ViSTA
DECEMBER 2012
THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE INDIFFERENT:
THE HIGHS AND LOWS OF 2012 VISTA AWAKENING THE SLEEPING GIANT: INDONESIA IN THE ASIAN CENTURY EMERGING AGREEMENT ON INTERNATIONALISING THE CURRICULUM
PRESIDENT’S COLUMN
It would be remiss of me to start my first column as IEAA President without paying tribute to the Presidency of Stephen Connolly and the Vice-Presidency of Helen Cook. Both Stephen and Helen have made an enormous contribution to building on the legacy of Tony Adams, the Association’s inaugural President, and steering us to a place where we now have a membership base of almost 1,600 and are respected as a key voice in the international education industry. The new Board held its first meeting in November this year and it was very exciting to welcome new and returning Board members as well as those who accepted invitations to fill casual vacancies. Associate Professor Betty Leask from the University of South Australia and Rongyu Li, Executive Director of Deakin International, returned to the Board. Joining the Board for the first time were Andrew Smith, CEO of Swinburne College, Joanne Barker, Director of the International Office at the University of Adelaide, Associate Professor Chris Ziguras from RMIT and Professor Simon Ridings, Dean of International Development at Curtin University.
2 | ViSTA
We were also delighted to endorse the appointment of Professor Peter Rathjen, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Tasmania. 2013 is shaping up to be a big year for the Association. Our advocacy and commentary role will be critical in responding to the Henry and Chaney Reviews as well as the realities of the alphabet soup (SVP, GTE, TPS, PSWR, EVCC, TEQSA, ASQA...) that regulates and defines much of our daily work. ‘Australia in the Asian Century’ and the highly anticipated report from the International Education Advisory Council will be pivotal to the future shape of Australian international education. The Ernst & Young paper, ‘University of the Future’, while being hotly debated in many fora, starkly captures the transformational forces that are challenging our thinking and practice on teaching and learning, access to education, business and delivery models, and structures. IEAA is increasingly connecting with like organisations globally. We are part of the Network of International Education Associations (www. ieanetwork.org) and a participant in dialogues on common issues to all countries involved in
international education and global mobility. IEAA contributed to the development of an International Student Mobility Charter with the European Association for International Education and I am pleased to announce that IEAA formally adopted the Charter at its November Board meeting (read the Charter at bit.ly/XZHLeW.) We also adopted the Principles to promote and protect the human rights of international students released by the Australian Race Discrimination Commissioner, Helen Szoke, at this year’s AIEC, and have endorsed the government’s antiracism campaign, ‘Racism. It Stops with Me’. The Association strives to support and represent those working in Australian international education across all sectors and in all roles. Much support to members as well as valuable insight comes from the work of our Special Interest Groups (SIGs) – Internationalisation of the Curriculum, Marketing and Communication, Pathways, Student Mobility and Transnational Education – and from professional development seminars, research symposia and conferences.
A ‘must attend’ event is the forthcoming national symposium on English Language Competence of International Students to be held in Melbourne on 25 February 2013. The symposium, jointly auspiced by IEAA and Australian Education International, will critically review and address the challenges facing tertiary education institutions in addressing the questions ‘how do we ensure international students have the English language skills to succeed in their tertiary studies’, and ‘how can we effectively prepare them to transition into the workforce’? Invitations will be sent out before the end of 2012. It is particularly important to hear member voices, so we are conducting our regular membership survey. Follow this link to complete our survey: bit.ly/WcNav9 On behalf of the Board and Secretariat may I wish you all a happy, healthy and relaxing festive season.
IN THIS ISSUE The good, the bad and the indifferent:
4
The highs and lows of 2012
Awakening the sleeping giant
8
Country in focus: Indonesia
Emerging agreement on internationalising the curriculum
10
AIEC: the year that was
13
And looking ahead to 2013
And the winners are... Meet our Best Practice/Innovation awardees
14
Updates from the SIGs
18
Calendar
20
Helen Zimmerman President, IEAA DECEMBER 2012 DECEMBER 2012| | 3
THE HIGHS AND LOWS OF 2012
THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE INDIFFERENT Phil Honeywood looks back on the rollercoaster ride that was international education in Australia in 2012. In the rollercoaster ride that is international education, 2012 has had its fair share of highs and lows. The year commenced with great uncertainty around the implementation of the new regulatory reform agenda that initially singled out universities for streamlined visa processing. This, in itself, created potential divisions between higher education and VET, public institutions and private providers. The ELICOS and school sectors were also served up major challenges. Hope then manifested itself in a number of guises as the year progressed. Now at the conclusion of an eventful 2012, we are left to ponder whether we are in better shape than we were 12 months ago? Are we better understood for our reforms in the international marketplace and will the major political parties take our issues seriously as we enter an election year in 2013?
Streamlined controversy Three new acronyms made their appearance at the start of the year: SVP, GTE and PSW. Michael Knight’s decision to permit only public higher
4 | ViSTA
education institutions access to the new Streamlined Visa Processing (SVP) procedures was applauded by some and panned by others. On the one hand, SVP acknowledged that public institutions were best placed to restore integrity to “brand Australia”, particularly after it had been tarnished by some migrationfocussed private providers. On the other hand, SVP was seen as setting up a dichotomy of winners and losers. If you were an SVP provider you had been endorsed by the Australian Government; if not, you were potentially out in the cold. This became even more apparent when the first list of universities’ educational business partners was posted on DIAC’s website. SVP also became a case of ‘be careful what you wish for’ as the risk assessment audits involved created workload pressures on institution and government employees alike. These audits also threw up data and record keeping practices that, for some, were cause for embarrassment. The process involved in gaining SVP accreditation shone a light on poor practices and forced some to change their ways which may
have, in the long term, served public institutions well. DIAC’s recent release of its first six-monthly SVP data to individual institutions highlighted improvements across the board. The surprise element with SVP was surely the Council of Australian Government (COAG) announcement that some private providers, public VET institutions, independent schools, ELICOS providers and others will also gain access to streamlined visa status. A roundtable discussion, hosted by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship Chris Bowen, raised more questions than it answered. For example, to be eligible for inclusion, providers might be required to have a minimum ‘risk assessment’ sample of 300 current and pending students (but only with one of the provider’s legal entities). Despite DIAC’s best efforts to assure the sector there will be transparent criteria involved in the selection of these new SVP entrants, they may have simply opened up a new can of worms. Those who gain entry to ‘Club SVP’ may soon market themselves as being Government-endorsed and quite distinct from those providers denied access.
