The 6th annual EURIE- Eurasia Higher Education Summit on 3-5th March 2021
The largest international education event in the Eurasian region, the 6th annual EURIE- Eurasia Higher Education Summit will be organized on 3-5th of March 2021 on a virtual platform.
EURIE 2021 will feature a virtual expo for networking, partnership and business development, as well as a conference dedicated to current issues in internationalization and higher education management. With 40+ panels and 120 expert speakers, participants have the opportunity to explore trends, best practices and innovative solutions in international education. Find out more on the Conference Program.
To network with universities from all over the world and to access the rich conference program, you can register as exhibitor here or as visitor here
We hope that you can join us at EURIE 2021 to share, ideate, innovate and help shape international education in the coming era!
10 learnings about international student mobility in and after the pandemic
Internationalisation doesn’t appear to be very international
The most successful scholars are those who reach out ‘globally’ by publishing in English. But this narrow ‘internationalisation’ should be challenged, says Hanne Tange...
Japan gives first COVID-19 vaccinations to Tokyo health workers
Transformation Contest winner shares her transformative experience
February 10, 2021 at 2:30pm
By Kamisha Kumarasri
Japan to start COVID vaccinations next week despite syringe shortage
Japan will start coronavirus vaccinations next week, Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga said Wednesday, but it is scrambling to secure suitable syringes so doses won't go to waste.
The country has reached deals with three major drug firms to buy enough vaccine doses for its population of 126 million.
But it has not yet announced a detailed roll-out plan for the jabs, less than six months before the pandemic-postponed Olympics begin.
The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is likely to become the first jab approved for use in Japan in the coming days, following domestic clinical trials required by the country's health authorities.
"When we have confirmed the vaccine's efficacy and safety, we will start vaccination by the middle of next week," Suga said.
Japan is trying to secure enough special syringes that can extract the full six doses from each vial of Pfizer vaccine.
More commonly used syringes can only draw five doses -- meaning the last one needs to be discarded.
The syringe problem could force the country to forgo enough Pfizer vaccine doses for up to 12 million people, local media estimated.
"At first, we will use the syringes that can draw six doses, but as we vaccinate many people, these will become scarce," Health Minister Norihisa Tamura said on Tuesday.
"We are working hard to secure the syringes. We are asking medical equipment manufacturers to increase their production," he told parliament.
Around 10,000 medical workers will be the first people vaccinated in Japan, with officials hoping to expand the rollout to the elderly from April.
Toshio Nakagawa, head of the Japan Medical Association, said that a lack of information about the vaccine campaign is causing confusion among medical workers.
But he said at a Wednesday press conference that medics are committed to the vaccination program, which he called "the most enormous undertaking, at a scale we have never experienced before".
The jabs "will let us be on the offensive, rather than just on defense", he added.
Going Global 2021
The conference for leaders of international education
Virtual conference, 15 - 17 June 2021
Japan to launch $96 billion university fund by March 2022
A ¥10 trillion government fund to beef up research at Japan’s universities and halt a slide in international rankings will start by March 2022, the Cabinet Office said Tuesday in documents clarifying the plan’s time-line.
Seed money will come from ¥4.5 trillion ($43 billion) in public debt financing and sales of government gold reserves, with funds growing over time to ¥10 trillion, according to the documents. Most of the total will likely be funded by government debt, although universities are being encouraged to try to raise some of the money themselves.
The fund’s investment guidelines along with its mid- to long-term goals will be determined by autumn.
Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga’s administration approved the plan last month to try to restore Japan’s standing in international academic rankings and bridge the funding gap between the country’s universities and those elsewhere.
In terms of top-level academic papers published, Japan fell to 11th in the world from 4th over the last two decades, according to the Cabinet Office.
Keio University, Japan’s most well-funded private school, manages a ¥73 billion endowment, a fraction of Harvard University’s roughly ¥4.5 trillion.
Systemic University Change Towards Internationalisation for Academia (SUCTIA)
Shifting culture is only possible through internationalising all groups of higher education stakeholders, only then can we truly talk about international universities. While many activities exist for internationalising students, and the predecessor project SUCTI concentrated on the administrative staff, SUCTI Academia now aims at empowering the third pillar, the academic staff, by better understanding how institutions can provide them with knowledge and skills that will support their university’s internationalisation process.
