2017
Abstract
With the International Education Act of 1966, U.S. Government considered that higher education curriculum should have an international dimension to better prepare experts capable to respond to global political and economic transformations of the time (Smithee,2013). For the last 20 years, colleges and universities have adopted Internationalization into their mission statement due to more various motivations like: branding, economic advantages, international curriculum, research development, access to nontraditional places by providing education in countries that cannot support the learning systems on their own (Altbach and Knight, 2007). American and international scholars have addressed the advantages and the risks of Internationalization, they have constantly defined its rationale and components: academic mobility and Internationalization at Home.
As the definition of internationalization has been updated several times in the last 30 years, I have considered for this review, the institutions’ motivations to adopt such a policy in their strategic planning. I have also considered research that has reflected on views of domestic and international students who’ve been exposed to an internationalized curriculum at US campuses. The responses have centered on the following themes: financial and economic concerns, global recognition, international and intercultural competencies.
Key Words and abbreviations: Internationalization ( I) , Internationalization at Home (IaH), Comprehensive Internationalization (CI) , International Curriculum (IC) , International education Act (IEA) National Defense Education Act(NDEA), IIC ( International and Intercultural Competencies), MLA( Modern language Association).
Introduction:
Theoretical Framework for International Curriculum. Historical Background
Geiger (2015 ) in his masterpiece The History of American Higher Education. Learning and Culture from the Founding to World War II shows how American higher education, from the beginning of its formation, has been influenced by foreign philosophers, European higher education models and led by presidents who not only visited foreign institutions but infused teaching and learning methods with multicultural dimensions. [1] Therefore, International Education is not a twenty first century trend. However, Internationalization as a process was conceptualized and acknowledged after the Second World War (Smithee,2012). President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed National Defense Education Act (NDEA) into law on September 2nd, 1958. Title VI of NDEA assigned funding for language training and area studies to educate professionals for global political changes (O”Meara 2010). Fulbright Hays Act of 1961, supported educational and cultural exchange programs between US colleges and foreign institutions, through students and faculty mobility. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Higher Education Act of 1965 have supported women and minority students to enroll in college (Smithee, 2012 and O”Meara 2010). The NDEA, Fulbright’s Hays Act and the HEA were a reaction to geopolitical transformations, mostly the Cold War, which motivated the government to admit the necessity of having a curriculum in higher education that would address the nations’ policies on foreign affairs as well as integration of minorities and foreign students into the main stream society. The International Education Act of 1966 (IEA) was initiated therefore, not only to support exchanges with foreign students and teachers, but to bridge the cultural understanding gap and promote global peace.
International Education Act received great support in Congress, having John Brademas as the leader of the Task Force but it never turned into a law.[2] However, it did influence the initiatives and motivated the institutions to take the lead in having Internationalization as part of their mission statement. The IEA 1966 also has a Supplement, which was drafted by faculty and institutional leaders along with organizations and local communities’ practitioners. (Smithee,2012). The supplement reinforced internationalization of curriculum, educational exchanges and education for development.
International Curriculum as component of Internationalization at Home: the rise and the definition of terms
Internationalization is caused by globalization which is also influenced by geopolitical changes (Altbach,2004 in Altbach and Knight, 2007). Therefore, [its] definition is constantly changing according to political, socio-economic and cultural transformations that affect higher education regionally and globally (Pui Yee, 2015).
For the purpose of this review the accepted definitions of Internationalization at Home are provided by Knight, Watcher , Beelen and Jones , because they institutionalize the policy by proving that formal and informal curriculum have become a main module of Internationalization at Home . They have also enforced that IaH and Study Abroad are interconnected and not independent. Whether Study Abroad is a service provided by the home institution (faculty led programs, branch campuses abroad, exchanges) or through a third party, [it] is part of an internationalized curriculum, the home institution has to accommodate the participant students and S.A enhances international and intercultural competencies.
Problem Statement :
Internationalization at Home, having as a pillar international curriculum means something else for each institution (Knight,2008). According to empirical study reviewed here, International Curriculum is an ambiguous policy. Reasons of why to have an international curriculum are many times perceived the same as why to adopt Internationalization as a complex process. Further, Internationalization at Home has been coined as a relatively new term do define the on campus formal and informal internationalization activities and there have been noted common motivations for both, institutions and students, to support an internationalized curriculum. These motivations are: increase of financial resources, global recognition and international and intercultural competencies.