GTE sleeper issue If there was a sleeper issue at the start of 2012 it was surely the application of the Genuine Temporary Entrant (GTE) testing. Once Australian universities gained their SVP accreditation, it was assumed the student visas would start to flow. What no-one anticipated was the extent to which our overseas posts would find cause to reject student visa applicants. Through regular Education Visa Consultative Committee (EVCC) meetings hosted by DIAC, IEAA and other international education peak bodies raised serious concerns about the quality of decision making emanating from the GTE’s implementation. Combined, the peak bodies were able to table more than 230 student visa rejection letters that highlighted prima facie subjective decision-making and discrepancies arising from GTE interviews. Agreement has now been reached that senior DIAC officers will conduct quality assurance checks to review all student visa rejection letters at a large number of Australia’s overseas posts. IEAA member institutions are encouraged to provide any examples of dubious rejection letters. The Executive Director can then request reviews of individual cases directly with DIAC.
Post-study work rights Just when the UK announced it was abandoning its long-established Post-Study Work Rights (PSW) policy, Australia decided PSW would be a suitable replacement for our previous policy which permitted onshore migration to certain overseas student graduates (Canada and New Zealand have, by contrast, retained onshore migration options.) PSWs were viewed by Michael Knight as only to be made available to public higher education institutions, leaving many TAFE institutes, private higher education and VET providers feeling unjustly singled out.
After intensive lobbying, the Federal Government announced that TAFE institutes and private colleges with higher education accreditation would be included in the PSW scheme. According to DIAC, the PSW legislation will be debated in Federal Parliament in March 2013 (the anticipated PSW visa fee is around $1,300 The greatest concern is that PSW may raise the expectations of international students who could see it as an entrée to migration through employer sponsorship. Managing these expectations, while providing meaningful employment experience and internships, will be a key priority for many Australian education institutions.
TEQSA, ASQA, TPS and AEI While 2012 saw the creation of the three new acronyms, it was also the year in which three new quangos effectively came into being, and one existing quango, Australian Education International (AEI), was significantly altered. The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) took over responsibility for higher education accreditation and re-registration from the separate state and territory authorities from 1 January 2012. As has so often occurred in the transition of state powers to federal jurisdiction, a range of teething issues soon presented themselves. Education providers experienced delays in accrediting new courses, and the re-registration of some existing courses soon became cause for complaint. A TEQSA form that required many pages of information, including all library holdings pertaining to specific courses, was seen as particularly burdensome.
DECEMBER 2012 | Photo: P_Wei (iStock)
5
It soon became apparent that something would have to give with TEQSA’s expectations of providers. To her credit, TEQSA Chief Commissioner, Carol Nicoll, responded to representations (including from IEAA) and significantly reduced the level of documentation she required. Greater emphasis was however (quite appropriately) placed on education providers seeking registration for the first time. Since then, the proactive involvement of TEQSA in a range of seminars and briefings has done a great deal to enhance two-way communication between education institutions and the authority’s personnel. For the VET sector, the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) also had some major teething issues. With the creation of both TEQSA and ASQA, there was additional uncertainty about which authority had clear jurisdiction over the English language sector. By mid-year this had been resolved by yet another Federal Government compromise in which TEQSA became “the clearing house” for establishing jurisdictional issues between ASQA and itself for the ELICOS sector. As noone seemed to understand that English language providers had been quite good at accrediting and auditing themselves, through the highly-regarded National ELT Accreditation Scheme (NEAS), this situation became a cause célèbre within the sector. Further compromises that will “unofficially” recognise an ongoing role for NEAS appear to be in the offing. It would be fair to say that the Tuition Protection Service (TPS) was not the most welcome government initiative that came into being in 2012. Again, while it was good to have Government taking on responsibility for all overseas student assurance programs, there are concerns about the risk levies
6 | ViSTA
that private education providers will pay. As at December 2012, a TPS Advisory Board has been created and indications are that the first risk levy invoices will be sent out in the first quarter of 2013. With all the announcements of new international education regulatory bodies being formed, questions arose as to where AEI would fit into the mix. It soon became apparent that it would not come through all of these changes unscathed. With Austrade taking over international education marketing responsibilities, a comprehensive departmental restructure (from DEEWR to DIISIRTE) and budget savings imposts, the departmental realignments have not been kind to AEI. A further surprise has been the move of ESOS and PRISMS operations and compliance away from AEI and into DIISIRTE’s Tertiary Education Unit (together with schools, ELICOS and the TPS secretariat). It is understood that ESOS policy will at least remain with AEI. The pending retirement of the respected Colin Walters as AEI Chief Executive Officer is further cause for concern in the months ahead.
Henry’s White Paper If 2011 was the year of Baird and Knight, then 2012 was the year of
Ken Henry. Photo: AAP
Ken Henry and Michael Chaney. Both of these reviews raised high hopes for a way forward, but it would be fair to say there is now a degree of disappointment. IEAA welcomed the findings of Henry’s ‘Australia in the Asian Century’ White Paper, released in October. As a major policy initiative, it underpins and endorses the long term and multi-layered engagement that IEAA members have already undertaken with our neighbours in the Asian region The Henry Review is definitely on the right track, in so far as the education sector is now recognised – alongside other important social and economic policy drivers – as essential to successful future engagement with Asia. It also indicates a clear understanding that international education must be understood in a holistic manner. The separate schools, English language, VET, higher education and research sectors all contribute to a dynamic industry that can, and does, act as a vital bridge for engagement with our region. Notwithstanding the excellent themes enunciated in the White Paper, IEAA believes that more specific detail and announcements will be required in order to implement Ken Henry and his team’s vision.
