroad programs

Some students are exposed to global content through their major or co-curricular programming

Small seed funding supports faculty travel, course development, and student study abroad

Strategic plan for internationalization with measurable objectives integral to institutional strategy

Global learning embedded in general education and all majors

Critical mass of faculty are engaged in global course design and study abroad program development

All students have ample opportunities to master global learning outcomes

Signifi cant institutional funds are dedicated to global learning programs, travel, and assessment


ART CREDIT: RAFFAELLO SANZIO, THE SCHOOL OF ATHENS (DETAIL), STANZA DELLA SEGNATURA. PALAZZI PONTIFICI, VATICAN. BRIDGEMAN ART LIBRARY.

Documents

University Leadership CouncilUniversity Leadership Council · 2014. 12. 17. · Victor Betancourt-Santiago Director, Center for Global Education Marymount University Harvey Charles