According to the literature review in the following chapter, the number of institutions who have adopted an international curriculum have increased since the IEA of 1966. Further, today’s activation of IC may be perceived as alienated from the initial rationale due to an individualized understanding of internationalization through the curriculum. International and intercultural competencies, global recognition and increase of financial resources, have been perceived as accurate motivations for both institutions and students in support of the development IC. Further, the adoption of international curriculum into the strategic planning, raises questions that target not only responses from institutions (presidents, provosts and senior administration) but also from domestic and international students enrolled in undergraduate and graduate programs, as well as doctoral programs. Are the desirable outcomes achieved and measured? Do institution increase their financial resources and do they receive global recognition? Do universities and colleges measure international and intercultural competencies? Having exposure to an internationalized curriculum are students more successful on the global job market? Are students more multicultural immersed? Is international Curriculum one and the same as Internationalization at Home?
Limitations of the Review:
Internationalization is a complex process, a policy set up by definitions, in which each institution through International Curriculum achieves Internationalization at Home independently. Therefore, the empirical study has been limited to independent case studies when it comes to students’ responses and very few to surveys from students across the country.
Many times, US higher education competency on international curriculum has been assessed in collaborative studies by international organizations. However, for the purpose of this review, the study conducted by ACE is used as the most reliable empirical resource to monitor the outcomes of an international curriculum at US colleges and universities. The rationale that supports this choice is that American education policy makers need to become aware of the limitations that exist in measuring institutional outcomes of international curriculum within the U.S higher education.
Another limitation is that only four-year colleges and universities are included in the review as well as responses from students seeking a four-year undergraduate degree, masters and doctoral degrees.
Empirical Review:
International Curriculum; Institutions’ responses
Today, curriculum is perceived as formal[3] and informal[4], both having the possibility of being internationalized ( Laesk, 2015, Beelen and Jones, 2015, Knight , 2004,2008, Altbach and Knight 2007) . Most of the universities and colleges in the review have understood international curriculum as having area studies, language studies, study abroad, international perspectives on teaching methods and assessments, international research, intercultural relations with local communities and intercultural activities within the home institution.
Every 5 years, American Council on Education, Center for Internationalization and Global Engagement, does a survey and issues a report on Internationalization of institutions of higher education in US. The report in 2017, Mapping Internationalization, which is fourth in line, gives an overview of why institutions adopt Internationalization in their strategic planning. [It] is known as the only comprehensive report on Internationalization of higher education in US and targets responses on behalf of institutions from Provosts, Presidents and Senior Academic Leaders. The survey had 13 main questions most of which had sub questions. The survey was sent out in February 2016 to 2,945 colleges and universities across nation and there was a nine months period allocated for responses. At the end of the nine months, only 39.5 percent were accountable responses from 1,164 institutions where 53 percent were from public institutions and 47 percent from private. The survey was a longitudinal project and it targeted specific areas of internationalization. Along with institutional commitment, administrative structure, partnerships, student mobility and faculty policies, curriculum and co- curriculum was targeted in the questions.The responses showed the internationalization of curriculum as a number 4 priority preceded by study abroad, international student recruitment, international partnerships, and followed by faculty development.
International and Intercultural competencies were measured through student learning outcomes and education abroad. International and or global student learning outcome has been reported in 64 percent of the institutions responding to the survey. Almost half of the institutions in the survey reported that courses with a global component are offered to students. Students could study about global concerns like health, environment and peace or regional specific socio-economic issues. Another aspect mentioned was mandatory foreign language studies. In this survey, 46 percent of the institutions reported that they had mandatory foreign language requirements for undergraduates and 17 percent mentioned having mandatory foreign language studies for all students. 57 percent of the institutions in the study have reported English as a second language as a student support for matriculated students.
Education Abroad is dominated by Study Abroad with an increase of even 45 percent. Internships, services and research abroad, have increased up to 19, 25 and 14 percent respectively. However, between 43 and 54 percent of institutions have responded that none of the education abroad services mentioned above are available to students.
Approximate half of the responded institutions have reported efforts on the internationalization of curriculum which was most referring to individual courses. Compared to the survey conducted by ACE in 2011, in 2016 more institutions are having an ongoing internationalization of curriculum at department, school and institutional level. However, there are certain fields that predominate in available options of courses with intercultural and /or global content like: business, social sciences, marketing and communications.