If our neighbours in Asia are to believe we are genuine about a multi-layered approach to education engagement, then the Chaney Review needs to provide Australia with a more specific roadmap compared to what is contained in the Ken Henry White Paper. IEAA’s submission to the White Paper called for a biennial international education conference in Asia, to be hosted by the Australian Government, demonstrating best practice in transnational education, collaborative curriculum development and student services. The submission also suggested the formation of an Australia-Asia International Education Research Network and an Australian-educated Asian alumni database, auspiced by the Federal Government. None of the recommendations were taken up in the report. Recently, it was discovered there would be significant funding cuts to inbound and outbound student mobility programs in 2013. While the $37 million to be spent on the new AsiaBound scholarships over the next three years is welcome, it soon became clear that this new program will be partly funded from the mobility program cuts.
The Chaney Review Clearly, the international education sector hopes the Michael Chaneyled International Education Advisory Council (IEAC) will now come forward with meaningful policy initiatives that will underpin the work of the Asian Century White Paper. If our neighbours in Asia are to believe we are genuine about a multilayered approach to education engagement, then the Chaney Review needs to provide Australia with a more specific roadmap compared to what is contained in the Henry White Paper. Unfortunately it appears subject to further delays.
State Government initiatives While many see international education as primarily a responsibility of the Federal Government, there are specific issues and factors that can be attributed to state economies and require strong support from state and territory governments. The recent NSW International Education and Research Industry Taskforce's report will hopefully provide something of a blueprint for other state and territories to follow. IEAA has expressed strong support for the report’s recommendations. IEAA's long standing policy has been for a coordinated approach to governance of the international education industry at both state and federal levels. Too often issues that significantly impact upon our education institutions and international students have fallen between the cracks of different government departments and their sometimes divergent policy agendas. In so far as the NSW Government report provides for a Parliamentary Secretary with specific responsibility for international education, then it goes a long way to ensuring greater priority and coordination of policy initiatives for our industry. Another welcome proposal is for a stakeholder’s commission with the status of a statutory authority. If the proposed StudyNSW can bring key international education
stakeholders together such as industry bodies, international student associations, education institutions, accommodation providers and relevant NSW Government agencies then it will underpin the other good governance features of this report. The role of international students in our regional communities, online learning opportunities, support for collaborative research hubs, importance of English language provision and a state-based marketing campaign are other very worthwhile issues that are canvassed in this important report. At the end of 2012, both the Victorian and Western Australian Governments were finalising their new state-based international education strategies. Despite representations and meetings organised by IEAA, the situation in Queensland remains unclear. The year ahead is a Federal election year. There is always a danger that the policy needs and aspirations pertinent to international education will fall victim to political rhetoric, on other important issues, such as migration, population and asylum seekers. The challenge for our sector will be to stay on message in our lobbying and advocacy work in the year ahead. In this context, IEAA has been pleased to continue chairing important meetings of all the peak bodies associated with international education. TAFE Directors Australia, Universities Australia, Australian Council of Private Education and Training (ACPET), Independent Schools, English Australia and the Council of Private Higher Education (COPHE) are all as determined as IEAA is to ensure the collective voice of our industry is heard and translated into meaningful policy. This should apply to whichever party forms Government in Canberra in 2013 Phil Honeywood is the Executive Director of IEAA.
DECEMBER 2012 | 7
COUNTRY IN FOCUS: INDONESIA
Awakening the
sleeping giant According to the British Council, 2.6 million Indonesian students are set to enter higher education over the next decade. Sofian Edy taps the shoulder of SouthEast Asia’s ‘sleeping giant’ and wonders how much longer Australia can sustain its place as the study destination of choice for Indonesia. With an archipelago of more than 17,000 islands and a population of more than 240 million people, Indonesia is no ordinary country. Many predict it will become one of the world’s largest economies in the next 20 years. According to the McKinsey Global Institute, Indonesia will become the 7th largest economy in the world with the 3rd largest consumer class (behind China and India) by 2030. Indonesia’s rapidly developing economy has not only caught the attention of its neighbouring South-East Asian countries, but the rest of the world.
An economy in crisis Indonesia was the hardest hit in the region during the Asian economic
8 | ViSTA
crisis in 1997. GDP slipped 13 per cent in the first 12 months after the crisis. The value of the Indonesian Rupiah (IDR) fell against USD from IDR 2,500 in mid-1997 to IDR 14,000 in mid-1998, before stabilising between IDR 8,00010,000 in the 2000s . In the last decade or so, Indonesia’s transformation has made it the 16th largest economy in the world, with 53 per cent of its population producing 74 per cent of the nation’s GDP (McKinsey Global Institute). Foreign direct investment peaked at USD12.7 billion in 2010 and continued to rise (OECD, 2011).
with the Directorate General of Higher Education (DIKTI), of which 3 per cent are state-owned and the remaining 97 per cent owned privately. They are made up of academies, institutes, polytechnics, higher school colleges and universities. The Indonesian Government aims to have established 269 new community colleges by 2015. This number is predicted to reach 823 by 2025 (AEI Indonesia, 2012).
The sleeping giant of South-East Asia has set some very ambitious targets – some may call them unrealistic – for the next decade. In May 2012, the Indonesian Government announced its plan to increase compulsory education from 9 to 12 years by 2014. It has also pledged to increase the number of academics holding master and/or PhD degrees to 60,000 by 2014 (Austrade Indonesia, 2012).
Internationalisation also takes centre stage in Indonesia’s educational development. At one point, collecting as many memorandums of understanding as possible seemed to be the only KPI for many institutions in Indonesia. Many of these simply ended up sitting on the shelf collecting dust. The government is now encouraging its higher education institutions to form more tangible partnerships with foreign institutions. According to Campus Asia, Indonesia has more than 600 agreements with institutions from all around the world. Topping that list are institutions from Japan, followed by Australia and Malaysia.