Period: September 2019–August 2022
SUCTI Academia (SUCTIA) is built on SUCTI, which was is a three-year initiative (2016-2019) approved for funding under the European Commission’s Erasmus+ – KA2 Strategic Partnerships for higher education focusing on the internationalisation of administrative staff. SUCTI has already shown that systemic change through trainings for administrative staff is a key to the success of the international university and the impact of this change has been measured and assessed.
Investments have been made in the internationalisation of academic staff in an attempt to increase their impact on more international research and publications, more internationalised courses, more international programs. However, in order to perform those international tasks, academics (scholars, researchers, teachers) need to have the right preparation, skills, knowledge and support. The aim of the SUCTIA project is to raise awareness and shift the internal culture of our institutions towards internationalisation, thus creating a systemic change in our institutions and in the European Higher Education.
Intellectual outputs and results:
O1: European report on systemic university changes towards internationalisation for academic staff in European Higher Education Institutions
O2: Development and design of the blended training materials for Train the trainers module
O4: Creation of a network of training experts in internationalising academic staff
O5: Design and development of the training materials for in-house trainings
O6: Report on the training significance of the training for skills and competences development
The EAIE contributed to the first output of the project, a report outlining the current state of affairs on existing in-house support and training offerings for academic staff. That report is available on the SUCTIA project website.
READ THE REPORT: https://suctia.com/2020/11/12/suctia-report-already-available/
ENHANCING GLOBAL LEARNING AND INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE THROUGH VE/COIL: LESSONS FROM THE FIELD
February 9, 2021
11:00 AM to 12:15 PM ET
Virtual Exchange (VE), including one of its most comprehensive forms, Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL), is an innovative educational model for providing students with global competencies that complement traditional forms of physical mobility and academic exchange. COIL involves developing and utilizing novel teaching approaches to foster online student and faculty collaboration. The COIL approach connects students and classrooms around the world through co-taught multicultural and blended online coursework that bridges physical distance. This webinar will feature examples of campuses around the world that are intentionally designing and implementing VE/COIL to meet student learning goals and outcomes. Please join us for a discussion with faculty and administrators as they reflect on their own professional VE/COIL practices and imagine new ways of approaching teaching and learning in the twenty-first-century classroom.
Sustainability rankings show a different side to higher education
Angel Calderon 09 May 2020
The Times Higher Education or THE Impact Rankings are designed to measure the extent to which universities are working towards fulfilling the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. The SDGs are not focused on higher education, but provide a shared blueprint for setting strategies that seek to improve health and education, reduce inequality and foster economic growth, while addressing climate change and working to preserve our oceans and forests.
Across the world, decision-makers and policy wonks have embraced the SDGs as a symbol of action and political discourse at times of uncertainty and increased inequality, and in the face of the many challenges we are confronting these days.
It also means that there are many people in professional services who are seeking to capitalise on the SDGs for consultancy, assessment and evaluation services. It is therefore useful to keep those mediating tensions in perspective so that institutions can fully address the SDGs and universities can distil their impact on society.
Last year THE inaugurated its Impact Rankings on how universities are meeting the SDGs.
This year’s edition, published in late April, includes 767 institutions from 86 countries which submitted data on at least four SDGs. Compared to last year there was a 38% increase in the number of participating institutions.
Expanding SDG coverage: From 11 to 17 SDGs
For this year’s edition, THE expanded coverage from 11 to all 17 SDGs. This means THE has developed 105 metrics and 220 measurements in total. This has been a significant undertaking on THE’s part. This is because the tier classification for global SDG indicators contains more than 230 measures.
The team at THE must be very pleased with the system they have developed over the past two years, but we also need to observe how THE addresses calls from experts regarding accountability.
There were 164 institutions globally (21% of all participants) which submitted data and evidence on all 17 SDGs. As observed last year, working on the submission for this ranking is a significant endeavour for institutions because of the copious amount of information required.
It also requires that those teams of individuals working on the submission are diligent, taking every care in compiling evidence and ensuring it is publicly visible on the web, as failure to do so means losing points and receiving an average result.
