By Sophie Arkoudis, Chi Baik, Simon Marginson and Elizabeth Cassidy. Internationalising the student experience in Australian tertiary education: Developing criteria and indicators, prepared for Australian Education International

Australian higher education is grappling with the issue of enhancing interaction between domestic and international students to enhance the student experience and the teaching/learning opportunities available through such interaction. While universities have attempted to address this issue in a number of ways, survey results appear to indicate that many international students anticipate levels of interaction with Australian domestic students that are not realised and other research suggests that both groups often remain largely segmented inside and outside classrooms. Similar issues, though less well documented, have arisen in VET.
To date, efforts to improve the interaction between international and domestic students have been mostly isolated from teaching and learning and mostly focused on activities outside the classroom. A key premise of this project is that positive aspects of student experience and teaching/learning opportunities that are available in an international education context offer a combined benefit to both domestic and international students.
Introduction
In mid 2011 Australia Education International provided support to the Centre for the Study of Higher Education (CSHE), University of Melbourne to develop criteria and indicators for monitoring and evaluating the internationalisation of the student experience, which could be used internally by universities to monitor and evaluate their activities and to identify priority areas for improvement. The project developed these criteria and indicators through consultation with the tertiary education sector in three National Forums.
Australian higher education is grappling with the issue of enhancing interaction between domestic and international students to enhance the student experience and the teaching/learning opportunities available through such interaction. While universities have attempted to address this issue in a number of ways, survey results appear to indicate that many international students anticipate levels of interaction with Australian domestic students that are not realised and other research suggests that both groups often remain largely segmented inside and outside classrooms. Similar issues, though less well documented, have arisen in VET.
To date, efforts to improve the interaction between international and domestic students have been mostly isolated from teaching and learning and mostly focused on activities outside the classroom. A key premise of this project is that positive aspects of student experience and teaching/learning opportunities that are available in an international education context offer a combined benefit to both domestic and international students.
Nonetheless, this area is complicated by a lack of agreement on the definition of terms such as ‘internationalisation’ and ‘intercultural teaching and learning’. Also, although many would agree that a key objective of enhanced international and domestic student interaction is to develop ‘global citizens’ there is little agreement on the key characteristics and capabilities of such a ‘global citizen’. This then complicates how progress towards such an intangible goal can be measured or tracked over time. Hence, it remains difficult to identify when systems and institutions are moving forward and where examples of high quality performance can be found.
What is currently missing is an agreed set of criteria for measuring the internationalisation of the student experience. This project attempts to achieve this within a narrow focus on enhancing the interaction between domestic and international students. The indicator framework developed includes numerical indicators where these are meaningful and can be agreed and made operational. Other aspects of internationalisation were found to be less easy to quantify and can only be evaluated through the process of expert judgement on the basis of standard criteria.
Concluding Comments
The next section presents the dimensions, criteria and indicators that were refined after the National Forums. The project team sought written feedback from those who participated in the Forums and the responses received were in general agreement with the items in the document. The project team sought to further strengthen the validity of the framework by asking two universities to pilot the indicator framework by offering examples of data that was available from their institution.
This was a difficult activity for them to complete for two main reasons. Firstly, it was apparent that the institutions did not routinely collect information related to internationalising the student experience (which confirmed general comments made in the Forums). Secondly, the administrative activities (for which data might be collected) of institutions’ international offices are most often focused upon recruitment of international students, rather than internationalisation in terms of student experience and teaching/learning outcomes.
From the experience of this project, it seems clear that educational institutions need an integrated approach to internationalising the student experience that includes:
- a strategic approach towards achieving agreed outcomes;
- better articulation of relevant teaching and learning strategies; and
- a communication strategy that engages the university community.
The dimensions, criteria and indicators developed as part of this project can guide and assist institutions in developing such an integrated approach – but at the present time such an indicator framework can only be considered somewhat visionary in anticipation of institutions developing common strategies that are specifically focused upon internationalising the student experience in Australian higher education.
Dimensions, criteria and indicators for internationalising the student experience Definition of internationalisation: We need an agreed definition of internationalisation that both highlights the transformative nature of the concept and foregrounds the involvement of all students – international and domestic – in strategies designed to implement and achieve that transformation. The National Forums and subsequent feedback and discussion have been especially insistent that internationalisation is a matter for all students.
* In terms of process ‘internationalisation’ means fostering a nationally and culturally diverse and interactive university community where all students have a sense of belonging.
