Discussed under the term ‘international education’ at first, often through mobility-related or curriculum-associated terminology, the internationalization of higher education (hereinafter IoHE) refers to the integration of an international dimension into higher education institutions (HEIs) in response to globalization. The concept, however, has received a number of definitions and has been regularly updated by scholars over the past three decades (De Wit, 1999; Killick, 2012, 2017; Knight, 1994, 2003, 2004, 2008, 2012; Robson, 2011; Vavrus & Pekol, 2015; etc.) which renders encountering or forging one consensual definition difficult if not problematic.
Knight (2004), a prominent and frequently cited scholar in the field, defines IoHE as the process of integrating an international, intercultural, or global dimension into the purpose, functions [teaching, research, and social service], or delivery of post-secondary education. Soderqvist (2002, p. 29) added that internationalization of higher education is “a change process from a national higher education institution to an international higher education institution leading to the inclusion of an international dimension in all aspects of its holistic management in order to enhance the quality of teaching and learning and to achieve the desired competences”.
Other scholars include the goal of IoHE as an institutional adaptation to forces of globalization in its definitions, asserting that the concept otherwise implies the misconception that IoHE is an end in itself, not a means to an end. Relevant is Van der Wende (1997) who describes IoHE as any systematic sustained efforts aimed at making higher education responsive to the requirements and challenges related to the globalization of societies, economy, and labor markets. Similarly, Tanhueco-Nepomuceno’s (2019) definition is also goal-based, foregrounding the act of openness to the world because of globalization. In his words, IoHE is “an institutional process that in some way internalizes the concept of openness to the world in all the activities and organizational aspects of the university” (pp. 152-171).
As a concept, IoHE appears in the literature post 1990s. Before, there was already a substantial tradition of research and practice on the international dimension of higher education under the term ‘international education’, or under terms that reflect some kind of international activity (de Wit et al., 2015). These terms were either related to mobility, such as study abroad, exchanges, international students or academic mobility, or related to curriculum, such as multicultural education, international studies, peace education, area studies [etc.] (de Wit et al., 2015).
In Knight’s (2002) aforementioned definition, the term “process” denotes the non-static, continuously changing structure that characterizes higher education. The term “integration” indicates the implementation of such approach through the improvement of the curricula and digital learning; through strategic cooperation, collaboration, and partnerships with renowned international institutions; and through the use of new digital technologies, knowledge, people, values, and ideas from different international context [sic] (Knight & de Wit, 1997, as cited in Mudiamu, 2020). The term “international”, aside from denoting geographically dissimilar nations, indicates that IoHE reinforces international relationships between countries. “Intercultural” because it refers to existing cultural differences between these countries; and “global” because within the very nature of this whole phenomenon, there lies a global dimension (Chan & Dimmock, 2008).
It is evident that the concepts used in the definition of IoHE were not chosen at random; rather, they were consciously selected owing to a number of particular significations that they contain (Bunnel, 2006; Knight, 2004, 2008, as cited in Kireçci et al., 2016).
The attention IoHE has excited among not only scholars and educators, but also policymakers in the past decades has emanated from the increasing demand for interculturally competent graduates who are expected to excel in the complex global economy of present-day globalized societies. Responding to the forces of globalization, such as rapid innovations in information and communications technology (ICA), increased labor mobility, free trade, the creation of a knowledge economy and its emphasis on lifelong learning, etc. (Knight, 1997, p.7), universities aiming to provide better opportunities for students and enhance their global perspectives have considered IoHE a critical component of the institutional culture (Knight, 1995) and a priority in the education of graduates. Internationalization, therefore, has become a rapidly growing trend among HEI around the world, and several universities have developed a number of training programs to improve the teaching-learning process in internationalized higher educational environments. Clearly, IoHE has transformed from a marginal set of programs and activities to a more comprehensive process (de Wit et al., 2015).
The impetuses that drive the realization of IoHE vary from one university to another based upon the expected potential benefits as well as the underlying rationales stirring such expectations. While some accept IoHE for reasons pertaining to idealist or educationalist rationales (Stier, 2004), i.e., for equality and the broadening of academic experience, other institutions, and evidently countries, are more inclined to implement IoHE primarily for instrumental purposes, aiming to take advantage of all the social, political, and economical benefits it provides.
