Korea’s Internationalization of Higher Education: Process, Challenge and Strategy

Eun Young KimUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Sheena ChoiIndiana University – Purdue University Ft Wayne

China’s Drive for World-Class Higher Education Institutions

(Project 211)

Globalization –different meaning to different people engage v. disengage

Fellow citizens:  Globalization is the shortcut which will lead us to building a first-class country in the 21st century.  This is why I revealed my plan for globalization and the government has concentrated all of its energy in forging ahead with it.  It is aimed at realizing globalization in all sectors – politics, foreign affairs, economy, society, education, culture and sports.  To this end, it is necessary to enhance our viewpoints, way of thinking, system and practices to the world class level….  We have no choice other than this.  (President Kim Young Sam, 6 January 1995, cited in Kim, S., 2000, p.1) 

The world is now advancing from industrial societies where tangible natural resources were the primary factors of economic development into knowledge and information societies where intangible knowledge and information will be the driving power for economic development.  The information revolution is transforming the age of many national economies into an age of one world economy, turning the world into a global village…. Diplomacy in the 21st century will center around the economy and culture.  We must keep expanding trade, investment, tourism and cultural exchanges in order to make our way in the age of boundless competition which will take place against a backdrop of cooperation.  (President Kim Dae Jung’s inaugural speech, 25 February 1998, cited in Kim, S., 2000, p. 1) 

Context

Definition Internationalization (kuk’gehwa) However, often the term globalization (Segyehwa) is interchangeably used to

referring internationalization as well

The focal point of national policy-making in all areas including the higher education sector Most expedient way to for Korea to become a first-class, developed country

Empathize the comprehensiveness of scope in its internationalization goal (espousing political, cultural, and social progress as oppose to narrow view of economic globalization)

Process Presidential Commission on Educational Reform (PCER)

Four specific task:1. Training experts in international relations;

2. Increasing the number of international students in Korean universities;

3. Supporting Korean universities in their plans to building branch campuses abroad, and;

4. Emphasizing Korean cultural identity through a variety of educational programs (PCER Report 1997:33)

YS administration - Not so successful Economic down-turn and ensuing IMF bail-out of the country’s economy

DJ administration – maintained most of the YS policy directions including Segyehwa policies

Under DJ administration Upgraded the Ministry of Education (MOE) to Ministry of Education &

Human Resource Development (MEHRD) Universities – following government initiatives went through self reform

under internationalization frameworks (e. g. academic level – courses offered in English have increased; student

exchanges and faculty research cooperation (aggressively) established)

The Study

Explore Korean universities’ interpretation and response to internationalization policy

Two Goals: 1. Understand general tendency involving Korean universities’ efforts to

internationalize their campuses (which include their rationales, approaches, commitments, and outcomes)

2. Whether any differences exist in their rationales, approaches, commitments, and outcomes within general tendencies (and if so, then what factors that condition the differences among universities)

Method

Survey – main method 23 universities (100 staff members and faculty/administrators)

Interviews

Survey68 items to explore multiple aspects of

internationalization (i. e. demographic information, the university’s stated goals and objectives, institutional motivation for internationalization, approaches, and policy adoption and implementation)

Lickert scale (1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=somewhat disagree; 4=somewhat agree; 5=agree; 6=strongly agree)

Open ended interviews (1-1&1/2 hrs)

External pressures on Korea: Economic and Political changes

(international trend) HE link to globalization Economic globalization intensified competitions in labor, trades, and

financial markets Neo-liberal ideology – manifested in the policies discourses of

international organizations such as WTO, OECD, and APEC. Need to develop skilled-labor, high-tech, and capital investment all of

which require quality higher education General Agreement on Trade in Service (GATS) resulting from

finalization of Uruguay Round (UR) added pressure on opening the Korean domestic market, especially in sectors like education, services and agriculture.

IMF administration End of YS & beginning of DJ (Economic woes – acceptance of IMF

administration).