Unlike all other rankings, months of planning and preparation are the key to success for THE Impact Rankings, combined with optimal resourcing and the ability to work across functional groups, often with competing priorities. Unfortunately, institutions with fewer resources cannot afford full-on participation and need to moderate their expectations of how well they are likely to perform in this ranking.
Of the 164 institutions which were able to submit data on all 17 SDGs, 95 were from high-income economies, largely drawn from the East Asia and the Pacific and Western Europe regions. There were 124 institutions from lower middle-income economies which submitted data on at least four SDGs and which were therefore given an overall rank. Half of these submitted data for four to six SDGs.
Of the universities ranked in the global top 200, 82% were universities from high-income economies, primarily from the regions of East Asia and the Pacific, Western Europe and North America.
Half of the universities from Latin America are ranked in the 301-500 range, while most universities from the Arab states and the Central and East European regions rank outside the top 400.
This ranking, like all other schemas, highlights equity issues around performance and we need to emphasise that rankings need to be viewed in context, ideally not on a global but a regional basis.
There is no doubt that institutions participating in the THE Impact Rankings are equipped with invaluable information to benchmark themselves against other institutions on any SDG once the results are published.
There is a catch, though. In order to make optimal use of the results, institutions need to take a paid-up three-year subscription to THE’s dashboard which enables institutions to benchmark against others (regardless of their geography and standing) on any metric within the SDGs. Alternatively, THE publishes an online list of institutions ranking on every SDG, but it does not provide a breakdown by metric.
The results of the rankings can be used by institutions for a variety of purposes, for instance: harnessing awareness of the SDGs; developing a roadmap for ongoing improvement; embedding the SDGs in every facet of university activity; and ensuring university strategy aligns with the SDGs.
An alternative model for institutions which choose not to participate is to take the United Nations’ Tier Classification for Global SDG Indicators as a guide, adapt these for their own assessment and seek to partner with other interested institutions as part of an inter-institutional benchmark.
Leaving aside SDG 17 (on partnerships), which is the only compulsory SDG for institutions, there are some SDGs which attract more interest than others.
In both editions of this ranking, we observe that SDG 4 (quality of education), SDG 3 (good health and well-being), SDG 9 (industry, innovation and infrastructure) and SDG 5 (gender equality) have the greatest number of submissions from institutions. It is not surprising to see that the lowest number of participating institutions occurred in SDG 14 (life below water), SDG 15 (life on land) and SDG 6 (clean water and sanitation).
The selection of which SDGs to submit to THE in part reflects an institution’s profile, mission and discipline strengths. Geographical location also plays a part in the chosen SDGs.
For example, universities from Latin America were more prominent in SDG 1 (poverty), SDG 2 (hunger), SDG 3 (good health and well-being) and SDG 4 (quality of education), while European universities were less enthused about SDGs 1 to 3, but more prominent in SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth), SDG 16 (peace, justice and strong institutions) and SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production).
Year on year comparison
Any year on year comparison of the results needs to be treated with caution for the following reasons: firstly, the number of participant institutions increased by 211 (or 38%) from 556 in 2019 to 767 in 2020; secondly, the number of SDGs rose from 11 to 17, increasing the number of metrics ranked. Thirdly, there were some SDGs in which new measures were added, revised or weight redistributed.
Bearing in mind these methodological differences, we can see some institutions maintained their relative standing from last year to this year and there are some institutions which saw a rapid rise in their standing while some new entrants rocketed to the top.
In the first group, we see that New Zealand’s University of Auckland is overall ranked first for a second consecutive year and there are seven other institutions which maintain their rank among the world’s top 20.
They are: Western Sydney University (third, up from 11th), University of Bologna (sixth, up from ninth), University of British Columbia (seventh, down from third), University of Manchester (eighth, down from third), King’s College London (ninth, down from fifth), University of Waterloo (16th, down from 13th) and McMaster University (17th, down from second).
We also see that new entrants La Trobe University and Arizona State University (Tempe) rocketed to rank fourth and fifth, respectively. Meanwhile, the University of Sydney, which ranked 25th last year, ranks second this year and RMIT University moved from 82nd to 10th overall.
Comparison with THE World University Rankings
Of the institutions ranked in the Impact Rankings, 32% of them are not included in THE 2020 World University Rankings. Most of the World University Ranking institutions rank outside the world’s top 400 in the Impact Rankings. Only 82 universities can be found in the top 300 spots of both rankings.