* In terms of outcomes ‘internationalisation’ means graduates who are globally aware, globally competent and able to work with culturally and linguistically diverse people either locally or anywhere in the world.
Discussion in the Forums also emphasised that every institution is working in a distinctive context. The definitions, criteria and indicators are instruments of self-regulation. Therefore as a matter of course they will be interpreted and used in a manner sensitive to the particular mission, location and student mix in each institution. Download Internationalising the student experience in Australian tertiary education: Developing criteria and indicators.

Projet coordonné par le point national de contact Erasmus Mundus italien, Interhed propose une formation sur les programmes conjoints. L'objectif est de fournir aux professionnels de l'enseignement supérieur – personnels enseignants et administratifs – les connaissances et les outils nécessaires   pour mettre en œuvre, évaluer et contrôler des programmes conjoints. Les inscriptions à cette formation sont ouvertes du 1er octobre au 15 novembre 2012. Plus d'informations et inscription sur le site INTERHED.
1 October-15 November 2012
Click here to apply.
A limited number of participants will be selected
The course is free of charge
Download the Flyer of the course
When - 1st edition: February-September 2013
Aims
This professional-oriented training course will provide the learners with basic knowledge, skills and tools on the main ongoing issues and topics relevant for Joint Programmes. The course is based on a “hands on” approach, focusing on practical case studies and concrete tips for the daily job in the field
Examples and practical exercises will be provided, as well as a section on information sources
Target groups
Members of Erasmus Mundus National Structures
Academic and administrative staff in Higher Education Institutions involved with implementation,assessment and monitoring of Joint Programmes.
Learning outcomes
Dealing with the Structure of the different Higher Education Systems.
Approaching the management of Joint Programmes
Facing the main issues in recognition of qualifications
MODULE 1 - UNDERSTANDING HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEMS
Characteristics of HED systems
HED institutions: university and non-university sector
Diplomas and degrees: qualifications frameworks
HED in emerging countries: BRICS
Information resources on HED systems
MODULE 2 - DEVELOPING JOINT PROGRAMMES
Characteristics of joint programmes
Nature and typologies of joint qualifications
Networks and partnerships among HED institutions
Student management in joint programmes
Information resources on joint programmes
MODULE 3 - RECOGNITION PROCEDURES
Academic recognition procedures
Awarding joint qualifications
Recognition of joint qualifications
Professional recognition procedures
Information resources on recognition procedures
FACE-TO-FACE SESSION - How to create & manage an international consortium.

EUA is launching four new projects on key issues identified by its members: quality assurance, the impact of university rankings, higher education funding, and internationalisation in doctoral education.
These projects, detailed below, will build on EUA’s recent work in each of these areas. Further details on specific activities to be carried out in the context of these projects, and how members can become involved, will be published on the project websites and in the EUA newsletter.

• Rankings in Institutional Strategies and Processes (RISP) will build on EUA’s work on institutional development and its ongoing review of international university rankings. The project aims to carry out the first pan-European study on the impact and influence of rankings and similar transparency tools on the development strategies of European universities. RISP will also develop recommendations on how rankings and transparency tools can be used to promote institutional development while identifying ‘potential pitfalls’ that universities should avoid.
  The project will be carried out in partnership with the Dublin Institute of Technology (DIT), the French Rectors’ Conference (CPU) and the Academic Information Centre (AIC) in Latvia. Visit the project webpage for more information.

• Designing Strategies for Efficient Funding of Higher Education in Europe (DEFINE) will provide data and recommendations to support the development of strategies to increase the efficiency of higher education funding (at the institutional and system level). The goal is to determine good practice, challenges and the impact of funding efficiency measures, such as performance-based mechanisms, institutional mergers and other concentration measures, and excellence schemes.
  The DEFINE project is carried out in collaboration with CIPES, the Centre for Research in Higher Education Policies, University of Oxford, Aalto University, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg and Copenhagen Business School. Visit the project webpage for more information.

• Promoting Quality Culture (PQC) will follow up and build on the recently completed EUA-led project Examining Quality Culture in higher education institutions. This showed that while the majority of universities in Europe have built up quality assurance systems, those in charge of managing quality processes at universities feel the need for further capacity building on how to incentivise all stakeholders (students, academic and administrative staff) to take on responsibility for quality.
  The project will be carried out in partnership with the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA), the University of Duisburg-Essen, the University of Lisbon and the University of Zagreb. Visit the project webpage for more information.

