Project internationalisation — the implementation of student mobility into a faculty’s award portfolio

Abstract

The paper presents a review of the initial stages of the implementation of a three-year project to internationalise the teaching provision of a large higher education faculty. The project is first placed in its political and pedagogic context. The paper then outlines how students’ attitudes and opinions were used to guide the design of the project so that it met their needs and expectations. The review then centres on the development of international study opportunities for students and the design of taught modules to embed internationalisation into curricula. It is argued that these are the key foundations for sustainable internationalisation. The difficulties faced during the project are outlined, together with the solutions utilised. Finally, the paper outlines the developments that will be needed to bring the project to a successful conclusion.

Keywords:

• internationalisation
• international
• mobility

The context of internationalisation

‘Internationalisation is one of the major forces impacting and shaping higher education as it changes to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Internationalisation means different things to different people, and the overall picture that is emerging is one of complexity, diversity and differentiation. The internationalisation of higher education is a process that is evolving as both actor and reactor to the new realities and rather turbulent times facing higher education.’

(Knight, 2008)

In 2006, the UK government launched the second phase of the Prime Minister’s Initiative (PMI2), emphasising the importance of developing the long-term reputation and standing of UK international education provided both within the UK and overseas (DfES, 2006). The former prime minister, Tony Blair, stressed that internationalising education was not simply about getting international students to choose UK universities, thus securing additional income, but about building sustainable partnerships across countries:

‘We want to see many more shared research projects, shared courses and joint degrees; we want to see more exchanges of students and academic staff; we want UK education to become genuinely international.’

(DfES, 2006)

In his ministerial address at the Going global conference (2006), Bill Rammell MP pointed out that one in four UK jobs are already directly related to international trade and an even higher proportion are affected by global competitive pressures. However, over the last ten years, the number of students participating in Erasmus mobility programmes has plummeted from approximately 12,000 in the mid 1990s to 7,131 in 2006–2007 (data from the UK Socrates Erasmus Council, 2007). The minister called for much more to be done ‘to stimulate the numbers of British students studying and working abroad’. It was in this context that, in 2007, the Faculty of Development and Society at Sheffield Hallam University (SHU) embarked upon its internationalisation project 2007–2010.

Project Internationalisation

The faculty is very large, with a student population exceeding 12,000 and an income of approximately £65 million per annum. And its portfolio is extremely diverse, embracing education, law, psychology, social sciences, humanities and the built environment. Fee income into the faculty from international students is low relative to its size, although there are established areas of transnational delivery in Hong Kong and Poland and direct recruitment onto home summer programmes from partner institutions in Malaysia. Full-time undergraduate students funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and the Teacher Development Agency (TDA) make up over two-thirds of faculty income.

In response to the demographic changes that will result in a reduction in the number of 18-year-olds coming into higher education (HE), the faculty wished to establish a clear identity and profile to secure recruitment and to sustain financial viability. Direct marketing and business imperatives are not the only drivers. Integral to our profile and reputation is the excellence of the student experience and staff development and investment. Thus, the internationalisation project has four main objectives to be achieved by July 2010:

1. To increase and diversify business development and income streams into the faculty

2. To create a key profile for the faculty

3. To achieve a vibrant and multicultural environment

4. To enhance the employability of our students.

These objectives will be achieved through three activity strands, which are set out below.

These objectives are embedded into the faculty’s one-year and five-year business plans.

From the outset we recognised the ambitious nature of the project given the timeframe and the clear objectives to be achieved. In response, we invested in a project team and employed project methodology and a manager to co-ordinate the activity strands to ensure delivery of the objectives. It is perhaps too early to assess the success or otherwise of the project methodology. However, progress towards our objectives is on track across all three strands, which may not have been the case without the discipline of project methodology.

Mobility: student perceptions

The project is large and complex. For this reason, here we will focus on the mobility strand and our work so far.