So participation in the Impact Rankings seems to be a vehicle for gaining visibility at a global level for many.
The decision for many universities to participate in this ranking is also driven by the fact that research metrics weigh about 27% of the overall score, considerably less than the overall weight given in the World University Rankings.
Time will tell the degree to which institutional variability in the Impact Rankings continues to be prevalent. Let us hope institutions from middle-income economies see an improvement in their standing in the future.
Can study abroad advance antiracism in international HE?
Motun Bolumole and Nicole Barone 07 November 2020
Study abroad researchers and practitioners should be among the leading voices in conversations about institutional racism in higher education, particularly in the area of student development. Study abroad has long championed itself as a source for intercultural competency, staffed and researched by experts in this area, promising to make students more tolerant, understanding and aware by exposing them to the world and its people.
These outcomes should theoretically lead to students being committed to antiracism, justice and respect for all regardless of colour, creed or nationality. However, the very experiences of United States students of colour who study abroad, and the fact that discussion on the need for antiracism in the field is only now emerging, suggest that, in fact, the domain itself has a way to go when it comes to race.
Race and equity in study abroad
From the academic discourses that have dominated the field for decades to how students of colour access and experience programmes, study abroad has a race issue it needs to continue to contend with at a deeper level.
The underrepresentation of students of colour in study abroad is an ever-present topic of discussion. Yet, despite public commitments to increasing racial diversity in study abroad participation, particularly at predominantly white institutions, scholars and practitioners engaged in these efforts have traditionally done so in ways that overemphasise what students of colour lack in terms of navigating access to study abroad rather than holding accountable the systems that create and maintain these barriers.
It is no surprise then that efforts to diversify US study abroad programmes have been slow moving.
In the US context, study abroad across institution-led programmes and private providers is very much an extension of the higher education system as a whole, in which the unwillingness to acknowledge and address long-standing and deep-seated issues of race have amounted to the wilful neglect of people of colour within institutions.
Indeed, the experiences of students of colour who do study abroad challenge the very claim that students become more understanding, empathetic and less inclined to racial stereotyping through study abroad.
When Black students study abroad, they report that a significant amount of racism that they experience when away is perpetuated by their white peers, who represent 70% of all US study abroad participants. How do we reconcile this with the notion that students return from their experiences more willing and comfortable to engage with difference?
The language of diversity
In the book, On Being Included: Racism and diversity in institutional life, Sara Ahmed describes the varied discourse around the term ‘diversity’, including the multitude of ways in which diversity is operationalised – from its presence in equity and inclusion statements and marketing materials to how it is used to signal an organisation’s values and priorities.
This discourse extends beyond institution-wide declarations of diversity, equity and inclusion – permeating academic and co-curricular programmes. Study abroad is indeed an area where posturing has been employed as a substitute for the real work of advancing racial, economic and social justice. Beyond the symbolic language of ‘diversity’, ‘awareness’ and ‘understanding’ embedded in study abroad discourse (and marketing), little within the enterprise has explicitly sought to combat racism, xenophobia and other social issues.
Alternatively, antiracism takes aim at how the systems and structures in place act to uphold or oppose racism in the institution. It is a change-oriented philosophy that first demands continuous, ongoing, critical reflexivity and then an active commitment to choices that promote justice and equity. In order to shift into authentic antiracism work, study abroad must begin by interrogating the discourse around its policies and practices.
Addressing racial inequity
The language of institutional diversity is, by design, destined to fail to deliver what it promises. It is time to move beyond this disarming rhetoric toward an unequivocally antiracist, social justice ethic. In practice, the field can address how the status quo works to uphold inequity by:
• Continuing to diversify the field of study abroad and its leadership.
• Rejecting deficit narratives that blame students of colour for their underrepresentation in study abroad (for instance, due to their lack of financial, social or cultural capital) and assessing how institutional policies, such as grade point average minimums, can be exclusionary.
• Devoting resources to help students of colour study abroad. Underrepresented students of colour need more outreach, culturally responsive advising and financial support.
• Breaking the study abroad bubble that places outgoing students with US peers in US-styled classrooms and extracurricular activities, a model that does little to challenge students’ perspectives and views or truly raise their awareness of differences among peoples and cultures.