According to Knight (2004, p.23), there are four rationales that drive the internationalization of HEIs: social and cultural, political, economic, and academic. The social and cultural rationale includes enriching national/cultural identity, enhancing intercultural understanding, improving the recognition and support of cultural and ethnic diversity, contributing to individual social and professional development, and developing [global and national] citizenship (Knight, 2004). The political involves the promotion of foreign policy, national security, technical assistance, peace and mutual understanding, and the national and regional identity. The economic rationale intends economic growth and competitiveness, labor market, and financial incentives. Altbach and Knight (2007, p.292) assert that “earning money is a key motive for all internationalization projects in the for-profit sector and for some traditional non-profit universities with financial problems”. Many international universities attract large number of foreign students due to the prestige attached to their universities and their collaborations with corporate bodies to provide employment opportunities for students (Larbi & Fu, 2017). Last, the academic rationale awaits the achievement of an international dimension to research and teaching, the extension of academic horizon, the promotion of global interdependence through scholarship and research, the preparation of graduates to be national and international citizens, and the overall enhancement of graduate and postgraduate education.
Focusing on the educational rationale, Valiulis and Valiulis (2006) state that IoHE is carried out “a) to promote multicultural and intercultural education; b) to contribute to the improvement of the learning experience of exchange students at host institutions; c) to contribute to improving the teaching experiences of teachers who instruct exchange students in mixed groups with home students; d) to raise awareness within universities regarding multiculturalism; f) to describe exchange students’ specific needs in the classroom; and g) to promote continuous staff training for multiculturalism and inter-culturalism” (p.221). Summarized by Rumbley et al. (2012):internationalization is affecting what, how, where and from whom students learn; how higher education institutions and systems conceive of their mission and roles; how research is carried out and disseminated; and how fundamental paradigms of cooperation and competition in higher education are understood and elaborated. (p. 22)The forgoing benefits render IoHE indispensable not only for the enhancement of graduate and postgraduate education as it imbues students and teachers with refined skills to tackle global challenges, but also in the economic and sociocultural development of countries.
Over the last decade, several authors used a similar typology of ‘approaches’ as a reference to the stances adopted by educators and noneducators in leadership positions towards the implementation of IoHE (Aigner et al, 1992; Arum & Van de Water, 1992; De Wit, 1995; Knight, 1994, 1996, 1997, as cited in Qiang, 2003). The authors (e.g., Altbach & Knight, 2007; Bunnell, 2006; Chan & Dimmock, 2008; Stier, 2004; Scott, 2000; Yalçıntan & Thornley, 2007; etc.) distinguish four approaches: the activity approach; the competency approach; the ethos approach; and the process approach.
The activity approach promotes activities such as student/faculty exchange or technical assistance (Qiang, 2003). The activities involved include both academic and extracurricular activities, among which are curricular development and innovation; student, scholar, and faculty exchange; area studies; technical assistance; intercultural training; international students; and joint research activities (Kireçci et al., 2016).
The competency approach stresses on the development of skills, attitudes [, information], and values among students, faculty, and staff (Qiang, 2015). Qiang (2015) explains that, in this approach, the development of internationalized curricula and programs is not an end in itself but a means towards fostering the appropriate competencies in students, staff and faculty.
The third approach – the ethos approach – puts more emphasis on cultivating an ‘ethos’ or culture that appreciates intercultural and international perspective. This approach acknowledges that the international dimension is fundamental to the definition of a university or any other institutions of higher learning, and it maintains that, without strong belief and supportive culture, the international dimension of an institution will never be realized (Qiang, 2015).
Lastly, the process approach focuses on the integration or infusion of an international/intercultural dimension into teaching, research and service through a combination of a wide range of activities, policies and procedures (Qiang, 2015).
According to Khorsandi (2014), the internationalization of higher education consists of establishing international branch campuses and joint research partnerships between institutions in different countries, recruitment of foreign students and faculty members, proliferation of exchange [and study abroad] programs, global competition for talents, and the design of an international curriculum. The process of IoHE is not carried out erratically; rather, it requires a systematic approach with clear learning outcomes and the development of “authentic tasks that are structured in such a way that they cannot be successfully completed without a meaningful exchange of cultural information (Least, 2019).