Clearly, if we are to meet our objective of offering all undergraduate students the opportunity to participate in work placement or study exchange overseas, we need to extend our existing opportunities to accommodate this increased demand. The faculty and the university have an extensive range of partner institutions, but student mobility numbers are very low. In the year 2006–2007, across the university, only 64 students participated in exchange programmes. To ensure that new exchange and work placement opportunities reflect student preferences we commissioned a research project (Tang et al, 2007) to investigate the international mobility of UK students at SHU.

The project employed a range of qualitative and qualitative research methods. A total of 1,717 first-year undergraduate students returned the one-page questionnaire, which included questions about study destinations, funding and duration of study/work placement. The response rate was 59 per cent. In addition, focus groups were conducted with UK students from across the university who had participated in work placement/study exchange or who had been selected for an exchange but had declined the opportunity. The focus groups explored the students’ motivations, perceptions and experiences of study/work abroad.

Finally, interviews were conducted with academic and support staff who had been involved in international mobility development to explore the experience of existing exchange programmes and other study/work abroad schemes.

The main findings of this extensive research project were:

• Many students are motivated to take part in study/work abroad schemes — one-third of first-year respondents would consider studying abroad and 45 per cent would consider work placement abroad. If a scholarship were available, a large majority of them (81 per cent) would like to study abroad.

• The preferred length of exchange programmes varied from four to eight weeks (25 per cent) to one year (24 per cent), depending on individual circumstances.

• The majority of students selected English speaking countries as their first country preference for studying/work abroad — nearly 40 per cent chose the USA, 12 per cent Australia/New Zealand, and 7 per cent Canada.

• Twelve per cent of students expressed a preference for study/work placement in Europe.

• Central concerns for returning students (or those who declined the opportunity) were the lack of detail and information about mobility schemes and partner institutions/countries, local integration, financial assistance, accommodation, safety and part-time working.

Support was the central concern for students: they wanted more information about opportunities disseminated at an earlier stage in their studies; contactable staff, and a university office for those who were interested in or going to participate in study/work abroad schemes; language support before departing; more flexible schemes for those in different circumstances (for example, mature or part-time students); and financial support. These findings echo those of the CIHE report, Global horizons for UK students — a guide for universities, which proposes guidance for universities, including promotion of mobility at open days, encouraging greater staff mobility (this has a positive impact on levels of student mobility), highlighting Erasmus financial support and disseminating the message of enhanced employability through employers and alumni.

The evidence from this research guided both our partnership development and mobility support strategies.

Before the start of the internationalisation project, student mobility did occur within the faculty. However, such work wasn’t a faculty-held goal or part of the strategic mission. This established a challenging dilemma at the outset. The current international work was created, designed and supported by local enthusiasts to meet their students’ needs. It was based on local informal networks and partnerships that were facilitated by academic ‘friendship’ networks. What was offered to the students was highly individualised to specific areas. Students’ experience was generally positive. However, this approach had a number of inbuilt weaknesses or vulnerabilities:

• First, there was the notable concern about what would happen if the ‘enthusiasts’ left the university, as they frequently held much of the understanding and network relationships personally.

• Second, the learning opportunities of the mobility were limited to ‘direct experience’ and not embedded into the wider course or faculty experience. Hence the potential benefits of mobility were inhibited, mainly through lack of communication rather than lack of interest.

• Finally, the administration and management of the learning experience was not open to wider faculty-based student support or subsequent evaluation by quality systems.

In combination, the above meant that it would be very difficult to maintain such an organic system, because it inhibited:

• strategic enhancement of quality

• managed increase in the volume of opportunities

• enhancement of the wider impact of international experiences.

The current enthusiasts were of immense value to the faculty and could not be marginalised from the development process, yet it was clear that their practices would have to change if the goals of internationalisation were to be achieved.