Co- curriculum activities like international festivals, language partners programs, special programs that facilitate integration of both domestic and international students in the academic life, or programs to reintegrate former study abroad students have increased from the 2011 survey.
Global recognition is not addressed in the survey as a defined outcome of internationalization. However, institutions responded that internationalization would help them be more attractive to students around the world. Technology therefore, has been admitted as an important tool in the internationalization of curriculum process. About 32 percent of the institutions responding, have admitted that technology is used for providing on line courses, help students study about global concerns like socio-economic transformations, health and climate change as well as correspondence with students and faculty from overseas, promoting academic partnerships and cultural exchanges.
The goal of increasing financial revenues through internationalization efforts and implicit international curriculum, has moved to a higher position than in the survey conducted in 2011 by ACE.
International Curriculum ;Students’ Responses
The literature review related to students’ responses, includes surveys of specific institutions and/or programs as opposed to cross national or regional studies. Soria’s and Troisis’s (2013) article however, comes to be the exception. The two have co-authored an article on a study they ran in nine large research universities around US, proving that international cultural competencies are achieved through international curricular and extracurricular efforts.
All other studies reviewed here, have addressed the same motivations as seen in the institutions’ responses. IIC, global recognition and increase of financial revenues have been explained by both international and domestic students according to personal views .Therefore, the three mentioned motivations that support international curriculum are not clearly separated in the students’ responses but they are more understood as a chain: if students are seeking ICC achievement, then they are seeking global academic and professional engagement , which may offer them global career opportunities with better paid jobs. However, the responses are consistent within two major groups of students: international students and domestic students.
International and Intercultural Competencies, were acknowledged by Salisbury (2011) as having two levels: individual and interactional. IIC are achieved through an internationalized curriculum but there’s no one curricular or extracurricular activity that has a greater impact on the outcomes (Salisbury, 2011; Soria and Troisi,2013). Some students find that Study Abroad help them develop a wide multicultural understanding, while other students think that on campus activities through formal and informal curriculum are more beneficial for achieving ICC (Salisbury,2011; Soria and Troisi,2013; Punteney,2012; Sample,2012Urban and Palmer,2013; Trice and Eun Yoo,20017) .
Urban and Palmer (2013) refer to Creswell’s (2008) cross sectional survey in a Midwestern university to show the discrepancy between domestic and international students perception on campus international activities. The interviewees were represented by international students enrolled in full-time bachelor, master and doctoral programs. However, the sample population was formed by international students, questions were formulated to address perceptions of domestic students on IC.[5] There were 249 accountable responses which represented 22 % of the targeted population. From a range of nine possible vigorous international activities, on a scale from 1 to 5 (where 1 is the lowest and 5 is the highest) only one showed a deviation higher than 3 in regards with engagement of international students. However, when surveyed for their desire to be engaged in international on campus activities, according to same criteria, international students’ responses showed 5 areas from 9 with a higher deviation than 3. In other words, international students appreciate the extracurricular international activities and see a potential achievement of IIC through such activities, while domestic students do not perceive the presence of international students as a main characteristic of internationalization at home. This outcome questions the domestic students’ interpretation on multicultural awareness. On the same note of domestic students’ awareness, Punteney (2011) ran a study on the campus of a Western U.S. public institution, that had 17,000 students enrolled at the time. The intention was to understand how the integration in the curriculum of an “International Career Exploration Module (Punteney, 2011) helps or not , domestic students to become more aware of global career opportunities. The sample group was of 91 students in three different classes: two classes were offered the international career exploration module(ICEM), one of these two classes was also exposed to an internationalized curriculum and the third class was not offered the ICEM and did not have an internationalized curriculum either. The students were interviewed at the beginning of the semester and at the end. The responses showed that by having an ICEM incorporated in the curriculum, students show more interest in international careers; interest supported by awareness on global opportunities. More importantly, students found that such a module helps them not only to acknowledge that there are cross-border career chances, but they also became aware on the whole process of how to approach these opportunities.
Smith (2007;Trice and Eun Yoo,2007; Mason, Eskridge, Kliewer, Bonifas, Deprez, Pallas and Meyer,1994) in their studies demonstrate the individualized perspective on international curriculum of both, international and domestic students.