Indonesia’s education system is dominated by private investors, especially in the tertiary sector. There are some 3,164 higher education institutions registered
Through DIKTI, the Indonesian government is estimated to have sent some 2,000 postgraduate scholarship students overseas in the last five years. To drive
The sleeping giant awakes
Photo: Csondy (iStock)
Australia currently has top spot as the preferred destination country for Indonesian students, followed by the US, UK and Singapore. its internationalisation agenda further, DIKTI scholarships will be re-distributed to include two new schemes: joint programs (where candidates finish part of their postgraduate program in Indonesia and the rest at the partner institution), and sandwich programs (where candidates only spend a shorter period of time overseas).
Indonesia in the Asian Century We can only expect cooperation between Australia and Indonesia to increase at a very fast pace indeed. This will be especially so after the launch of the Australian Government’s white paper ‘Australia in the Asian Century’. As part of the Australian Government’s aim to make Australia more Asia-literate, it will make Indonesian language more accessible to high school students across the country. We will also hopefully see more two-way mobility of students and academics, more cooperation between institutions (such as articulations, joint programs, dual degrees) and research collaboration.
The Australian government is Indonesia’s biggest aid provider, with some 450 Australia Awards made available each year for Indonesians. This is estimated to cost AUD$500m over the next five years.
Australia top choice, but for how much longer? Australia currently has top spot as the preferred destination for many Indonesian students, followed by the US, UK and Singapore. More than 8,000 Indonesian students commence their studies at Australian institution every year. With the total of over 17,000 Indonesian students currently enrolled (Austrade), Australia has certainly succeeded in exporting its education to Indonesia. But how long can we sustain this trend? The increased cost of living in Australia – alongside the strengthening of the Australian dollar – make it less attractive for Indonesian parents to send their children to take up full
undergraduate degrees in Australia. Instead, many are now opting for cheaper alternatives such as completing part of a degree in-country (or in nearby countries such as Malaysia or Singapore) before articulating to Australia to complete their award. There is also now increased competition from other destination countries. The US has worked hard to claim back some of the market share it lost after 9/11 and the ‘Obama Effect’ seems to be producing some positive results. Last year, the US Government continued its effort to reverse declining enrolment numbers by opening a cultural centre in Jakarta and signalling a 95 per cent student visa application success rate. There are currently around 7,000 Indonesian students studying in the US; the US Embassy in Jakarta hopes to increase this to 14,000 over the next five years. This increased level of competition makes it more important than ever for Australia to maintain its reputation as a quality education destination for Indonesian students. With both governments pushing for greater cooperation, Australian and Indonesian institutions will hopefully be well placed to maximise the opportunities arising in the Asian century. Sofian Edy is the Regional Relations Manager for South-East Asia at Swinburne University of Technology. DECEMBER 2012 | 9
EMERGING AGREEMENT ON INTERNATIONALISING THE CURRICULUM Internationalisation of the curriculum in Australia has moved on from being about teaching international students and is now about preparing global citizens, says Betty Leask.
Internationalisation of the curriculum is a muchdiscussed topic. A search on Google using the words ‘internationalisation of the curriculum’ yields about 952,000 results. When the search is refined to ‘internationalisation of the curriculum in Australia’ there are about 323,000 results. There are links to university websites and scholarly articles, blogs and online discussions as well as articles such as this. But what do these figures really mean, beyond the fact that there has been a lot written about internationalisation of the curriculum, both internationally and in an Australian context? There are two things that are immediately obvious from this vast collection of information about internationalisation of the curriculum in Australia. First, it seems to suggest that in many universities in Australia internationalisation of the curriculum is seen as important and relevant. Most, if not all, universities devote at least some space to it on their websites. Second, internationalisation of the curriculum is variously described and defined in Australia. Some universities use general definitions that are over 10 years old; others have adopted more recent definitions or developed their own. There is a vast array of descriptions in the literature and on websites of what ‘an internationalised curriculum’ might look like in practice and a range of guidelines and checklists on how best to go about the process of internationalisation of the curriculum.
10 | ViSTA
The terms ‘international student’ and ‘domestic student’, and the polarisation this suggests, is seen as obscuring the diversity within both groups and the need to focus on teaching all students well. It seems to be a work in progress, although a lot has already been done. Some explicitly recognise curriculum internationalisation as a continual, ongoing process. Perhaps because of this there does not appear to be much agreement about what ‘it’ looks like and how to make ‘it’ happen
Agreement on several key points Despite the various interpretations of what internationalisation of the curriculum means in different contexts, if we look more closely, it is also clear that there is agreement around several important points. The first is that internationalisation of the curriculum in Australia is not understood any more as being only, or even principally, about teaching international students. The presence of international students in increasing numbers in Australia in the past 25 years has in part been a driver for the process of internationalisation of the curriculum, the focus being on modifying content to make the curriculum accessible to international students. But it is generally agreed in Australia today that it is not enough to focus internationalisation of the curriculum solely on teaching international students. Rather, the focus needs to be on all students. Indeed, increasingly in recent times the use of the terms ‘international student’ and ‘domestic student’, and the polarisation this suggests, is seen as obscuring the diversity within both groups and the need to focus on teaching all students well.
The second point about which there is general agreement is that internationalisation of the curriculum is connected with globalisation. Most universities feel a responsibility to prepare all graduates to live and work in a global society.
The goal is a student experience that will prepare graduates to live and work effectively in a rapidly changing and increasingly connected world, perhaps even making a positive contribution to solving some of the world’s big problems.
A common approach to this task in Australia is to focus on the systematic development of graduate attributes (sometimes called ‘graduate qualities’) related to internationalisation and globalisation.
The third point of agreement is that academics are key players in the process of internationalisation of the curriculum. Most of the materials on university websites are provided to support the work of academic staff seeking to internationalise their curricula.
