Curriculum Internationalization Subcommittee

Purpose: To explore the issues of:

1. Providing internationalized content for all students, engaging faculty in developing such content and assessing the effectiveness of that content.
2. Developing international development opportunities for all faculty and staff.

Members and Invited Guests: Members: Lisa Mahle-Grisez, Chair, Jared Cutler, co-chair, Christina Amata – eLearning, DeAnn Hurtado – Management/Marketing, Glen Lobo – Mathematics, Heidi McGrew – Communication, Charis Prokes – eLearning, Jenny Spegal – Allied Health

Members and Invited Guests:

Future Meeting Dates and Topics:

Findings/Observations to Date:

• Faculty may not be aware of what internationalization opportunities already exist.
• How can we challenge/change the prevailing notion that internationalization is limited to study abroad?
• How would Sinclair go about seeking possible opportunities for Faculty beyond what currently exists?
• The subcommittee examined majority of Ohio Schools along with major community colleges such as Valencia, Austin, Broward, etc. A summary of that research follows:
• Student Learning Outcomes:
  • Most institutions include global or international perspectives within the overarching institutional outcomes – much like Sinclair.
  • The extent to which assignments or assessments are aligned to these outcomes is not always clear. Many master syllabi had an inconsistent requirements structure. Assessment of outcomes is also unclear.
  • Few programs at institutions require learning goals associated with global dimensions; the learning goals most often related to programs that already have an international focus.
  • Most institutions appear to equate internationalization with diversity and inclusion – despite our charge to disconnect these two areas at Sinclair.(?)
  • Evidence of faculty and staff perception of global/international learning is almost non-existent.
  • Ohio State University has a simple matrix explaining general education global student learning outcomes.
• Course Content and Pedagogy
  • Most institutions offer courses with a global or international focus – though many institutions emphasizing reduced time to completion greatly places these courses on back burner or removed from paths
  • Most institutions offer courses that integrate U.S. multicultural issues – such as sociology.
  • Opportunities for internationally focused research often include study abroad programs or working with sister institutions. Graduate students often accompany faculty on research trips if it is an option.
  • Courses foster experiential learning opportunities at nearly all institutions – though the connection to an international perspective is often unknown
• Academic Policies and Requirements
  • Departmental requirements address international learning requirements through course requirements (i.e., taking a focused course or course path).
  • Education abroad is an option, not a requirement.
  • General education at most institutions requires an international or global content.
  • Language requirements generally exist only in focused programs (i.e., International Business, ESL, Foreign Languages).
  • Encouragement is present though often not a common occurrence due to completion efforts.
  • Oberlin College (Languages Across the Curriculum) has done work in this area since 2005 and requires that language learning permeate the curriculum in all programs.
• Co-Curriculum
  • Almost all institutions examined have an international office or the like that promotes events, hosts speakers and guest, etc.
  • Almost all institutions provide co-curricular events to promote and integrate U.S. multicultural issues, though often under the banner of diversity and equity.
  • Some institutions - like Sinclair – are in process of tying learning outcomes for its co-curricular activities. Did not find evidence of any institutions offering co-curricular transcripts or certificate programs.
• Student Interest in Global Learning
  • Not able to locate much research on student interest in global learning nor enrollment levels in such courses.

Data/Information Needed:

• Examine sample learning outcomes from large enrollment courses
• Determine what classes already exist that are measuring internationalization
• Arrange a site visit or conference call with institutions that have developed internationalized curriculum to determine how teaching styles and pedagogy incorporate differing perspectives.
• Survey faculty to determine what percentage of faculty would be interested in traveling and/or internationalizing the curriculum; survey by division

Preliminary Recommendations:

• Benchmark with other community colleges and four-year institutions in regard to internationalizing the curriculum.
• Compile a vetted set of global learning outcomes to share with faculty and perhaps incorporate into eLearn.
• Compile pedagogical strategies like COIL and share those with faculty.
• Determine and quantify the resources that would be required for faculty professional development in “internationalization.” Explore how to leverage the CTL and other entities (such as sister colleges) for faculty and staff internationalization; train faculty on pedagogical strategies.
• Add toolkit-type ideas to specifically address internationalizing the curriculum to eLearn shells.
• Create fall faculty professional development activities around internationalizing the curriculum.
• Develop rubric and or criteria for determining whether a course is international; operationalize the rubric.
• Determine which classes already use the CDCG general education outcome and gain understanding of the previous assessment of these outcomes.