Smith (2007) ran a study in a Midwestern US university for 8 international students enrolled in Literature Studies. The students were Sub-Saharan and they unanimously responded that for them, studying abroad in US, means international cultural competency achievement as well as a better socio-economic status after graduation. Employers from their home countries appreciate degrees from US and they consider the graduates as invaluable candidates for different jobs. The interviewees acknowledged that an international curriculum helped them adjust their studies to their home countries’ need. Trice and Eun Yoo (2007), on the other hand addressed student satisfaction through a survey in a Midwestern US University. They show that not all international students consider the curriculum internationalized enough to help them have successful careers after graduation. From 2001 students approached, only 497 responded where %77 confirmed that they would be ready to work in their home country but only %32 were willing to return after graduation. Same study shows that students enrolled in Business programs were more satisfied in general than students enrolled in other programs. Same outcome was notable in Siria and Troisi’s (2013) article. The domestic students who participate in Study Abroad for example are the ones who are interested developing multicultural skills in order to position themselves on the global job market and to improve their financial resources through international jobs.
Mason, Eskridge, Kliever, Bonifas, Deprez, Pallas and Meyer (1994) ran a survey in the Agriculture Department, University of Nebraska. The survey intended to test the international perspective on crop-production, international trade and market as well as future perspective on agriculture ( Mason, Eskridge, Kliever, Bonifas, Deprez, Pallas and Meyer ,1994). The survey was addressed to 277 students enrolled in the agronomy courses. The responses were individualized per concentrations. Students focusing more on marketing and trade as well as on the future of agriculture showed more interest in improving their international and intercultural skills and having a global awareness of what’s going on globally with the field of agriculture.
Discussion:
Both institutions and students have given individualized responses however, there’s a slightly difference between the perceptions of why IC should be adopted in higher education. While institutions consider from the start that internationalization of the curriculum positively affects increase of revenues and development of IIC competencies, students need to understand first the process of internationalization of curriculum.
Discussion on institutions’ responses
According to the theoretical framework and historical background of International Curriculum, International and Intercultural Competencies are achieved through formal and informal curriculum.
Mapping Internationalization shows to be the only reliable study that addresses internationalization as an ongoing process in US higher education (ACE, 2017). The results include internationalization of formal and informal curriculum renaming informal curriculum as co-curricular. However, most of the results show increases, there are no measurements on outcomes. The questions in the survey only target responses on the existence of international and multicultural component in courses as well as foreign language study options. The responses were that more courses with global content have been offered to students but there are no results on which of these courses have a greater impact on students, and how students improve their cultural competencies by enrolling in such courses.
In the ACE (2017) report, Education Abroad is admitted as an institutional effort of internationalization. More students have participated in study abroad and exchange programs or they’ve done internships or research in a foreign country. There’s no evidence on how education abroad has contributed to academic achievement and development of intercultural competencies.
There has been noted an increase enrollment in foreign language studies because foreign languages have become mandatory for graduation at many of the institutions in the study. However, according to the latest report from MLA, enrollment in foreign languages overall decreased between 2009 and 2013 ( Goldberg, Looney and Lusin 2013 in ACE, 2017) . The mandatory foreign language courses have favored some languages like Korean with an increase of 44.7 percent, Portuguese with 10.1 percent and Chinese with 2 percent. Spanish enrollment decreased in all institutions however, it remained the number one favorite language ( Goldberg, Looney and Lusin, 2013 in ACE ,2017) .
Global recognition is not a defined outcome of IC in the study. However, technology is one main area that shows how institutions achieve global recognition. Technology has been reported by most institutions in the study as a main tool of global communication. Used to facilitate courses on line, research development, connectivity with scholars and students overseas, as well as maintaining partnerships, technology supports U.S. universities and colleges to be reached by individuals, organizations, institutions and agencies from around the world. Technology therefore is used to support global recognition.
Financial revenues have been mentioned as a main goal for the internationalization but there’s no evidence of exact numbers and how international curriculum supports increase of monetary resources.
Discussion on students’ responses
According to Salisbury interpretation of ICC (2011), International and Intercultural competencies can be passive and active. Both modules are supported by an internationalized curriculum. However, having the passive module as one of the main components, IIC offers the option to each individual to customize their understanding and adoption of IC according to personal aims. For students therefore, it is not that important whether internationalization at home through international curriculum is a consistent policy among institutions across the country because they can opt for a college or university compatible with their individualized views on IIC. Students may look for an internationalized formal curriculum like international content, internationalized teaching methods and study abroad, while others may be interested in co-curricular activities like on campus international week, internships abroad, participation in international interest groups, community work within multiethnic neighborhoods.