Typically such strategies have been focused primarily on the formal curriculum, emphasising the development of a broad range of skills, knowledge and attitudes. These include communicating and working effectively across cultures, the ability to think globally and consider issues from a variety of perspectives, awareness of own culture, and the capacity to apply international standards and practices within the discipline or professional area. A complementary focus on the informal curriculum has also recently emerged (the informal curriculum being those various extracurricular activities that take place on campus and are not part of the formal requirements of the degree or programme of study). Such approaches focus internationalisation strategies on all students, not just international students, or those Australian students who are internationally mobile. Such approaches are typically flexible, creative and clearly focused on internationalised learning outcomes.
This would seem appropriate given that, as leading scholars in their disciplinary fields, they control the curriculum, and internationalisation of the curriculum is fairly obviously, therefore, their responsibility. They are the group ultimately responsible for what is taught, how it is taught and how it is assessed. The fourth point of agreement is that approaches to and interpretations of internationalisation of the curriculum vary across disciplines – representatives of ‘hard, pure’ disciplines such as science and mathematics being less open to recognising the cultural construction of knowledge than their colleagues in the ‘softer, applied’ disciplines such as nursing and education. Scientists and mathematicians are renowned for arguing that their discipline is in and of itself, by definition, ‘international’. Many, but not all of them, argue that knowledge in their field is culturally neutral and therefore universal.
DECEMBER 2012 | 11
Others argue that those who make such claims are working within a culturally defined and therefore limited frame of reference and are blinded by their own disciplinary cultural conditioning.
Internationalisation varies across disciplines It is this variety of interpretation of meaning that for some is the most puzzling and damning, and for others the most obvious and liberating, characteristic of internationalised curricula – they are different in different disciplines. Some conclude that this variation in interpretation is because the concept is at best poorly defined and, at worst, lacking any legitimacy. Others, however, conclude that because the curriculum is appropriately and properly controlled by disciplinary-based academics, and the disciplines are distinctive and different in many ways, an internationalised curriculum should and will look unique in different disciplinary contexts. The distinctive history and culture of disciplines and professions mean that it is different to ‘be a mathematician, think like a mathematician and act like a mathematician’, to ‘be an engineer, think like an engineer and act like an engineer’ and to ‘be a nurse, think like a nurse and act like a nurse’. We expect that mathematicians, nurses, engineers, doctors and artists and so on will think and act differently, locally and internationally. Furthermore, a recent Australian study found that both the process of internationalisation of the curriculum and its product, an internationalised curriculum,
12 | ViSTA
will also be influenced by other factors, such as institutional mission and culture, local professional accreditation requirements and the relationship between neighbouring nations in the region (very different in Europe, Asia and Africa, for example). The study, funded by the Australian Government’s Office for Learning and Teaching (see http://www.ioc. net.au), found that the variation in interpretation of what an internationalised curriculum looks like is largely due to the interaction between the different contexts within which the curriculum is both designed and enacted. The interaction between local influences such as the culture and mission of the university, and national and global influences on the nature of work and the workplace, plays out differently in different disciplines. Hence during the process of internationalisation of the curriculum it is important that academic staff work in programme teams to critically review current levels of internationalisation, confirm their rationale for further internationalising their curriculum, imagine new possibilities and agree on an action plan for achieving their goals. The study found that plans might include a radical rethinking of the focus of the programme, the introduction of different types of learning and assessment activities for students in and out of class, and provision of opportunities for academic staff to develop their own international perspectives and intercultural competence through collaborative research. Approached in this way, internationalisation of the curriculum provides academics with an intellectual challenge, the
motivation to increase research collaboration with international colleagues and new opportunities to connect research with teaching. Everyone benefits. But it also poses some challenges for universities. These include how to stimulate academics who may be reluctant to undertake the critical review and curriculum innovation that is crucial to the process. Another challenge is to ensure that once academics have decided to engage in the process they are appropriately supported through it. Generic academic development programmes are insufficient for this task but academic developers, or those with expertise in learning and curriculum, can usefully inform the process when they work closely with discipline teams. Finally, there is more work to be done on how to assess the learning outcomes of students involved in an internationalised curriculum, in particular how to assess the development of international perspectives and intercultural competence within the context of the programme of study. Recent studies in other places suggest that these opportunities and challenges are not, however, unique to the Australian context. The challenges of internationalisation of the curriculum are, at least to some extent, international. Betty Leask is an associate professor in the internationalisation of higher education at the University of South Australia and an Australian National Teaching Fellow. She has been a member of the board of IEAA since 2008. This article originally appeared in University World News (Issue No 244, 21 October 2012).
The year that was... Melbourne turned on the weather for the 26th Australian International Education Conference (AIEC). Over 1200 delegates attended the conference. The pre-conference workshops and the IEAA Research Roundtable were also well attended with over 300 registrants. Networking drinks after the Welcome Plenary gave IEAA a great chance to show off their newly-designed booth and meet with a number of IEAA members. The theme was ‘International Education in the Asian Century’ and presentations by key local and international speakers explored the role of international education, training and research in the 21st century. They stressed the importance of working collaboratively with other countries and regions to help shape the Asian Century. For those of you who missed a session, or wish to recap, many presentations are now available in the past papers section of the AIEC website. ■■ http://www.aiec.idp.com/past_papers/2012.aspx The committee wishes to thank all those delegates who completed the post-conference survey. Your feedback will assist the committee in planning for AIEC 2013 which is already underway.
A selection of IEAA and AUIDF awardees at AIEC 2012.
Looking ahead to 2013 In the centenary year of Australia’s capital city, AIEC returns to Canberra where it was first held 27 years ago. The theme for 2013 is ‘Global Imperatives, Local Realities’. The conference will comprise five streams: ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■
Global Challenges and Future Trends The Student Experience Knowledge, Skills, Mobility, Employment Strategy, Policy, Quality, Regulation Marketing, Recruitment, Cooperation, Competition.
The AIEC committee welcome proposals for presentations by February 2013. Proposals can be emailed to admin@ieaa.org.au We hope to see you all in Canberra!