Knight and De Wit (1995) and Knight (2008) identify some of the fundamental indicators relating to institutional strategies of realizing IoHE. The indicators include -but are not limited to- the creation and coordination of effective communication channels; the planning, implementation, and provision of efficient collaborative access to international research projects; the exchange of experiences among universities; the comparison of existing curricula with other international curricula; the creation of scholarly and cultural cooperation on the part of universities’ student organizations and academic committees; the development of human resources geared toward the implementation of the social, economic, and cultural results of the internationalization of universities; etc. (Kireçci et al., 2016).
Internationalization of higher education is entering a new phase. A shift from internationalization abroad with a strong focus on a small elite of mobile students, faculty, administrators and programs towards internationalization at home (IaH) for all students is even more urgent than ever (De Wit & Deca, 2020). This latter – IaH – was initially defined as “any internationally related activity with the exception of outbound student and staff mobility” (Crowther et al., 2001, p.8), and later redefined as “[…] the purposeful integration of international and intercultural dimensions into the formal and informal curriculum for all students within domestic learning environments” (Beelen & Jones, 2015, p.76, as cited in Beelen & Jones, 2018).
IaH was inspired by the work of Mestenhauser and Ellingboe (1998) who introduced the concept of an “international mindset” in higher education, and its framework was later developed by Paige and Mestenhauser (1999) (Mudiamu, 2020). Occasionally termed internationalization of the curriculum (IoC) or campus internationalization, though the terms are not synonymous, IaH was introduced responding to the limitations of internationalization abroad -all forms of education across borders- as the majority of higher education (HE) students and staff lacked the economic privilege to take advantage of the latter. This articulates the key difference between IaH, on the one hand, and IoC and campus internationalization on the other – that IaH is limited to the domestic learning environment while IoC may include mobility (Leask, 2015). Given the above, a new, more inclusive approach to “internationalizing” was required so that the majority of HE students and staff who were unlikely to study nor work outside of their home country could develop the international outlook and the intercultural capabilities required for employment and participation in democratic societies (Robson et al., 2017).
In spite of the urgent need to find more economically feasible and academically applicable alternatives for more inclusive activities that address the challenges of internationalization abroad, Nilsson (2003) and Wachter (2003) affirm that the initial touted benefits of IaH did not focus on it as an alternative to study abroad, though it was acknowledged as a factor. Instead, IaH positioned cultural diversity as a general resource and a source of enrichment, at a time when intercultural communication was seen as inadequate to address the problems of societies being transformed by migration (Crowther et al., as cited in Mudiamu, 2020).
The initiatives undertaken as part of IaH take place on campus, in the academic community, in the classroom, as well as in the incorporation of international, intercultural, and global dimensions into the content of the curriculum and teaching methods (Leask, 2015), in conjunction with the welcoming of international student at local campuses, the presence of foreign lecturers, etc. This shift of interest from a general IoHE towards a more specific IaH implies a shift in focus from input and output to outcomes, which are not dependent on location (Aerden, 2014; Leask, 2015).
In addition to the abovementioned enacted activities, IaH makes use of ICTs and computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) tools, integrated alongside with existing teaching and learning methods, such as collaborative and experiential learning to transcend geographical borders and facilitate not only the enrollment in foreign universities while remaining ‘at home’, but also the virtual exchanges between international institutions in an efficient, cost-effective way. Students are enabled to collaborate beyond the constraints of space and resources and interact with individuals from other cultures without leaving home (Lajoie et al., 2006).
The generic term virtual exchange encapsulates all initiatives through which international mobility is attained not through physical travel, but through digital technology, particularly through globally networked learning environments (GNLEs). Its forms include Telecollaboration (Belz, 2002; Warschauer, 1996), Virtual Mobility (De Wit, 2017), Virtual Exchange (Helm, 2015), Virtual Transnational Education (Teekens, 2015), Global Virtual Teams (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999), Globally Networked Learning (Starke-Meyerring & Wilson, 2008), Online Intercultural Exchange (O’Dowd, 2007; O’Dowd & Lewis, 2016), Collaborative online international learning (Rubin, 2016); etc. These forms and their names were generated independently but can reflect a disciplinary orientation (O’Dowd, 2018, as cited in Mudiamu, 2020).
Aerden, A. (2014) A Guide to assessing the quality of internationalisation.ECA Occasional Paper. The Hague: European Consortium for Accreditation inHigher Education.
