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

1. Korea’s Internationalization of Higher Education: Process, Challenge and Strategy Eun Young Kim University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Sheena Choi Indiana University – Purdue University Ft Wayne

2. China’s Drive for World-Class Higher Education Institutions (Project 211) • Globalization –different meaning to different people • engage v. disengage

3. 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) 

4. 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)

5. Process • Presidential Commission on Educational Reform (PCER) • Four specific task: • Training experts in international relations; • Increasing the number of international students in Korean universities; • Supporting Korean universities in their plans to building branch campuses abroad, and; • 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

6. 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)

7. The Study • Explore Korean universities’ interpretation and response to internationalization policy • Two Goals: • Understand general tendency involving Korean universities’ efforts to internationalize their campuses (which include their rationales, approaches, commitments, and outcomes) • 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)

8. Method • Survey – main method • 23 universities (100 staff members and faculty/administrators) • Interviews

10. Survey • 68 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)

11. 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).

12. 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) *

13. 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

14. Between Rhetoric and Substantial Objectives • Rhetoric plays an important part in conceptualizing the universities’ activities in its relation to internationalization (Scott 1998:11) • Survey • To advance academic quality (92.6%) • To enhance cultural understanding (85.7%); and • To educate students for world citizenship (83.7%) • Assumptions these stated objectives reflects a widely shared assumption that: • internationalization of HE is a “good” thing; • internationalization of HE would improve the quality of Korean higher education; and • 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.

15. Government and institutional rhetoric (i. e. human resource development, creating first-class nation etc.) – similar • Reflects Korean HE rhetoric influence of OECD, APEC

16. Actual Reasons for Adopting Internationalization • To accommodate the students’ need to gain advanced knowledge and foreign language skills for their successful careers (92.8%); • to enhance institutional reputation (87.9%); • to recruit students with better qualifications (87.9%); • to enhance Korean students’ understanding of other cultures (85.9%); • to receive better evaluations from the national government (78.9%); and • to attract more international students (70.0%).

17. 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

18. Institutional Approaches to Internationalization • Four major approaches to internationalization: • Activity; • Curricular development, faculty and students exchange programs, and joint research • rationale; • Mainly concerned with the purpose of internationalization (i. e. peace education, education for international understanding, and technical assistance) • Competency; • Develop new skills, attitudes, and knowledge in students, faculty, and staff • Process • Integrates an international dimension/perspective into the major functions of the institution (De Wit 2003)

19. Survey Results • increasing opportunities for students to meet and work comfortably with foreigners (89.9%) • producing graduates who are internationally knowledgeable and skillful (85.7%) • establishing partnerships with international higher education institutions(85.7%)

20. 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.

21. 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

22. 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