DECEMBER 2012 | 13
IEAA EXCELLENCE AWARDS
The IEAA Excellence Awards showcase the quality of international education in Australia and provide an opportunity to celebrate outstanding achievement and contribution. This year is the fourth year of the awards and the strength and standard of applications continues to grow. Over 1,000 delegates were present to watch the IEAA Excellence Awards ceremony at the Australian International Education Conference (AIEC) in Melbourne.
Distinguished Contribution
Best Practice/ Innovation
■■ Associate Professor Seamus Fagan Director, English Language and Foundation Studies Centre, The University of Newcastle ■■ Melissa Banks Director International Swinburne University of Technology
■■ Western Australia Science Roadshow to Vietnam Mike Ryan, Executive Director, Perth Education City Sophie Waddell, Market Manager, Perth Education City
Sponsored by IDP Education.
Excellence in Leadership ■■ Christopher Madden Pro-Vice Chancellor (International), Griffith University ■■ Paul Mahony Regional ELT Manager, South East Asia, IDP Education Pty Ltd Sponsored by ETS TOEFL.
Excellence in Professional Commentary ■■ Julie Hare Higher Education Editor, The Australian Sponsored by Pearson.
Outstanding Postgraduate Research Masters or Doctorate Thesis ■■ (Fion) Choon Boey Lim ‘Australian transnational higher education quality assurance in Singapore and Malaysia’, PhD thesis, awarded by Deakin University Sponsored by the LH Martin Institute. 14 ||ViSTA ViSTA 14
■■ Connections for Learning Program Professor Robyn Nash, Assistant Dean (Learning and Teaching), Faculty of Health Rena Frohman, Language and Learning Skills Adviser, Student Support Services Pamela Lemcke, Lecturer School of Nursing, Faculty of Health Queensland University of Technology ■■ Master of Hospital Administration Program, China Dr Arthur van Deth, Director International Programs, Department of Health Management, Flinders University Sponsored by Hobsons. Nominations for the 2013 IEAA Awards will open in April 2013.
IEAA also congratulates the winner of the AUIDF Tracy McCabe Fellowship, Emma Lincoln, Associate Director, Compliance and Quality, International and Development, Swinburne University of Technology. We also congratulate the recipients of the inaugural Tony Adams Fund grants, Sarah Argles, Monash University for Professional Development and Yuan Gao, The University of Melbourne for Research in International Education.
AND THE WINNERS ARE...
Meet the winners of our 2012 Best Practice/ Innovation Awards. Peter Muntz spoke to the key players behind some of our industry’s most innovative projects and initiatives.
WA SCIENCE ROADSHOW Teaching young students how to extract their own DNA might seem like an unlikely marketing exercise, but it was exactly the innovative approach that has helped put Western Australia on the map. The exercise was part of Perth Education City’s Science Roadshow to Vietnam in November 2011, which involved using the extraction of DNA from young students as a means of promoting WA as a world-class study destination. PEC joined forces with WA Chief Scientist, Professor Lynn Beazley,
WA Chief Scientist, Professor Beazley, assists a student extract her DNA.
Proudly sponsored by
“People are fascinated by science, although they don’t always understand it,” he says. “They love watching science happen and noting how it can change their lives. This makes it an excellent medium that is instantly engaging for the audience.” The roadshow was part of a wider five-year strategy to improve WA’s positioning in Vietnam. In addition to direct engagement with students, it aimed to strengthen ties with key decision makers – including education agents, school and university officials. It included a series of public lectures; cocktail receptions at the Australian Ambassador’s residence in Hanoi and the Australian Consul General’s house in Ho Chi Minh City; as well as a business luncheon with the Australian Chamber of Commerce in Vietnam. PEC also sponsored Austrade’s ‘Study in Australia Education Showcase’ exhibition. Coordinating such a large group proved challenging – not to mention the logistical nightmare of carrying hundreds of test tubes through airport security – but all the effort certainly paid dividends.
Science Teacher of the Year, Warwick Matthews, and awardwinning science student Nic Dyer. The team were joined by Vietnamese alumni and various universities, colleges and schools.
Mike says the collaborative nature of the whole roadshow, and the way it utilised so many brand ‘touchpoints’ – including lectures, experiments, receptions, social media and TV interviews – was one of the elements vital to the roadshow’s success.
PEC Executive Director Mike Ryan said, to the best of his knowledge, it was a world first in international education promotion. “This was a fresh, new and appealing way to learn. As we had anticipated, none of the kids we worked with had done something like this before.”
“It involved a huge range of individual interactions with young students, postgraduate students, WA alumni, business people, government officials, agents, WA and Vietnamese education representatives, parents and prospective students,” he says.
DECEMBER 2012 | 15
AND THE WINNERS ARE...
CONNECTIONS FOR LEARNING PROGRAM Feeling left out, rejected, marginalised or discriminated because of language difficulties are not uncommon experiences for international students. As such, language learning and support programs are now an essential component of any university student support program. One such program at Queensland University of Technology (QUT), however, has been particularly successful in helping its international students enrolled in the Faculty of Health overcome these issues. ‘Connections for Learning’ started in the late 1990s as a small-scale initiative. The increasing size and diversity of the student body has seen it develop into a full-scale collaboration between QUT’s Faculty of Health and Student Support Services. The program consists of academic writing, unit-specific workshops, roleplay activities and online resources. One of the program’s unique features is its hospital volunteer program, which immerses students in a health care environment and enhances their social integration within the health community. Embedding extra-curricular activities into the curriculum has been a central part of the program’s success. “This has been a key means of facilitating authenticity and relevance in the various program activities which, in turn, has been a positive motivator for the involvement of both students and academic staff,” says Professor Robyn Nash, Assistant Dean (Learning and Teaching), Faculty of Health.
16 | ViSTA
L-R: Rena Frohman, Professor Robyn Nash and Pamela Lemcke receive their award at AIEC from Stepehen Connelly, IEAA Past President, and Tanya Perera, Operations Manager at Hobsons.
