Internationalization of Higher Education

Internationalization and Challenges of Internationalization in Higher Education: Perceptions of Faculty in a Developing Country

Abstract Universities in Turkey have been faced with challenges related to the internationalization of higher education, especially, since Turkey signed the Bologna Declaration and became part of the European Higher Education Area. In this study, we attempted to explore how faculty perceived internationalization, and the challenges internationalization yielded through utilizing an online survey instrument. From the self-reports of participating faculty (N = 100), we found that faculty had a respectable level of post graduate educational experience, or research experience, while figures of international students and faculty was found low. As for how they perceived internationalization, overall reports show that they found the curriculum has been internationalized to a high extent due to the international resources they use in their classes. However, faculty found they were mainly challenged with how to deal with instructional issues, especially with increasing international diverse student groups who come with different preparedness levels into the classroom.

Key words: Internationalization, Higher Education, Challenges, Curriculum Policy.

Theoretical Framework Universities in Turkey have been faced with challenges related to the internationalization of higher education, especially since Turkey signed the Bologna Declaration in 2001 and the European Higher Education Area in 2008. A reform initiative in higher education was embarked upon by the two central decision-making powers with regard to education, the Ministry of National Education and the Council of Higher Educatio . The role of the European Commission

1

Internationalization of Higher Education

is merely a complementary one that entails developing activities such as the Erasmus Program for student mobility, the European Credit Transfer System, social dimensions, quality assurance and diploma supplements and facilitating short study periods within institutions and across countries (European Commission, 2006). The European Higher Education Area is currently involved in three main reform initiatives: curricular reform, governance reform, and funding reform (The Lisbon Strategy, cited in Turner & Robson, 2008). Discourses exist on governance and funding reform; however, very little has been written or developed with regard to curricular reform (Bostrom, 2010; Mora & Felix, 2009). While issues such as ‘mobility’, ‘social dimension’, ‘quality assurance’, and ‘diploma supplement’ all have a common purpose and faculty are well informed about them through different sources and information technologies, the critical issue of the internationalization of the higher education curriculum (HEC) has been largely ignored. In fact, neither Turkey nor European Union countries are sufficiently prepared to develop and implement effective institutional policies for the internationalization of an HEC (Luxon & Peelo, 2009; Yağcı, 2010). As stated in the most recent report put out by YÖK, “the development of effective institutional policies for the internationalization of the HEC may be considered one of the most critical challenges for Turkish Higher Education in creating the European Higher Education Area” (YÖK, n.d.). Not only is the institutionalization of an internationalized curriculum the most crucial element in this process, it will also undoubtedly be the most difficult for universities to realize. Curriculum decisions influence course content and instructional delivery, and, thus, the learning outcomes of the student population (Schuerholz-Lehr, Caws, VanGyn, & Preece, 2007). Higher education institutions that aim to institutionalize the internationalization of the HEC are responsible for preparing their students for the global world and for knowledge production within the knowledge economy and learning society. DeWit (2011) explains the

2

Internationalization of Higher Education

process of internationalization of the curriculum in terms of ‘internationalization at home’, i.e., preparing students for the global world, and ‘internationalization abroad’, which includes all forms of education across borders, and argues that these need to be intertwined in policies and programs; however, how this can be achieved remains a dilemma that requires clarification. Discourse on the internationalization of the HEC is focused mainly on curriculum design (Turner & Robson, 2008), which is expected to integrate an international dimension into the purpose, function and instructional delivery process. According to Knight (2004), taking into account the international dimension when designing curriculum can help universities work towards a more inclusive climate (Knight, 2004). The literature suggests that the internationalization of curricula may be accomplished through diverse elements and activities, such as the infusion of content from various cultures into the design, addressing training in cross-cultural and intercultural skills (Schuerholz-Lehr et al., 2007). However, while the dominant discourse appears centered on what universities do to fit international students into their existing cultures, relatively little discussion has explored the underlying assumptions behind everyday teaching practices or problematized pedagogy from a cultural perspective (Turner & Robsen, 2008). In line with this assumption, we tried to examine how faculty perceived the concept internationalization and how they perceive they are challenged with it.