• Framework for the Internationalisation of Doctoral Education (FRINDOC): the aim is to develop a statement of good practice and an online tool to aid universities to plan and implement internationalisation and mobility strategies for doctoral education. It is intended as a comprehensive strategic tool for self-evaluation of internationalisation of doctoral programmes enabling universities to attain a united picture of strategic goals, capacity and possibilities to implement the right structures for their particular profile.
  The project will be carried out in collaboration with Imperial College London, Stellenbosch University, the University of Bergen, the University of Camerino, and the University of Hong Kong. Visit the project webpage for more information.

The RISP, DEFINE, and PQC projects are supported by funding from the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Commission. FRINDOC is co-funded by the Erasmus Mundus Programme.

By Jan Petter Myklebust. Stockholm University Rector Kåre Bremer last week announced that he would allocate SEK100 million (US$13 million) in extraordinary funds to enhance internationalisation.
He said the university was among the world’s top 100 and the new investment was “to enhance this position and meet the demands of an increasingly globalised research and higher education world”. The funding will be used for:

• 50 sabbaticals for Stockholm University researchers going abroad.
• 25 two-year postdoctoral positions for international students (SEK850,000 per postdoc per year).
• A collaborative programme for bilateral cooperation with the universities of Helsinki, Illinois, Cornell, Wisconsin-Madison, Singapore, Fudan and Queensland, strengthening the Stockholm University Academic Initiative.
• Establishment of an institute for advanced studies where 15 to 20 foreign researchers will be recruited for research visits as Wallenberg Academy Fellows, and where Swedish researchers might also be supported.
• SEK17.5 million will be used to recruit foreign researchers.
• SEK5 million will be allocated to departments at the university, with SEK50,000 for each international student the departments recruit who is paying tuition fees, in order to strengthen the international study programme – 100 such student placements will be supported.

The investment by Stockholm University is strategically aligned with the budget proposal this year of the Alliance government to strengthen Swedish research and higher education with SEK4 billion each year from 2016, notably for biomedical research and international collaboration.

Download Internationalisation and Quality Asssurance - Connecting European and Global Experiences.
“European Quality Labels” and Quality Assurance
Dr Achim Hopbach, President of the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) - Managing Director of the German Accreditation Council
The development of quality assurance in European higher education reached a major milestone when ministers of higher education of the Bologna signatory countries met in Berlin in 2003 and agreed on a number of basic principles that paved the way for developing procedures and systems:
[Ministers] also stress that consistent with the principle of institutional autonomy, the primary responsibility for quality assurance in higher education lies with each institution itself and this provides the basis for real accountability of the academic system within the national quality framework.
Based on this principle, they committed themselves to developing and implementing quality assurance systems that would include:
• A definition of the responsibilities of the bodies and institutions involved.
• Evaluation of programmes or institutions, including internal assessment, external
review, participation of students and the publication of results.
• A system of accreditation, certification or comparable procedures.
• International participation, co-operation and networking. (Berlin Communiqué 2003, 3).
Based on these principles, national quality assurance systems and agencies were set up to form the basic model for assessment. When ministers officially launched the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) in 2010, external quality assurance based on this model had been implemented in all Bologna signatory countries, however in unique and diverse ways. Regarding external quality assurance procedures as such, one can say that they are by and large designed and conducted in accordance with ESG part II. (Hopbach 2012)
However, in addition to the national approach to quality assurance, initiatives at European level already existed such as accreditation schemes in the fields of economics (EQUIS) and public administration (EAPAA) and also the Institutional Evaluation Programme (IEP) of the European University Association.12 After 2003, this approach gained momentum when, with financial support of the European Commission, pan-European subject-specific initiatives for quality assurance emerged, often referred to as “European Quality Labels”, the first of which was the Eurobachelor® in chemistry which started in 2003. These approaches caught attention in political debates around 2009 when the “Report on progress in quality assurance in higher education” by the European Commission emphasized their role in fostering a stronger European dimension in quality assurance.
The seminar was dedicated to discussing the nature of these “European Quality Labels” in terms of their aims and objectives, methodological approaches and criteria used in their reviews, and particularly, to analyse their specific contribution to quality assurance in the EHEA. It also focused on “European Quality Labels” in the fields of engineering and science such as the EURO-INF Quality Label in informatics and EURO-AGES in the field of geology which were set up following the most well-known label EUR-ACE® and polifonia which started as an ERASMUS Network for Music in 2004. Recently, some of these initiatives joined together with professional accreditors in the foundation of the European Alliance for Subject Specific and Professional Accreditation and Quality Assurance (EASPA). This report highlights the main discussions and issues that arose from this seminar.