Robyn says the hospital volunteer program, in particular, goes a long way toward developing students’ communication skills with people from diverse socio-cultural backgrounds and reducing the stress associated with the practical components of their course. It has also been a ‘win-win’ for hospital staff. “Health service managers have been very positive and indicated their willingness to continue with the initiative. Some have said the students ‘truly make a difference in the lives of our frail and elderly residents.’” The most striking difference Robyn has noted among students who have been referred to the program is their increased sense of confidence.
“In many cases this has translated into improved grades in theoretical studies as well as clinical (workplace) performance assessment,” she says. Systematic evaluation confirms students are better able to successfully navigate the stressors of university study. During 2011, 113 students identified by their unit coordinators as ‘at risk’ were referred to the program. Of these, 56 students met at least once with the language and learning adviser and 39 passed their units. This equates to a success rate of 70 per cent. “Students have also expressed high levels of satisfaction with support they have received indicating that they felt more than ‘just a number’ and part of a university learning community.”The program consists of academic writing, unit-specific workshops, roleplay activities and
MASTER OF HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATION International partnerships are often fraught with difficulty. Language barriers, cultural differences, geographical distance, divergent business and pedagogical practices can all take their toll on an otherwise sound partnership concept. What then is the secret to a successful partnership, such as the Master of Hospital Administration Program between Flinders University and China’s Nankai University? “In part, we were in the right place at the right time,” says Dr Arthur van Deth, Director of International Programs at Flinders University. “We were in China at a time of significant health system reforms, which were accompanied by a massive increase in health care funding.” The partnership model is such that Nankai University delivers business-related subjects; Flinders University deliver health-specific subjects as well as supervising and assessing the masters thesis. Nankai is responsible for marketing and administration of the program, obtaining Ministry of Education and Ministry of Health approvals and arranging regular reviews of the program by industry stakeholders. The Flinders-Nankai partnership particularly impressed the IEAA award’s panel as an innovative model that addresses a number of educational and business issues, including: ■■ building a coherent curriculum across cultural and language barriers ■■ ensuring the program’s relevance to the Chinese health system ■■ building a cohesive team of academics and practitioners from geographically dispersed locations
“Many of our students have been promoted to more senior positions in the health system, where they have influence on new developments in health policy and health care delivery in China,” says Dr van Deth. ■■ development of a robust business model, capable of dealing with fluctuations in demand, exchange rates and revenue flows. Of course, any transnational program is not without its challenges. Different teaching styles in Australia and China, for example, require particular attention. “We explain differences in postgraduate teaching styles between Australia and China in some depth at the beginning of the program,” says Dr van Deth. “We also emphasise that the learning experience is enhanced by the students actively participating and bringing their own experience, expertise and knowledge to the discussion. This overcomes the traditional Chinese view of the lecturer as a supposedly all-knowing authority figure and the student being a passive receiver of wisdom.”
The results speak for themselves. Since the program commenced in 2003, enrolments have risen from 60 to 150 students per intake. It now boasts around 600 graduates from middle and senior management positions in the Chinese health sector. The program was also nominated by the Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic in China as one of the best examples of a postgraduate program delivered in partnership with a foreign university. In 2010, the program was introduced in Singapore, proving the viability and sustainability of the business model. Peter Muntz is IEAA’s Communication and Client Services Coordinator.
“Students have repeatedly said that they feel they are better equipped to deal with the difficulties and challenges of implementing these reforms because of their participation in the program,” says Dr van Deth. “Many of our learning activities relate to health care delivery and health reforms currently taking place in China.”
DECEMBER 2012 | 17
UPDATES FROM THE SIGs
Internationalisation of the Curriculum IEAA’s Internationalisation of the Curriculum (IoC) and the European Association of International Education’s (EAIE) Internationalisation at Home (IaH) SIGs have signed a MOC with colleagues in South Africa to focus on building collaboration and networks across each region and beyond. These SIGs share a concern about the curriculum implications for all students in an increasingly connected global society. They focus on the scholarship of teaching and learning as this is related to the internationalisation in higher education in the formal and informal curriculum.
Ultimately, we would like to extend our international links with scholars of IoC further. This aim was discussed at length in a meeting of SIG members, hosted by The University of Queensland in October. Present at the meeting were Craig Whitsed (Convener), Wendy Green (Deputy Convener) and Shanton Chang (Deputy Convener), as well as members Betty Leask, Michelle Barker, Anita Mak, and Marion Myhill. We were also delighted to welcome EAIE IaH SIG Chair, Jos Beelen, to join the meeting.
A decision was made to actively seek connections with North and Southern America and in the Asia Pacific area. Initially this will be done informally via a SIG website built for the purpose of encouraging IoC research within and across regions. Also discussed at the meeting was the IEAA SIG’s professional development program. We are looking to do more cross SIG sessions and to enhance the membership base. Craig Whitsed (Convener), Shanton Chang and Wendy Green
Marketing and Communication
Student Mobility
On behalf of Kylie, Abizer and myself, I’d like to take the opportunity to introduce ourselves as the new faces of the Marketing and Communication SIG.
The Outbound Mobility Forum will be ‘Going Back to the Future’ in 2013!
As Australia enters 2013 and the Asian Century, it’s important we look forward to new emerging opportunities with our closest neighbours in Asia and not dwell on the tough marketing and recruitment conditions of 2012. It is important to recognise Australia’s long history of marketing and recruitment engagement with countries in Asia. Australian institutions have a head start with the opportunities outlined in the Asian Century White Paper, having established recruitment opportunities in Asia over the past 20 years. We offer world class education institutions with world class facilities. There are many important, valuable opportunities for building stronger educational relationships. The burgeoning Asian middle class demand high quality access
18 | ViSTA
to further their education and Australian institutions will need to be in a position to deliver the required educational outcomes. Our commercial success in the region requires innovative, collaborative relationships. Marketing and recruitment business plans will need to reflect and connect with the Asian mindset and we will need to adapt our business models to seize the opportunities created in the region. In 2013, we enter a new phase of marketing and recruitment which consists of deeper and broader engagement. To align with Australia’s direction, we are planning some exciting professional development workshops. Stay tuned for details early in the New Year.