Students in general, whether international or domestic as well as graduates and undergraduates, gave responses based on individual interests. There has been an obvious correlation between will of improving international and intercultural skills, if the students were seeking global recognition through the field of study and better socio-economic status through successful international careers after graduation. (Mason, Eskridge, Kliever, Bonifas, Deprez, Pallas and Meyer,1994; Smith,2007; Trice and Eun Yoo,2007). Punteney (2011) emphasized that if students were aware of international careers then they acknowledged the possibility of individual global recognition through an international career and therefore [they] needed international and intercultural skills achieved through international curriculum.
Conclusion and Future Implications:
As seen in this review, international curriculum has an historical background within the development of US higher education. The initial goals of IC mentioned in the IEA of 1966, have supported in the last thirty years the definitions provided by international scholars. Therefore, IC ended up in meaning something else for each higher education institution nationally and globally. There are notable common characteristics but there are no reliable measurements which makes difficult to understand the real purpose of International Curriculum. Further, there has been a notable difference between institutions’ responses and students’ responses in regards with IC. While institutions understand the need of internationalization of curriculum as a cross institutional process, students’ responses varied according to majors and programs, which proved once again that internationalization of curriculum has been perceived from an individualized perspective.
International and intercultural competencies, global recognition and increase of financial resources have represented the main reasons of having an internationalized curriculum today. There should be an evidence of how are they achieved through international curriculum.
More than one agency should be accountable for reviewing the policy of internationalization and international curriculum respectively. In spite of many definitions that have institutionalized International Curriculum, there’s no clear understanding of [its] components in the report conducted by ACE. Curricular and co-curricular activities within internationalization are a separate category than education abroad for example. However, both categories fall under the definition of international curriculum.
According to this review, International Curriculum is still on the development track and it needs a clear understanding whether it is a free-standing policy, a component of a larger process or whether Internationalization at Home is [its] today’ new label. IC has an historical background in US with accepted working definitions provided by international scholars. Therefore, future policies should really shape the policy of IC and customize it for US colleges and Universities.
Policy makers should also take in consideration the fact that students today have very personalized responses. According to this review personal perspectives on international curriculum are due to unknown. Many students do not know that there are cross border opportunities for them after graduation and the college or university they chose to attend may offer them the right education to individual global positioning through international careers. Further, many times international students are not seen as a source of internationalization at home because of the lack of knowledge of how the international population on a campus could be actively engaged in the process of Internationalization at Home.
Policy makers should therefore, consider the know what, know why and know how when formulating new policies. Know what students understand about international curriculum and what is done by institutions to develop an international curriculum. Also know why international curriculum should be an achieving goal in higher education and give guidance on how to achieve this goal.
REFERENCES:
Theoretical Framework
Altbach, Philip and Knight, Jane (2007). The Internationalization of Higher Education: Motivations and Realities. Journal of Studies in International Education 11 (3/4). Available at: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1028315307303542
Beelen, Jos and Jones, Elspeth (2015). Redefining Internationalization at Home. Chapter in The European Higher Education Area. Between Critical Reflections and Future Policies. Available at https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-319-20877-0.pdf
Geiger, Roger G. (2005). The History of American Higher Education. Learning and Culture from The Founding to World War II. Princeton University Press. Princeton, U.S.