One obvious outcome of the seminar shall be mentioned right at the beginning. It seems rather inappropriate to subsume the aforementioned initiatives and approaches under the uniform heading “quality label”. On the one hand, they share the view that there is a need for a subject-specific approach to quality assurance in Europe as it is put by AEC: “assessing and accrediting institutions and programmes for higher music education must be rooted in a comprehensive understanding of the characteristics of music and the contexts and traditions in which music is created. Without such a rooting, the assessment may be preoccupied with only technical and academic aspects of musical production and ignore the innate unique and artistic characteristics of music.” (AEC 2010, p 6) On the other hand, the labels differ substantially in the implementation as far as purposes, organisational structures and activities are concerned in detail. This has to be borne in mind whenever the labels are mentioned or rather generalizing statements are made in the following.
Purpose
The principles of quality assurance in the EHEA are laid down in The European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ESG) ministers of the Bologna signatory countries adopted in 2005. The ESG were “designed to be applicable to all higher education institutions and quality assurance agencies in Europe, irrespective of their structure, function and size, and the national system in which they are located.” Based on this very comprehensive claim, the ESG can be considered as the main reference point for the design of quality assurance in the emerging EHEA, be it internal or external quality assurance. (ENQA 2009)
The main purpose of these standards and guidelines was to guarantee professionally conducted quality assurance procedures on a high quality level. The ESG prefer the generic principle to the specific requirement and focus more on what should be done than how it should be achieved. Therefore, the ESG were not meant to explicitly comprise standards for quality of higher education as such (i.e. requirements for HE institutions and the design of programmes). The ESG combine two aspects in particular common standards for professionalism in terms of procedures and agencies which nowadays are not only shared within Europe and the EHEA but more and more worldwide; and the European notion of quality assurance which is in the first instance laid down in the following principles:
• HEIs bare the main responsibility for quality;
• The four stage-model applies: Internal evaluation, external evaluation by peers, publication of reports, follow-up procedure;
• External quality assurance procedures should take into account the effectiveness of the internal quality assurance processes;
• Quality assurance processes, irrespective of the very nature and design of the chosen approach, have to serve the developmental function of quality assurance;
• Stakeholder, especially student involvement is critical in all phases, also in the development of quality assurance processes;
• And quality assurance agencies need to be independent in so far as they must have full autonomy for their procedures and decisions.
The specific meaning of the ESG lies not only in the fact that quality assurance processes are carried out throughout the EHEA based on the same standards. Even more interesting is the fact that the ESG were developed by all relevant stakeholders (EUA, EURASHE, ESU and ENQA; known as the E4 group) and, thus, make actors in the field of quality assurance share the same values and principles, fostering a common understanding. This alludes to a significant feature of the quality assurance in European higher education, which is the key role of stakeholders. (Hopbach 2012)
The most important feature of the “quality labels” refers to their respective backgrounds and purposes. In general, the emergence of many labels is to be seen in the frame of the development of the learning outcomes approach and of qualifications frameworks within the Bologna Process since 2003. Partly linked to the TUNING project, a major purpose of the labels was to add subject-specific learning outcomes or qualification frameworks to the generic approach of the Qualifications Framework of the EHEA. In particular, the Eurobachelor® project in chemistry and Polifonia can be subsumed under this heading. Whereas the quality assurance and/or accreditation function was added to the initial purpose of these labels only after some time other initiatives envisaged the set up of a subject-specific accreditation scheme at European level right from the beginning, such as EUR-ACE® and EURO-INF, both of which go further by linking subject-specific learning outcomes to standards for the design of the respective curricula.