The Student Mobility SIG is pleased to announce that our colleagues in WA will be taking us ‘Back to the Future’ to host the 6th annual Outbound Mobility Forum in April 2013. The Forum will address the post-student exchange experience: the issues, planning and strategy. Delegates can choose from 4 subthemes that will include: 1. Reverse Culture Shock & ReEntry, what you can do for your students, 2. Harnessing the Power of Returnees for Your Office, 3. Study Abroad Alumni, 4. Helping Students Convert Experience to the Job Market
We look forward to meeting with you in 2013.
Date: Friday 19 April 2013 Venue: Murdoch University
Justine Morris (Convener), Kylie Davies, Abizer Merchant
More info will be available via the IEAA site, so please stay tuned! Dawn Koban (Convener), Trevor Goddard, Linda Rust
Pathways IEAA and the SIGs are currently devising activities and professional development programs for next year. We would love to hear from you with suggestions. We held an informal meeting of university pathway providers at Swinburne College in May, and plan to hold a similar meeting in Brisbane next March or April. NSW providers have held two such gatherings in 2010 and 2011. We would encourage providers in other states to form such networks. We live in a time of rapid change in the regulatory environment, learning technologies and expectations, and international market dynamics, all of which are
impacting on the Pathways sector. We need opportunities to share information and examples of good practice, develop benchmarking relationships, and identify issues requiring advocacy with regulators and Government departments. We are particularly keen to develop useful interactive workshops within the IEAA PD program and the 2013 AIEC in Canberra. Some suggested topics include the use of eLearning and social media (a broader issue than just Pathways) and opportunities (imperative?) for transnational delivery, with examples of good practice and pitfalls. This will be a combined event with TNE SIG.
On the regulatory front, there has been a lot of discussion on the impact of streamlined visa processing, which now applies to universities, and is about to be extended to other providers. Interpretation of the Foundation Studies National Standards, particularly the scheduled course contact hours remains a source of some debate. It was the intention of the Foundation Working Party to revisit the Standards soon after they came into operation; once some of the other dust settles, it will be time. We wish all the best for the holiday season and look forward to 2013. Paul O’Halloran (Convener), Rosie Giddings, Andrew Dawkins
Transnational Education 2012 has been an interesting year for transnational education in Australia and overseas and we would like to highlight a few things which have stood out from the TNE SIG’s perspective. The first is that we have had continued success in expanding the knowledge of TNE within Australia through the three events we held this year and the strong TNE-focused sessions at AEIC. What has been most encouraging is the broad spectrum of people who have shown their interest in TNE, and that we have had participants and speakers from across schools, VET and higher education sectors contribute and share their TNE experiences. We believe that this indicates that engagement with TNE is growing in ways beyond traditional thinking and this is very encouraging. Some of the case studies and experiences shared by colleagues from the non-university sector have been very thoughtprovoking and offer opportunities for cross-sectoral learning. The second is that there is increasing debate and discussion around TNE from a hosting government
and institutional perspective. Our Convener, Lorne Gibson, has been fortunate enough to attend the British Council’s recent Global Education Dialogues in Kuala Lumpur and Beijing which focused on new developments in TNE, and the assessment of qualifications and quality of TNE programs delivered in third countries. The quality of the discussion and debate has been very high and we believe that many of our colleagues in Australia would benefit greatly from hearing this broader perspective. The transformative role that TNE has had in the Malaysian higher education system and the way it has challenged the established public institutions, and raising higher education standards in the country was really interesting to hear. The third is that TNE is continuing to evolve and new models of TNE collaboration are replacing traditional forms in some maturing markets. The UK is seeing the phasing out of some validation TNE programs, particularly in Europe, and new models of TNE-focused joint and double degree programs are being developed in Eastern Europe. The transition of many
of the private higher education providers in Malaysia from colleges to universities has resulted in many traditional TNE programs needing to be recast or discontinued due to government regulations; at the same time new opportunities for different types of collaboration are opening up. Finally, these international changes are occurring at a time in which TNE in Australia will need to adjust to the new regulatory requirements of TESQA and ASQA. Institutions involved in TNE are analysing how the provider threshold standards and the announced thematic reviews into TNE and English Entry Standards will impact on TNE engagement. The TNE SIG will be looking to run at least one workshop next year specifically addressing the impact of the new regulatory environment imposed by TESQA and ASQA on TNE operations and management. All things considered 2013 is looking to be a very interesting year with an equal mix of challenges and opportunities. Lorne Gibson (Convener), Caryn Nery, Matt Taverner DECEMBER 2012 | 19
CALENDAR online resources. One of the
February
May
AIEA: Re-Imagining Higher Education in a Global Context New Orleans, LA 17–20 February
QS-MAPLE (Middle East and Africa Professional Leaders in Education) Conference Africa 7–8 May
IEAA-AEI National Symposium: English Language Competence of International Students Melbourne 25 February Universities Australia Higher Education Conference Canberra 27 February–1 March
March Going Global 2013: knowledgebased economies for 21st century nations Dubai, United Arab Emirates 4–6 March International Association of Universities (IAU) Conference Manchester, UK March APAIE Conference Hong Kong 11–14 March
NAFSA: Ideals and Impact in International Education St Louis, Missouri, US 26–31 May
July UKCISA Conference Glasgow, Scotland 2–4 July
August Asia Education Foundation: First National Conference 12–14 August 2013, Melbourne
September English Australia Conference: It’s still about the students Perth, 26–27 September EAIE Conference: Weaving the Future of Global Partnerships Turkey, 10–13 September
April
October
Forum on Education Abroad: Moving Beyond ‘It was great’ Chicago 3–5 April
AIEC: Global imperatives, local realities Canberra 8–11 October
Student Mobility Forum IEAA Perth, 19 April
20 | ViSTA
Contact us IEAA Secretariat PO Box 12917 A’Beckett Street Melbourne VIC 8006 Australia +613 9925 4579 admin@ieaa.org.au
www.facebook.com/ieaaustralia
www.twitter.com/ieaaustralia
www.ieaa.org.au