Open-space event

In order to embed the current institutional learning into the development of the project, an open-space research and development event was organised. This drew on the methodology developed by Herman (1998) and the idea that ‘participants create and manage their own agenda of parallel working sessions around a central theme of strategic importance’, which in this case was the meaning and relevance of internationalisation for the faculty. The aim was the identification of a strategy that all stakeholders could support. This finally resulted in the project plan (noted above) which was informed and shaped by a cross-section of stakeholders and facilitated the recognition of current expertise within the development of faculty-wide systems.

Finding partners

At the start of the internationalisation process we had 14 partner institutions in six countries. In analysing these partners it was clear that they were not a homogenous group of organisations, but rather a product of the personal networks of the enthusiasts. Commonly, the relationship with the institution was for a specific degree course, and while in some cases global memorandums of understanding were in place that would allow broader collaboration, these were infrequently enacted. These partner organisations clearly facilitated mobility but not necessarily the richer links that would be needed if internationalisation were to be embedded. Richer links were seen as containing:

• wide-ranging student exchanges

• staff exchanges — administrative and academic

• collaborative research links

• shared pedagogical developments.

This was seen as necessary to meet the wider requirements of genuine internationalisation and to address the concerns expressed by students with regards to the barriers to mobility. These barriers centred on:

• lack of information about overseas institutions

• cultural differences

• practical issues such as accommodation and timetabling.

It was felt that the richer link would allow administrative systems to be aligned, so reducing accommodation and timetabling issues. The aim was to have the organisation as a constant visible partner within the faculty. While not exactly aping the idea of a town ‘twinned with’, goals were similar in that the partner institutions were seen as being directly related to the faculty.

In relation to the actual development of the partnership network, the key objective was to identify partners with a shared perspective on internationalisation. As outlined in the introduction, the primary purpose of the project was enhancement of the student and staff experience. Direct recruitment and other direct income generation was secondary. Hence the foundation of the partnerships was student mobility, which was seen as the key catalyst for change and would be prioritised within the internationalisation development plan. Based on this, the following criteria were used to inform developments. These were applied as heuristics rather than rules but ensured that due consideration of partners was enacted:

• NARIC (National Recognition Information Centre (UK)), used to gain a basic understanding of the mission of the university — a good match was on both teaching approach and research was aimed for.

• Membership of consortiums such as Universitas 21 and the World Universities Network — this was used as an esteem indicator for the potential partner and a way of managing potential risk within new partnerships.

• Number of UK partners — a small number of partners was desired so that a close working relationship would have a better chance of being established.

• Subject match and choice — where possible, were faculty students able to access a module that addressed indigenous, cross-cultural or local perspectives, emphasising broader internationalisation as well as the subject discipline material?

• Do they teach in English? This was seen as desirable, and only in exceptional cases were non-English delivery language exchanges developed. This reflected the desires and expectations identified from the student research.

• Location — is it a place where students would want to go, is it appropriately safe and would there be an interesting wider cultural experience?

Aligning the programmes of study

Once the partner organisations were identified, the micro-level work on course programmes was necessary. This fell into three areas:

• outgoing students

• incoming students

• internationalisation modules.

The programmes of study were to apply to UK-based students studying abroad and to international students coming into the faculty. The impact of developing these programmes of study needed to be low, and where possible current systems were to be developed to meet a wider need rather than new systems enacted. The original intention was for there to be 12-month study exchanges. This would ensure a deep learning experience and for those studying within the EU would allow students to be supported by the Erasmus scheme. However, our student research project indicated that 76 per cent of students wanted a study opportunity which was for a shorter period than this. Potential partner institutions also expressed a desire for a shorter study exchange and a single semester was seen as a good balance point.