Aigner, J. S., Nelson, P. & Stimpfl, J. R. (1992).Internationalizing the University: making it work. Springfield: CBIS Federa.
Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalizationof higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies inInternational Education.
Arum, S. & Van de Water, J. (1992) The Need for a definition ofinternational education in US Universities, in C. Klasek (Ed.) Bridges to theFuture: strategies for internationalizing higher education, pp. 191-203.Carbondale: Association of International Education Administrators.
Aydın, B. & Veysel D. (2016), Flipping the drawbacks of flippedclassroom: Effective tools and recommendations, Journal Of Educational AndInstructional Studies In The World, Vol. 6, Iss. 1. Pp.33-40.
Beelen, J., & Jones, E. (2015). Redefining internationalizationat home. In A. Curaj, L. Matei, R. Pricopie, J. Salmi, & P. Scott (Eds.),The European higher education area (Vol. 81, pp. 59–72). Cham, Germany:Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20877-0_5
Belz, J. A. (2002). Social dimensions of telecollaborative foreignlanguage study. Language Learning & Technology, 6(1), 60–81.
Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reachevery student in every class every day. Washington, DC: International Societyfor Technology in Education.
Brandenburg, U., & De Wit, H. (2015). The end ofinternationalization. International Higher Education, 62(62). https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2011.62.8533
Bunnell, T. (2006). The growing momentum and legitimacy behind analliance for international education. Journal of Research in InternationalEducation, 5(2), 155-176.
Chan, W. W., & Dimmock, C. (2008). The internationalization ofuniversities Globalist, internationalist and translocalist models. Journal ofResearch in International Education, 7(2), 184-204.
Crowther, P., Joris, M., Otten, M. Nilsson, B., Teekens, H., &Wächter, B. (2001). Internationalisation at home: A position paper. Amsterdam,the Netherlands: EAIE.
Curaj, A. & Matei, L., & Pricopie,R., & Salmi, J., & Peter, S. (2015). The European higher educationarea: Between critical reflections and future policies. Springer.
De Castro, A. B., Dyba, N., Cortez, E. D., & Pe Benito, G. G.(2018). Collaborative online international learning to prepare students formulticultural work environments. Nurse Educator. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0000000000000609
De Wit, H. (1995) Strategies for internationalisation of higher education:a comparative study of Australia, Canada, Europe and the United States ofAmerica. Amsterdam: European Association for International Education.
De Wit, H. (1999). Changing rationales for the internationalizationof higher education. International Higher Education 15. Retrieved fromhttps://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hans_De_Wit/publication/313407781_Changing_Rationales_for_the_Internationalization_of_Higher_Education/links/58b6d42245851591c5d52baa/Changing-Rationales-for-the-Internationalization-ofHigher-Education.pdf
De Wit, H. (2013). An introduction to higher educationinternationalisation. Milan, Italy: Vita e Pensiero
De Wit, H., & Beelen, J. (2014). Reading between the lines:Global internationalization survey. University World News (318). Retrieved fromwww.universityworldnews.com
De Wit, H., Deca, L. (2020). Internationalization of highereducation : Challenges and opportunities for the next decade. In :Cyraj, A., Deca, L., Pricopie, R. (eds). European Higher Education Area :Challenges for a new decade. Springer, Cham.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56316-5
Garrison, D. R. (2011). E-learning in the 21st century: A frameworkfor research and practice (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Green, W., and Whitsed, C. (2013). Reflections on an alternativeapproach to continuing professional learning for internationalization of thecurriculum across disciplines. Journal of Studies in International Education,17(2), 148–164.
Helm, F. (2015). The practices and challenges of telecollaborationin higher education in Europe. Language Learning & Technology, 19(2),197–217.
Hung, H., T. (2014): Flipping the classroom for English languagelearners to foster active learning, Computer Assisted Language Learning, DOI:10.1080/09588221.2014.967701.
Hung, C., Sun, J., & Liu, J., (2018): Effects of flippedclassrooms integrated with MOOCs and game-based learning on the learningmotivation and outcomes of students from different backgrounds, InteractiveLearning Environments, DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2018.1481103.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communication andtrust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10(6), 791–815.
Khan, S. (2012). The one world schoolhouse: Education reimagined.New York: Hachette Books.