By referring to subject-specific academic standards, the quality labels go beyond the European understanding of quality assurance which refrain from this type of standardisation, based on the principle of autonomy of HEI as stipulated in the Berlin Communiqué. The discussion about the specific purpose of the quality labels culminates
in the perhaps most relevant question which reads as follows: Who shall be responsible for defining academic standards? On the one hand, labels representatives state that this needs to be an integral part of quality assurance and thus the agency has to play a core role. On the other hand, the EHEA has set up a whole quality infrastructure which consists of qualifications frameworks, learning outcomes, and ECTS, etc., with quality assurance as only one part of it, and with different responsibilities, namely the responsibility of autonomous HEI for academic standards and of independent agencies for quality assurance procedures. Regarding common learning outcomes in the EHEA ministers, in the Communiqué of Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve ministerial meeting in 2004 also emphasized this role of HEI:”Academics, in close cooperation with student and employer representatives, will continue to develop learning outcomes and international reference points for a growing number of subject areas“ (Leuven Louvain-la-Neuve Communiqué 2009, p. 4), without mentioning quality assurance agencies in this respect.
This leads to another important feature of some of the labels, namely the role of professional standards at the European level. The labels, for example, in the engineering sector focus on professional standards in addition to academic standards as criteria for the accreditation decision. By referring to entry qualifications for the labor market, these labels widen the focus and add to their approach elements of professional accreditation. Hence the perspective of the individual is added to the perspective of the programme. In the case for instance of EUR-ACE® this shouldn’t come as a surprise since the membership comprises also statutory bodies with responsibility for professional accreditation and thus for regulating the access to the profession. However, a discussion which is as old as the discussion about learning outcomes gains momentum through this widened focus: The discussion about a comprehensive educational mandate of HEI which goes beyond short term employability compared to a rather focused interest of professional associations which is necessarily oriented towards actual requirements in a certain professional field.
The specific nature of the purposes of the labels is closely linked with the organizational set up which, again, reveals the substantial differences between some of the labels. Mainly three groups of actors involved can be identified: HEI, professional associations/bodies and accreditation agencies. These collaborate in different combinations. Whereas polifonia is an initiative by the Association of European Conservatoires (AEC) and, thus, exclusively, run by HEIs, EUR-ACE® on the other side has only two members coming from academia, one Italian HEI and one association of faculties in Italy, and the rest representing professions or statutory bodies which regulate the professions.
This means that, in accordance with the organizational structure the academic standards might either be defined by representatives coming from academia (polifonia) or rather by professional organizations (EUR-ACE®).
It’s obvious that in the latter case the critical question about the autonomy of HEI for quality in higher education gains even more relevance.
In conclusion, one can say that the principles and purposes of the labels are broader than those of quality assurance and focus on translating the learning outcomes approach to subject specific standards at European level.
Methodology
As far as the methodology of external quality assurance in the EHEA is concerned, the principles are laid down in part II of the ESG which start with part I of the ESG that refers to the prime responsibility of the HEI for quality assurance. The other standards refer to procedural principles such as:
• Determination of aims and objectives before the process starts by including HEI (2.2);
• Application of publicly available predefined criteria in case formal decisions are made (2.3);
• Appropriate design of processes ffp (2.4);
• Publication of reports (2.5);
• Predetermined follow-up procedure (2.6);
• Periodicity of reviews (2.7);
• And system-wide analyses reports are produced describing and analysing the general findings. (2.8) (ENQA, 2009)
In general, the quality labels took these principles, as developed since the pilot projects in the mid nineties, as reference point for the design of their quality assurance and accreditation procedures, however to a different degree. They work with self-evaluation and external evaluation with a site visit by peers, and a compulsory follow-up. The Eurobachelor® label in chemistry is partly an exception since in some countries the label is awarded by the responsible committee based exclusively on a report by the HEI without any self-evaluation and also without any peer review and site visits. In other countries, the label is awarded by recognized agencies which do site visits. Also, polifonia has to be distinguished from other labels due to its wider scope. Whereas EURO-AGES, EURO-INF and EUR-ACE® are restricted to accreditation at the programme level, polifonia “offers” a more comprehensive approach with guidelines for internal quality assurance and also guidelines and criteria for external quality assurance at programme and institutional levels. Designing the guidelines in accordance with the ESG the specific contribution of polifonia is rather to be seen in “translating” the regular procedures of quality into a discipline that deviates substantially from other disciplines as far as fundamental features such as programme design, teaching, the learning environment and the whole set-up and profile of the institutions are concerned. To name but one specific feature, polifonia highlights the great variety of musical education which makes it impossible to set up prescriptive standards: “Even if objectivity can be applied to a number of aspects and concepts relating to musical skills, there are ultimately no final solutions or truths in music; there is no single method or route that will attain artistic goals.“ (AEC 2010, 14) Review panels need to be sensitive regarding this specific nature of musical education, which translates in curricular features such as private lessons, more time for self-study, etc. than in other disciplines.