Knight, Jane (2004). Internationalization Remodeled: Definition, Approaches, and Relations. Journal of Studies in International Education (8)1. Available at: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1028315303260832
Knight Jane (2008). Internationalization at Home, of the Curriculum and Learning Outcomes. International Association of Universities 2015, Sept 3rd. Available at:http://www.iau-aiu.net/content/internationalization-home-curriculum-and-learning-outcomes
O’Meara , Patrick (2010) Preparing for The Future :Title VI and Its Challenges. Chapter in International and Language Education for A Global Future. Michigan University Press available at : http:// www.jstor.org/stable/10.14321/j.ctt7zt4hx.19
Pui Yee, Chong ( 2013) : Internationalization of Higher Education: A literature Review on Competency Approach. International Journal of Asian Social Science ,2014 . Special issue : International Conference on Teaching and learning in Education, 2013 . PdF available at: http://pakacademicsearch.com/pdf-files/art/1/258-273%20Vol%204%20issue%202%20February%202014.pdf
Read, Gerald (1966) The International Education Act of 1966. The Phi Delta Kappan, 47(8) available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20371613
Smithee, Michael (2015) Finding Leadership for the Internationalization of U.S. Higher Education. Journal of International Education Leadership 2 (1) available at: http://www.jiwlusa.org/home
Teekens, Hanneke (2013). Internationalization at Home-Crossing Borders. University World News Global Edition Issue 276. Available at: http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20130613084529186
Empirical Research
American Council on Education, (2017). Mapping internationalization on US Campuses. Survey, 2016 . Center for Internationalization and Global Engagement. Pdf available at: http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Documents/mapping-2016-survey-instrument.pdf
Albers-Miller, N.D., Prenshaw, P.J., & Staughan, R.D. (1999). Student perceptions of study abroad programs: A survey of US college and Universities. Marketing Education Review 9 (1), Issue 1, 1999 p. 29-36. Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10528008.1999.11488657
Clarke Irvine, Flaherty, Theresa,B.; and Wright ,Newell, D (2009). Student Intercultural Proficiency from Study Abroad Programs. Journal of Marketing Education 31 (2) Available at: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0273475309335583
Department of Education (2014). Archived Information More than $63.3 Million Awarded to Colleges and Universities to Strengthen Global Competitiveness through International Studies and World Language Training. Retrieved October 2017 from US Department of Education https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/more-633-million-awarded-colleges-and-universities-strengthen-global-competitive
Helm, Robin M and Brajkovic, Lucia (2016). Data Analysis by Struthers, Brice Mapping Internationalization. American Council on Education. Center for Internationalization and Global engagement. PdF available at: http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Documents/Mapping-Internationalization-2017.pdf Written by
International Association of Universities (2014). Fourth Global Survey on Internationalization of Higher Education. Executive Summary available at http://www.iau-aiu.net/content/iau-global-surveys
Mason, S.C.; Eskridge,K.M.;Kliewer,B.; Bonifas,G.; Deprez,J.; Pallas Medinger C.; and Meyer,M.(1994). A Survey: Student Interest and Knowledge of International Agriculture . NACTA Journal.
Punteney, Katherine N. (2012) .International Careers: The Gap Between Student Interest and Knowledge . Journal of Studies in International Education. 16(4) 390-407. Retrieved October 2017 from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1028315311430354
Salisbury, Mark Hungerford (2011). The Effect of Study Abroad on Intercultural Competence among Undergraduate College Students. University of Iowa. Iowa Research on Line. PdF available at http://ir.uiowa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2458&context=etd
Sample, Susan (2012). Developing Intercultural Learners Through the International Curriculum. Journal of Studies in International Education. Available at: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1028315312469986
Soria , KristaM and Troisi, Jordan (2014). Internationalization at Home. Alternatives to Study Abroad. Implications for Students’ Development of Global, International and Intercultural Competencies. Journal of Studies in International Education. 18 (3) .First Published on line on August 21st, 2013 Retrieved October 2017 from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1028315313496572
Smith, Beatrice Q. (2007). Globalization and Desire: A Case Study of international Graduate Student Education in Literacy Studies. Journal of Studies in International Education 11 (1).
Trice, Andrea G. and Yoo ,Jin Eun (2007). International Graduate Students’ Perceptions of their Academic Experience. Journal of Research in International Education. Available at: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1475240907074788
Urban, Ewa L and Palmer, Louann Bierlein (2014). International Students as a Resource for Internationalization of Higher Education. Journal of Studies in International Education 18(4) Available at: from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1028315313511642
[1] Egs. like Daniel C Gilman president of John Hopkins, AndrewD. White president of Cornell
[2] IEA 1966 passed in the House and Senate but it died in the appropriation committee (Smithee,2012)
[3] Formal Curriculum “ The syllabus as well as the orderly, planned schedule of experiences and activities that students must undertake as part of their degree program ( Leask in Beelen and Jones, 2015)
[4] Informal Curriculum “ various support services and additional activities and options organized by the university that are not assesses and do not form part of the formal curriculum , although they may support learning within it”( Laesk in Beelen and Jones,2015)
[5] Questions from the survey were : 1.U.S. students asked me about my culture, 2.international perspective integrated into classes, 3.professors asked me about my culture, 4.Americans tried to learn about me and my culture;5.was part of a multicultural group for class project,6. Participated in cultural event to share about my culture;7. was asked to offer cultural perspective in the class 8.was invited as guest speaker to share aspects of my culture;9.was asked to be a language tutor.(Creswell, 2008 in Urban and Palmer 2013)
Like!! Great article post.Really thank you! Really Cool.