Khorsandi T., A. (2014). A critical policy analysis ofinternationalization in postsecondary education: An Ontario case study.
Killick, D. (2012). Seeing-ourselves-in-the-world: Developingglobal citizenship through international mobility and campus community. Journalof Studies in International Education, 16(4), 372–389.
Kireçci, M., A. , Bacanlı, H., Erişen, Y., Karadağ, E., Çeliköz, N.,Dombaycı, M., A., Toprak, M., & Şahin, M. (2016). The internationalizationof higher education in Turkey: Creating an index. Education and Science,42(121). TedMem.
Knight, J. (1994). Internationalization: Elements and checkpoints.CBIE Research No. 7. Canadian Bureau for International Education (CBIE)/Bureaucanadien de l’éducation internationale (BCEI). Ottawa, ON: CBIE. Knight, J.(1997). A shared vision? Stakeholders' perspectives on the internationalizationof higher education in Canada. Journal of Studies in International Education,1(1), 27–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/102831539700100105
Knight, J. (1996) Internationalization of Higher Education: ashared vision. Ottawa: CBIE
Knight, J. (1997) A Shared Vision? Stakeholders’ Perspectives onthe Internationalization of Higher Education in Canada, Journal of Studies inInternational Education, 1, Spring, pp. 27-44.
Knight, J. (2003). Updated definition of internationalization.International Higher Education, 33, 2–3.
Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition,approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education,8(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315303260832
Knight, J. (2007). Internationalization: Concepts, complexities andchallenges. In J. J. F. Forest & P. G. Altbach (Eds.), Internationalhandbook of higher education: Vol.18, (pp. 207–227). Dordrecht, theNetherlands: Springer. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4012-2_11
Knight, J. (2008). Higher education in turmoil: The changing worldof internationalization. Global perspectives on higher education: Vol. 13.Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers
Knight, J. (2012). Concepts, rationales, and interpretiveframeworks in the internationalization of higher education. In The SAGEhandbook of international higher education (pp. 27–42). Thousand Oaks, CA:SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452218397.n2
Knight, J., & De Wit, H. (1995). Strategies forinternationalisation of higher education: Historical and conceptualperspectives. In H. De Wit (Ed.), Strategies for internationalisation of highereducation: A Comparative Study of Australia, Canada, Europe and the USA (pp.5-32). Amsterdam: European Association for International Education (EAIE) incooperation with the Programme on Institutional Management in Higher Education(IMHE) of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) andthe AIEA.
Kubi, P., A., & Annan, E. (2020). A review of a collaborativeonline international learning,” International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy(iJEP), vol 10, no 1. https://doi.org/ 10.3991/ijep.v10i1.11678
Laal, M. & Ghodsi, S., M. (2012). Benefits of collaborativelearning," Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 31, pp.486-490, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.091.
Labi, A. (2011). Faculty-inspired team-teaching makesinternationalization affordable. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrievedfrom https://www.chronicle.com/article/Faculty-Inspired-Team-Teaching/127266
Larbi, F., O. & Fu, W. (2017). Practices and Challenges ofInternationalization of Higher Education in China; International StudentsPerspective. A Case Study of Beijing Normal University", InternationalJournal of Comparative Education and Development, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCED-12-2016-0025
Leask, B. (2015). Internationalizing the curriculum. London,England: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group
Magnier-Watanabe, R., Watanabe, Y., Aba, O., & Herrig, H.(2017). Global virtual teams’ education: Experiential learning in theclassroom. On the Horizon, 25(4), 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1108/OTH-02-2017-0007
Marcillo-Gomez, M., & Desilus, B. (2016). Collaborative onlineinternational learning experience in practice opportunities and challenges.Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 11(1), 30–35. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718- 27242016000100005
Mestenhauser, J. A., & Ellingboe, B. J. (Eds.). (1998).Reforming the higher education curriculum: Internationalizing the campus.Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education and Oryx Press.
Missildine, K., Fountain, R., Summers, L., & Gosselin, K.(2013). Flipping the Classroom to Improve Student Performance and Satisfaction.Journal of Nursing Education, 52(10), 597-599.
Moore, A., S., & Simon, S. (2015). Globally networked teachingin the humanities: theories and practices. Routledge.
.svg)