Most importantly, addressing racial inequity means embedding an antiracist curriculum into every study abroad programme for all students.
The curriculum should, among other things, help students reflect on their privileges and social position in the world; engage students with social justice issues in the host country; prepare students with tools to engage in the host country environment, academic culture and with the people; and have students reflect on how they might use their experiences in the service of others, particularly as leaders of antiracism work on their home campuses.
The need for more defined learning outcomes in study abroad is more crucial than ever. Any effort to transform students will need to be explicit, intentional and coordinated. While not comprehensive, the steps we have listed above to address entrenched racism and exclusion in the realm of study abroad are meant to begin a dialogue.
An opportunity for transformation
According to the Association of International Educators, approximately 341,000 students went abroad in the 2018-19 academic year, of which 30% were students of colour. Study abroad is uniquely positioned to lead antiracist education with students of all disciplinary backgrounds.
It can give students a ‘third space’ in which, removed from the context of US society, they have the room, both physically and mentally, to observe, experience and appreciate new and different ways of being and doing. Herein lies the real opportunity for transformation.
Motun Bolumole is a 2020 graduate of Boston College’s masters degree in international higher education. E-mail: email@example.com. Nicole Barone is a doctoral candidate of higher education at Boston College, United States. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org. This article was first published in the current edition of International Higher Education.
Virtual/Online Global Learning
Course Design and Instruction Workshop
These workshops engage participants in global learning strategies that they can easily implement across the curriculum and co-curriculum. Participants will explore FIU’s global learning outcomes and how these can be developed through interdisciplinary, problem-based approaches; active learning strategies; multi-perspective content; and, both traditional and authentic assessments. FIU faculty and adjuncts who participate may be eligible to receive a stipend* for attendance.
Date: Wednesday, February 17
Location: Virtual/Zoom Meeting (followed by fully online, asynchronous modules then a final, brief virtual end-of-workshop meeting)
*Time: 10:30a.m. – 1:00p.m.
*Note: Please feel free to hangout after the workshop to work on your syllabus or course proposal.
FIU COIL now offers COIL Design Workshops to faculty around the world in English and Spanish!
Your virtual exchange reading list: 7 resources to explore
Curriculum & Teaching, Policy & Strategy
Virtual exchange and Internationalisation at Home: the perfect pairing
By TANJA REIFFENRATH, EVEKE DE LOUW, EVA HAUG PANNEMAN
In the midst of the pandemic with the ensuing lockdowns, online platforms and digital tools have become our 'first aid kit’ to keep international education going and maintain international exchange. Virtual mobility and virtual exchange have appeared as a quick fix in times of closed borders – but are we really engaging in international virtual activities for the right reasons? In this blog post, we suggest a different take on virtual exchange: instead of relying on student mobility for internationalisation activities, we need to shift our gaze to what all students need.
Among the vast array of approaches to IaH, joint online activities hold the promise of transcending borders in a (seemingly) effortless fashion. Over the years, higher education institutions have thus engaged in various modes of cross-border online collaboration with the aim of internationalising their teaching and learning. With the sudden halt to physical mobility, a veritable surge in virtual activities can be observed.
These go by many different names, depending on the context from which they arise. Virtual mobility refers to students and academics in higher education using another institution outside their own country to study or teach for a limited time, without physically leaving their home. Although this allows for access to perspectives and knowledge not available on the home campus, it hardly enables intercultural dialog. Virtual exchange (VE), on the other hand, refers to sustained, technology-enabled, people-to-people education activities in which constructive communication and interaction takes place between geographically dispersed groups or groups from different cultural backgrounds, with the support of educators. VE combines the deep impact of intercultural dialogue with the broad reach of digital technology.
A match made in heaven
For higher education institutions, the pursuit of IaH through VE opens doors to new types of international partnerships with institutions in countries previously not considered for a physical exchange, for example due to conflict-ridden political situations. It can also be a means of establishing deeper collaboration with existing partner institutions. On the other hand, this is also a perfect occasion for university leadership to foster collaboration inside the institution: VE requires creating synergies between international officers, the specialists in the field of internationalisation and partnerships, colleagues in teaching and learning who have expertise in curriculum design, and IT specialists and instructional designers, who know the ins and outs of digital learning environments.