The requirements for accreditation procedures for the purpose of conveying the labels of EURO-AGES, EURO-INF and EUR-ACE® are almost identical. With regard to two core aspects of quality assurance in the EHEA the three of them deviate substantially by neither requiring student involvement at all in the review panels nor foreseeing a
publication of the review reports. Both standards have to be considered obviously as core elements of external quality assurance in the EHEA. Otherwise these labels don’t provide any specific additional feature in their methodology, which would relate to subject specific questions.
One commonality of almost all labels refers to the actual implementation of reviews because they don’t necessarily conduct the reviews by themselves but also certify other bodies to do so. EUR-ACE® has authorized accreditation agencies like ASIIN and the French CTI, professional associations like the Association for Engineering Education in Russia, the Turkish Association for Evaluation and Accreditation of Engineering, and statutory bodies like the Engineering Council in UK, Engineers Ireland, and the Portugese Ordem dos Engenheiros. Eurobachelor® is working with agencies from the academic sector like ASIIN and the University Accreditation Commission from Poland, and also with professional associations like the Italian Chemical Association and the Royal Society of Chemistry for procedures in the UK and Ireland. EURO-INF is working so far with ASIIN. Polifonia does not certify other agencies but rather collaborates with national agencies in the accreditation of priogrammes.
In conclusion, one can say that in terms of methodology, the labels, different from their principles and purposes, don’t make a subject-specific contribution to quality assurance in the EHEA. The specificity of some labels consists rather of shortcomings in terms of application of the ESG.
Conclusion
The seminar and the discussions revealed that:
• European Quality Labels are not monolithic, so it is misleading to talk about “the” labels because of their substantial heterogeneity in terms of purpose, structure and procedures;
• The most important feature of the labels, and maybe the only feature they have in common, is the core role that academic standards, in some cases also professional standards, play. Some of the labels translate this role also into requirements for the design of programmes.
• In terms of methodology and design of the quality assurance procedures, no subject-specific feature applies which would add to the European approach in quality assurance. However, the labels from the engineering and informatics sectors fall short in terms of compliance with the ESG due to lack of student members on the review panels and lack of publication of reports.
• These outcomes demonstrate that most of the labels don’t make a subject-specific contribution to quality assurance as such. They should rather be called as a means to link subject-specific learning outcomes at the European level to quality assurance. This counts particularly for those labels that also apply professional standards and thus link academic accreditation of programmes to regulating access to the profession.
• The discussion revealed that the definition of subject-specific learning outcomes by agencies other than representing academia and also partly in collaboration with professional associations creates substantial tensions with “traditional” quality assurance according to the European standards which emphasize that the primary responsibility for quality rests with the individual HEI whereas standardization only applies for the level and scope of the qualifications through the Qualifications Framework of the EHEA.
References
AEC (2010), Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Higher Music Education http://www.bologna-and-music.org/home.asp?id=1704&lang=en (Accessed 13 March 2012)
Berlin Communiqué 2003, http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/Declarations/Berlin_Communique1.pdf (Accessed 13 March 2012)
ECTNA Good Practice Advice for evaluation of the Applications for the Chemistry Eurobachelor® Label http://ectn-assoc.cpe.fr/chemistry-eurolabels/doc/officials/Off_EBL101130_Eurobachelor_GPAdviceEvalAppl_201102V1.pdf (Accesser 13 March 2012)
ENQA (2009) Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area, Helsinki http://www.enqa.eu/files/ESG_3edition%20%282%29.pdf (Accessed 13 March 2012)
EUR-ACE Framework Standards for the Accreditation of Engineering Programmes (2008) http://www.enaee.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/EUR-ACE_Framework-Standards_2008-11-0511.pdf (Accessed 13 March 2012)
EURO-AGES Qualifications Framewor and Accreditation Criteria for Geology Study-Progranmes in Europe (2011) http://www.euro-ages.eu/pages/final-results.php (Accessed 13 March 2012)
EURO-INF Framework Standards and Accreditation Criteria for Informatics Degree Programmes (2011) http://www.eqanie.eu/pages/quality-label.php (Accessed 13 March 2012)
Hopbach, A. (2012), External quality assurance between European consensus and national agendas, in: Curaj, A., et al. (eds.), European Higher Education at the Crossroads: Between the Bologna Process and National Reforms, Heidelberg et al.