The consequences of these semester-long exchanges were notable in areas which taught modules across the full academic year. Thus semester-long modules were needed in order to allow exchanges to occur. Wherever possible, this was addressed through the development of sibling modules that drew on the delivery of the year-long module but reframed it into a semester-long experience. This ensured that international students were taught alongside UK-based students (not in an international student only module, losing the UK peer interaction) and that UK-based students accessed an equivalent learning experience to that of their non-internationally mobile peers. It also had the effect that little ‘new’ work needed to be done in terms of delivery and timetabling. This addressed the accessibility of the discipline-based modules to mobility students but did not really address internationalisation.

International modules

If the exchanges were to go beyond simple mobility and help catalyse internationalisation, it was felt that new international modules were needed to extend the experience from the purely discipline-based to more rounded international development. Maringe (2008) noted that internationalisation would occur only when the ideas were embedded into the wider curriculum; without this, it would be a ’cosmetic effort’. Three modules were developed to act as a bridgehead into the wider curriculum:

• International society and politics

• International political economy

• Europe and the European Union.

These modules were to be available to incoming and outgoing exchange students and faculty-based students who were not going on an exchange but wanted to gain greater insight into international perspectives. The modules were designed in such a way that the assessments would draw on the student’s discipline knowledge and contextualise this within an international perspective. For example, an English language student could use the ‘International society and politics’ module to trace the rise of English as a global language, while an architecture student studying the same module could discuss the role of civic buildings as a social expression of national/international politics. These modules would bring together a range of international and discipline backgrounds in an attempt to demonstrate the importance of international perspectives within learning. Clearly these modules represent a development that is more than Maringe’s cosmetic effort but they do not represent full integration into the course or programme curricular.

Developments

The internationalisation project 2007–2010 is now in its second year. The strategic framework and project plan are complete. Critical operational developments are required to ensure that the objectives are achieved within the timeframe. These fall outside the strategic perspective of this paper. However, the embedding of internationalisation into the faculty’s culture is needed if genuine internationalisation is to be achieved. O’Neill (1994) models educational organisations as having three key elements: structure, process and culture. Within the internationalisation project plan we have so far focused on the structural and process issues. This has allowed us to develop a framework of ‘international partners and offers’ which can easily be communicated and managed. However, we need to develop this further so that internationalisation is expressed in curricular and research activities and becomes a key feature of the ethos of the faculty and of our offer to students. This reflects the cultural aspect of O’Neill’s educational organisation. It should be noted that the open-space event which started the development process was selected to reflect the cultural perspective of the faculty. However, this was the culture of the enthusiasts and the interested; it now needs to be linked into the wider faculty culture. As noted above, the international modules are intended to act as a bridgehead in this cultural communication by being open to a cross-section of students and staff. There will also be an internationalisation conference which will illustrate the developments so far and how current practices can evolve to reflect internationalisation. The aim is for this conference to be practical and illustrative of how developments have been managed so far. It will indicate what advantages are associated with the process and what support can be offered. The aim is to use this as an opportunity to actively move forward as well as to share thoughts and ideas. At this point it is envisaged that the structures and processes reflected in O’Neill’s model will evolve as the wider faculty engages, but this is seen as an appropriate part of the constant management of change associated with large-scale projects. This should ensure that the developments are neither the feared cosmetic alterations articulated by Meringe (2008) nor the weak and marginal integration noted by Ayoubi and Massoud (2007), but robust developments which will reflect the quality and spirit of the faculty.

Mobility has emerged as the key feature of the internationalisation project. This has been recognised and supported by SHU, reflecting our commitment to the development of skills and employability in our students. This clearly reflects the government agenda and is strongly aligned to the Bologna process, which has student mobility at its heart. This position is echoed elsewhere within the HE sector and was coherently summed up by Liam Burns, deputy president of the National Union of Students:

‘If we are serious about realising the aspirations of our learners, and society as a whole, then we have to take steps to make mobility an expectation for all.’

(Burns, 2008)

Biographies

Ms Andrea Nollent is assistant dean planning and resources in the Faculty of Development and Society.

Dr Iain Garner is head of student markets and recruitment in the Faculty of Development and Society.