Internal Challenges for Korean Higher Education

Rapid expansion since WWII (paralleled economic development and the popular demand for HE) Korea – now the highest postsecondary educational participation

rates (82%) Mixed blessing (participation rate went up, poor quality)

Demographic change Traditional importer of HE (coupled with GATS launching

education market opening—foreign academic institutions, ed. Training, distance learning (Altbach 2001) High educational trade deficit (more than $800 million dollars per year)

(MOHRD 2001) *

Cont’

Increased Student Mobility (3rd largest international student population in the US followed by China and India)

Faculty – traditionally free from the pressure of conducting and publishing research (reinforces the sense of faculty negligence in knowledge production, leading some to attribute this to the lower educational quality) Stake-holder demand HE to be more responsive to labor market

demand

Between Rhetoric and Substantial Objectives Rhetoric plays an important part in conceptualizing the universities’

activities in its relation to internationalization (Scott 1998:11) Survey

1. To advance academic quality (92.6%)2. To enhance cultural understanding (85.7%); and3. To educate students for world citizenship (83.7%)

Assumptionsthese stated objectives reflects a widely shared assumption that:

1. internationalization of HE is a “good” thing; 2. internationalization of HE would improve the quality of Korean higher

education; and 3. international cooperation would lead to increase cultural understanding of

other people Significant correlations found between these three items and variables

such as academic status, location, and governance styles.

Government and institutional rhetoric (i. e. human resource development, creating first-class nation etc.) – similar

Reflects Korean HE rhetoric influence of OECD, APEC

Actual Reasons for Adopting Internationalization

1. To accommodate the students’ need to gain advanced knowledge and foreign language skills for their successful careers (92.8%);

2. to enhance institutional reputation (87.9%); 3. to recruit students with better qualifications (87.9%); 4. to enhance Korean students’ understanding of other

cultures (85.9%); 5. to receive better evaluations from the national

government (78.9%); and 6. to attract more international students (70.0%).

Governance style, religious association – show no statistical significance

Institutional status, geographic location – displays similar correlations Elite institute “attracting study abroad students (quality

students)“ Different pool

Regional institute “increase enrollment” Recruiting students from abroad such as China

Institutional Approaches to Internationalization

Four major approaches to internationalization:1. Activity;

Curricular development, faculty and students exchange programs, and joint research

2. rationale; Mainly concerned with the purpose of internationalization (i. e. peace

education, education for international understanding, and technical assistance)

3. Competency; Develop new skills, attitudes, and knowledge in students, faculty, and

staff4. Process

Integrates an international dimension/perspective into the major functions of the institution (De Wit 2003)

Survey Results

1. increasing opportunities for students to meet and work comfortably with foreigners (89.9%)

2. producing graduates who are internationally knowledgeable and skillful (85.7%)

3. establishing partnerships with international higher education institutions(85.7%)

Commitments and Outcomes of Internationalization

Percentage of the budget allocated for internationalization affairs;

Number of staff members (including directors) in the office of international affairs;

Whether they have a rotated recruitment system for Chief Administrator of the OIA;

Whether they have a rotated recruitment system for the staff members of the OIA; and

Whether they have any training programs for the staff members of the OIA.

CONCLUSION

Unique patterns (government initiate) However,

Institutions seek to enhance institutional interests in a varying circumstances (in the face of changing demographics and steep competitions)

Result – different values and motivations of internationalizations are co-exist in Korean HE

These values affecting policy makers and administrators: Emphasize the intrinsic values of education and reflects the

idealistic view of internationalization Approaches and strategies of internationalization reflect market-

oriented forces

Cont’

Institutional status – most important indicator in differentiated adoption and processes of internationalization

status -- constantly significant factor that differentiate universities’ motivations, approaches, outcomes of and commitments to the internationalization.

In sum, the role of institutional status is instrumental in shaping the ways in which Korean universities understand, interpret, and approach internationalization