Leuven_Louvain-la Neuve_Communiqué 2009, http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/Declarations/Leuven_Louvain-la-Neuve_Communiqu%C3%A9_April_2009.pdf (Accessed 13 March 2012)

By Karen MacGregor. The internationalisation of higher education must be taken out of international offices and “brought back to where it belongs – in academia”, according to Hans de Wit. It is a mistake to see research and internationalisation as administrative issues residing in a research or an international office.
“No, research is not part of administration. Internationalisation is not part of administration. Research and internationalisation and education and social engagement are part of the leadership of the institution and are part of the academics within the institution.”
Academics drive internationalisation, research and education, said De Wit in a keynote speech on “Trends in Research on the Internationalisation of Higher Education” at the International Education Association of South Africa (IEASA) conference held in Cape Town from 29-31 August.
De Wit is director of the Centre for Higher Education Internationalisation at Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore in Milan, a professor at Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences and co-editor of the Journal of Studies in International Education. He also blogs for University World News.
While several speakers talked about the internationalisation of research, De Wit’s focus was on research into internationalisation, which has been defined as integrating an international dimension into universities’ core missions of education, research and social engagement.
At the conference, De Wit added, “people have been talking about transcultural knowledge, diversity of ideas, global engagement, and deeper understanding of international diversity. These are elements that are not only part of education but also are part of research. The two are connected – research and education – and also by the international dimension.
“Internationalisation is, like research, one of the driving innovative elements in higher education. And because of that there is also a need for a research agenda to help the higher education community in shaping this innovation. We have to understand better why we are internationalising, and research has to help that,” said De Wit. More...

J. A. Aunión. Hace mucho tiempo que la internacionalización se convirtió en una palabra-mantra para las universidades: si quieres ser alguien en el mundo de la educación superior, tienes que tener muchos estudiantes extranjeros, también profesores e investigadores, proyectos en colaboración con otras partes del planeta, titulaciones conjuntas... Se trata de buscar, encontrar y atraer el talento allá donde esté, pero también de catar una parte de un atractivo negocio que mueve miles de millones de euros al año: distintas estimaciones hablan de que los alumnos extranjeros aportan unos 14.000 millones al año a la economía de EE UU (según la Association of International Educators) o 13.000 millones a la de Australia (cálculo del propio Gobierno).
Así, muchas universidades ya no se conforman con intentar atraer a los alumnos foráneos, sino que salen en su busca. “Los campus británicos tienen ya más estudiantes que cursan sus títulos fuera que dentro del Reino Unido”, asegura Maurits van Rooijen, rector de la Escuela de Negocios de Nyenroden (Holanda). Se trata de varios recursos distintos: oferta a distancia a través de Internet, de validación de títulos (que ha causado disgustos y escándalos sonados a alguna universidad), de franquicias y sucursales (branch campus). De estos últimos (que ofrecen títulos del campus matriz, sobre todo, en Estados en vías de desarrollo), había 200 en 67 países del mundo en 2011, 38 más que en 2009, según un trabajo del británico Observatorio para la Educación sin Fronteras.
Puede que, como señalan expertos como el profesor del Boston College Philip G. Altbach, se esté inflando una especie de burbuja universitaria alrededor de estas sucursales. O tal vez solo sean un paso previo hacia las “universidades multinacionales”, como señalan en un reciente trabajo los especialistas de la Universidad de Sydney Sean Gallaguer y Geoffrey Garrett. Preocupados porque la crisis y la creciente competencia internacional están haciendo que decrezca el dinero que gana Australia con los estudiantes extranjeros (sobre todo de Asia), han analizado a fondo la situación desde un punto de vista empresarial.
Y su análisis es que, igual que Apple diseña en EE UU, construye en China con componentes hechos en Alemania, Japón, Reino Unido y vende después sus productos en todo el mundo, las universidades van a empezar a hacer algo muy parecido. Por ejemplo, a utilizar sedes en “los países en desarrollo para investigar, porque es más barato construir buenas infraestructuras y contratar a personal cualificado”, o “a diseñar títulos especialmente dirigidos para el mercado local”, aventuran. Es decir, creen que habrá una especie de deslocalización de los campus más potentes del mundo, como ocurre desde hace muchas décadas con las empresas. “En la globalización es más común trasladar el producto que trasladar al consumidor”, comenta por correo electrónico Van Rooijen, que también preside el Grupo de Compostela, una asociación que reúne a 70 instituciones de todo el mundo, incluida la gallega que da nombre al grupo.