Method We surveyed a sample of faculty members from one public university in Turkey (N = 100) for the purpose of this research. With this survey design, the purpose was to describe the perceptions of faculty in the case of a public university in a developing country regarding the status of the internationalization at the departments and the challenging aspects of teaching in classrooms including international college students. In the sample, the faculty on average had more than ten years of experience at the current university (M = 12.34, SD = 9.85). They

3

Internationalization of Higher Education

represented a variety of departments, while the majority was from the department of engineering sciences (32%, n = 32). There was almost a balanced distribution of the academic position in the sample (i.e., associate professor, 32%, n = 32; assistant professor, 32%, n = 32; and full professor, 26%, n = 26). We applied the following measures to gather data about the status and challenges of the internationalization based on the self-reports of the faculty: The Status of the Internationalization Scale (SIS) and The Challenges of the International Education Scale (CIES). Exploratory factor analyses with principal axis factoring and direct oblimin provided evidence for the construct validity for these scales. The SIS with 12 items measured the status of the internationalization in the department in two dimensions: internationalization of faculty and student at home and abroad (e.g., welcome visiting scholar/lecturers in the department, engage students with an international experience through exchange programs), and internationalization of curriculum (e.g., infusion of international values in the course design, infusion of international content in the curriculum). The CIES with 19 items measured the challenges of international education with respect to three dimensions: curricular issues (e.g., engaging students in global citizenship development, incorporating different points of view into the course content), instructional issues (e.g., teaching students with different levels of prior knowledge, applying a variety of assignments to accommodate learning differences), and dealing with cultural diversity (e.g., instructional planning to serve all students, objective assessment of students with diverse backgrounds). The Cronbach alpha values were greater than .70 for all dimensions in both scales. Descriptive statistics were presented for each item at each dimension to describe the status and challenges of the internationalization in the concerned university, which we call TRUNI in the paper. Also, one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted for both scales to compare mean scores in each dimension. The findings of the present study overall revealed the areas that warrant attention to achieve the

4

Internationalization of Higher Education

institutionalization of the internationalization at higher education organizations in developing countries.

Findings and Conclusion (max. 300 words) The faculty overall reported that the curriculum has been internationalized to a higher extent (M = 4.47, SD = 1.18) compared to the internationalization of the faculty and students (M = 3.87, SD = 1.12) in their departments. This difference was, moreover, statistically significant, Wilks’ Lambda = .66, F (1, 98) = 51.23, p = .00, partial eta-squared = .34. Especially, in the domain of the curriculum, as reported by the faculty, the departments have been internationalized most in using international educational resources (e.g., textbooks, case studies), M = 5.22, SD = 1.06. Yet, the departments achieved the lowest degree of the internationalization regarding encouraging faculty for an international teaching experience (M = 3.22, SD = 1.67). Given teaching in international classrooms, the most challenging domain was pertained to instructional issues (M = 3.42, SD = 1.09). The mean score of the faculty on this domain was significantly higher than their mean score in other domains, Huynh-Feldth = 5.84, F (1.76, 152.93) = 7.16, p = .00, partial eta-squared = .08. Especially, the faculty reported to encounter challenges most with regard to teaching students with different levels of prior knowledge (M = 4.03, SD = 1.45). The least challenging aspect of international education was reported as infusion of global content in the course materials in the domain of curriculum (M = 2.75, SD = 1.30). The findings of the present study overall revealed the areas that warrant attention to achieve the institutionalization of the internationalization at higher education organizations in developing countries.

5

Internationalization of Higher Education

References

Bostrom, C.A. (2010). Diffusion of internalization in Turkish Higher Education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14(2), 143-160. De Wit, H. (2011). Internationalization of higher education: Nine misconceptions. International Higher Education, 64, 6-7. Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales, Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5-31. Luxona, T., & Moira, P. (2009). Internationalisation: its implications for curriculum design and course development in UK Higher Education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46(1), 51–60 Mora, J.G., & Ceges, F.J. (2009). European multinational regimes and higher education policy. In Bassett, R.M., & Malonado-Maldonado, A. (Eds). In International organziations and higher education policy. Thinking globally acting locally. [192-211] Routledge: New York. Schuerholz-Lehr, S., Caws, C., VanGyn, G., & Preece, A. (2007). Curriculum: An Emerging Model for Transforming Faculty Perspectives: Internationalizing the Higher Education. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 37(1), 67-94. Turner, Y., & Robson, S. (2008) Internationalizing the university: Continuum studies in education. Continuum: The University of Michigan. Yağcı, Y. (2010). A Different View of the Bologna Process: The case of Turkey. European Journal of Education, 45(4), 588-600. YÖK, (n.d.). [Higher Education Council] Bologna süreci, Retrieved September, 2013, http://bologna.yok.gov.tr/?page=yazi&i=136

6