For teaching staff, engaging in VE can be a rewarding academic exercise when it comes to negotiating the content for the joint online format and widening the perspective and scope of teaching materials. This is particularly the case when virtual exchange is designed with the specific goal of critically considering Euro-centric approaches and drawing on non-Western perspectives. Virtual exchange does not need to be limited to one discipline; as a cross-border format, treading across disciplinary boundaries may be especially interesting, and indeed, many VE projects involve at least two different disciplines. Planning virtual exchange also encourages academics to explore the so-called ‘hidden’ curriculum and bring to the surface what is often only implicit: How do we usually teach in our local contexts? What do we commonly expect from our students?
For students, gaining direct access to another group of learners, rooted in different geographic and cultural contexts, helps them see how their subject is studied and taught at the partnering institution. The friction of different voices, languages, perspectives and learning styles in the VE classroom may be challenging at times, but with guided reflection, it will reveal to students the complexities of global linkages and show what has shaped their perspectives. Besides nurturing intercultural skills and understanding, VE lends itself well to integrating other key employability skills, such as working digitally in geographically dispersed teams.
The friction of different voices, languages, perspectives and learning styles in the VE classroom can reveal the complexities of global linkages
Designing virtual exchange courses
VE requires a careful and purposeful course design, the basis of which is a close and trustful collaboration amongst the partnering academics. The following tips can help you foster successful virtual exchange.
Recognise and guide the cultural learning of students. VE is a deeply intercultural experience and just as with physical student mobility, this cultural learning needs to be facilitated, guided and assessed. Careful formulation of international and intercultural learning outcomes helps students understand what knowledge and skills they will need to demonstrate and get the most out of their VE course.
Prepare students and lecturers for a VE experience. As VE opens the door to international collaboration opportunities wide open, we cannot assume that all students and lecturers are ready and sufficiently equipped to engage successfully with their international peers. Besides language skills, possessing a certain degree of intercultural preparedness is vital for establishing trustful collaboration.
Technology follows pedagogy. When planning and designing a virtual exchange activity, the question of which platforms and tools to use should not be decisive. Like in designing any learning activity, an outline of what students should learn should guide the search for an appropriate digital tool.
Pitfalls to avoid
As you're designing and implementing the course, be wary of some of the most common mistakes.
Lack of institutional vision and commitment to internationalise through VE: in practice, VE relies heavily on institutional champions as the driving force but without institutional commitment, VE will remain low-scale, incidental and dependent on individuals, denying many students access to an international experience at home.
Unequal access to hardware and internet: the massive disruption COVID-19 has caused in education has also exposed how unequal access to online educational delivery still is, even in affluent societies. That means that whilst VE is a powerful IaH instrument, we cannot solely rely on VE to internationalise teaching and learning. IaH requires a purposeful whole-of-the-curriculum approach.
Lack of investment in professional development and human resources: The speed with which new VE initiatives have been introduced during the pandemic calls into question their educational success and sustainability. Will they prove to be robust relationships with partner institutions? Have lecturers been allotted enough time for online creation and facilitation? Do we have enough instructional designers? In practice we witness that VE enthusiasts do give up after a period of time when efforts are not rewarded or supported.
The speed with which new VE initiatives have been introduced during the pandemic calls into question their educational success and sustainability
Rome wasn't built in a day, and a successful VE course can't be developed overnight, but with VE more relevant than ever before, it can be an essential tool to transition towards more comprehensive IaH and more equitable access to international experiences.
COIL Virtual Exchange Leadership Institute
April 5th-May 10th, 2021
This 6-week institute will bring together leadership teams from US and international higher education institutions to integrate Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL) Virtual Exchange into their curricula and internationalization plans.
The 6-week Institute will involve:
Six 90-minute synchronous “Information” sessions conducted over Zoom, with each session linked to a section of the Action Plan
Four 90-minute synchronous “Connection” sessions conducted over Zoom, with each session involving small group breakout meetings with Institute facilitators and breakout discussions with leaders from the field
Asynchronous institutional team planning between sessions
January 27th, 2021: Applications open
March 1st, 2021, Midnight EST: Applications due
March 8th, 2021: Notifications and final schedule sent to applicants
March 19th, 2021: Payment due