El estudio australiano pone dos ejemplos principales: la universidad de Duke y la de Nueva York —ambas estadounidenses y privadas— que, a través de acuerdos con campus y Gobiernos locales, intentan “educar e investigar en todo el mundo, aprovechando nuevas fuentes de talento académico, de financiación, y mercados estudiantiles de una manera muy parecida a la que las corporaciones multinacionales hacen con las cadenas mundiales de suministro y distribución”, argumentan Gallaguer y Garrett en su trabajo. En ambos casos tienen en marcha proyectos, en colaboración con Gobiernos y universidades locales (que toman la mayor parte del riesgo financiero) en China y Shanghái, de sedes que ofrecerán títulos de los campus matrices, exactamente iguales, pero con mayor implicación que con los branch campus, que son más baratos, pero más difíciles de controlar en cuanto a su calidad, añaden Geoffrey y Garrett.
La Universidad de Nueva York (NYU) lleva años abriendo sucursales en todo el mundo: tiene 12 centros en seis continentes y tres sedes principales: en Nueva York, Abu Dabi y Shanghái (esta última abrirá el año que viene). Su rector, Jonh Sexton, acepta gran parte de la argumentación de los especialistas australianos, pero rechaza que su motivación sea eminentemente financiera. “No podemos hablar por otras universidades, pero podemos decir que la transformación de NYU en una universidad global en red es por razones académicas, no comerciales. Nuestra idea central es enriquecer la investigación y el aprendizaje de nuestros estudiantes”, señala por correo electrónico.
Van Rooijen insiste en esta idea: “Las universidades tienen una agenda más amplia. Por ejemplo, Westminster puso en marcha hace 10 años la Universidad Internacional de Tashkent en Asia Central, en Uzbequistán, porque encajaba con su misión (ofrecer educación de gran calidad a aquellos que reunan los méritos suficientes) y porque les permite acceder a una fuente de talento que de otra manera no podría”.
En todo caso, ese modelo de universidades multinacionales también cuenta con serias dificultades, para empezar, legales. Estas son mucho mayores en el contexto europeo, con una fortísima preeminencia de campus públicos dependientes de los Estados. “Las universidades eminentemente públicas deberán buscar sus posibilidades en los márgenes legales”, los campus privados y las escuelas de negocios tienen más facilidades para empezar a recorrer esta senda, añade Van Rooijen. “Es evidente que pocas universidades europeas están metidas en esta carrera hacia la creación de sitios en el extranjero. Porque no tienen la mentalidad empresarial que se requiere, pero también porque no son tan atractivas en los países donde reside la demanda. Además, porque su enfoque está más en la cooperación que en la competición”, explica el experto europeo en universidades Guy Haug.
La profesora de la Universidad Rovira i Virgili Mercè Gisbert rechaza de plano que las universidades se conviertan en “multinacionales de la educación superior que ‘venden’ productos educativos y formativos y que intentan proyectar modelos universitarios como una forma encubierta de perpetuar la idea de la colonización”. Sin embargo, es consciente de que, “tal y como evoluciona la situación económica en España, y teniendo en cuenta que siempre hemos ido a la cola en temas de Educación y de I+D+i, quizá no queda más remedio que salir a buscar recursos fuera”.
En todo caso, parece que la idea de universidad multinacional aún le queda muy lejos a los campus españoles. “Creo que el concepto no está nada desencaminado, pero desde el punto de vista español es muy complicado. Las universidades españolas aún son muy poco internacionales”, dice el presidente del Consejo Directivo de IE University, Rafael Puyol, que forma parte del grupo de expertos nombrado por el Gobierno español para emitir un informe que fije el rumbo de la reforma universitaria.
Puyol considera que los campus deben antes de llegar hasta ahí recorrer un primer camino, mejorando sus flojas cifras de estudiantes y profesores internacionales y de docentes españoles formados en el extranjero: las universidades españolas tienen un 2% de alumnos extranjeros (sin contar el doctorado), frente a un 9% de Alemania o a un 21% de Australia, según datos de la OCDE. Los campus españoles han de darse mucha prisa, asegura Puyol; les va el futuro en ello. “Las universidades regionales y nacionales van a ir dejando de tener sentido”, opina, por lo que deben empezar buscando aquella área de la enseñanza o de la investigación que les ponga en el mapa internacionalmente.