USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Global leadership in higher education administration :

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Global leadership in higher education administration : perspectives on internationalization by university presidents, vice-presidents and deans
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Sullivan, Janice
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Chief Academic Officers
Colleges
Global Competiveness
Globalization
Internationalization
Study Abroad
Dissertations, Academic -- Higher Education Administration Educational Tests and Measurements Educational leadership -- Doctoral -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Summary:
ABSTRACT: The purpose of the study was to identify international university administrators' perspectives on organizational strategies to support higher education internationalization. Internationalization is the conscious effort to integrate international, intercultural, and global dimensions into the ethos and outcomes of higher education (NAFSA, 2008). A descriptive survey design method was used and the instrument entitled "Strategic Internationalization Priority Scale" was developed for this research. This study is quantitative and cross-sectional. The online survey was sent to 1,043 top university administrators at 149 universities in 50 countries. These universities had active international agreements with the University of South Florida at the time of the study. Approximately 350 university presidents, vice-presidents, and deans, from 33 countries, and 65 universities, participated in the study. ANOVA, MANOVA, and Multiple Regression analyses were used to examine data in the three dimensions of internationalization: 1) Planning and operations, 2) Student Education, and 3) Teaching and Faculty Development. The statistical programs used for data analysis were SAS 9.2, SPSS 18.0 and Mplus 5. In general, the study participants perceived the three dimensions as having a medium priority level. Planning and operation strategies, and student education strategies, were rated higher than those for teaching and faculty development. Four of the 34 strategies were perceived as having a high priority level: 1) Motivating students to participate in study abroad programs, 2) Establishing institutional collaboration with foreign universities, 3) Communicating an institutional global vision, and 4) Increasing visibility of international focus on institution's web site. In contrast, the following strategies were perceived as having a low priority level: 1) Creating a branch campus abroad, and 2) Considering foreign language fluency in salary and promotion decisions. The research findings revealed that there were differences in perceptions based on the following demographic characteristics: 1) Institutional description, 2) Institution's world region, 3) Institutional status, 4) Number of international undergraduate students, 5) Administrators' position, 6) Administrators' English proficiency, and 7) Administrators' International experience. Furthermore, the participants identified the following top difficulties in achieving internationalization at their institutions: 1) Lack of economic resources, 2) Lack of faculty involvement, 3) Lack of planning and coordination, and 4) Lack of governmental support. The implications of these results are presented as they relate to the research and practice of higher education administration, educational leadership and policy development.
Thesis:
Disseration (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2011.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Janice Sullivan.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 409 pages.
General Note:
Includes vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0004848
usfldc handle - e14.4848
System ID:
SFS0028115:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

Global Leadership in Higher Education Administration: Perspectives o n Internationalization by University Presidents, Vice Presidents and Deans b y Janice Sullivan A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the de gree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Adult Career and Higher Education College of Education University of South Florida Major Professor: William Young, Ed.D. Donald A. Dellow, Ed.D. Donna Elam, Ed.D. Robert Dedrick, Ph.D. Date of Approval: Janu ary 14, 2011 Keywords: globaliz ation, globalism, study abroad chief academic officers, global competiveness, international affairs, global student mobility, branch campuses, colleges, countries, educational policy Copyright 2011 Janice Sulliva n

PAGE 2

Dedication I dedicate this dissertation to my husband, Mike Sullivan. You have been a source of strength and motivation throughout my graduate studies. The completion of this dissertation is a great demonstration of your limitless support and enthusias m.

PAGE 3

Acknowledgments I would like to express my gratitude and appreciation to those who assisted me in successfully completing this dissertation. Thanks to Dr. Linda Robertson at Kent State University for assisting in the development o f the research instrument. Special thanks to Dr. Maria Crummett in International Affairs at the University of South Florida for providing me with the resources to find the sample for this study. I am especially indebted to Vickie Hall, Donna Hutchison and Mary Ann Robertson for your writing guidance. I would like to thank my doctoral committee, Dr. Young, Dr. Dellow, Dr. Elam and Dr. Dedrick for your outstanding dedication and support during this process. I want to extend my gratitude to those who inspired me during my doctoral studies, especially my family for your unconditional love and encouragement. I am very thankful to the College of Education and the Graduate School staff at the University of South Florida for all the assistance given. Finally, I wou ld like to thank Dr. Janet Hugo and the whole community at the Arkansas School for Mathematics, Sciences and the Arts for your exceptional support.

PAGE 4

i Table of Contents List of Tables ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... v List of Figures ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... x Abstract ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. x ii Chapter One: Introductio n ................................ ................................ ................. 1 Statement of the Problem ................................ ................................ ........ 1 1 Purpose of this Study ................................ ................................ ............... 1 2 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ................ 1 6 Significance of the Study ................................ ................................ ......... 1 6 Definition of Terms ................................ ................................ ................... 17 Chapter Two: Review o f Literature ................................ ................................ 19 Globaliza tion and Internationalization ................................ ...................... 19 Internation alization of Higher Educati on ................................ .................. 21 Faculty Internationalization ................................ ........................... 23 Curriculum Internationalization ................................ ...................... 25 Student Competencies and Academic Mobility ............................. 2 6 Institutional Culture ................................ ................................ ....... 29 Ben efits of Internationalization ................................ ...................... 32 Internationalization of Higher Education Worldwide ................................ 35 North Ame r ica: United States and Canada ................................ ... 36 Europe ................................ ................................ .......................... 40 Asia: Particularly China ................................ ................................ 41 Australia ................................ ................................ ........................ 42 Latin America ................................ ................................ ................ 4 2 Africa ................................ ................................ ............................. 43 How Internationalized are Universities ? ................................ ................... 44 Assess ment of Internationalization ................................ ................ 45 Administrative Leadership in Higher Education ................................ ....... 47 What Research Tells Us ................................ ............................... 48 Barriers to Internationalization, Risks, a nd Negative Views ..................... 50 Need for Additional Research ................................ ................................ .. 5 3 Conceptual Framework ................................ ................................ ............ 5 3 Sum mary of the Literature Review ................................ ........................... 55

PAGE 5

ii Chapter Three: Methods ................................ ................................ .................. 56 Design of the Study ................................ ................................ .................. 56 Instruments ................................ ................................ .............................. 57 Strategic Internationalization Priority Scale : Development and I nitial V alidation. ................................ ................................ 57 What the I nstrument M easure s ................................ ..................... 59 Survey Item Development and Validity Pool ................................ 60 Item S pecification ................................ ................................ .......... 63 Scoring ................................ ................................ .......................... 64 Missing D ata ................................ ................................ ................. 65 Validity Evidence Conte nt and Content Validity ......................... 6 5 Factor Analys e s ................................ ................................ ....................... 67 Results from Factor Analyses in the Pilot Study ............................ 68 Results from Factor Analyses in the Dissertation Study ................ 69 Reliability E vidence ................................ ................................ ....... 73 Reliability E vidence from P ilot S tudy ................................ ............. 73 Reliability E vidence from D issertation S tudy ................................ 75 Research Participants ................................ ................................ ... 7 6 Population and Sample Population ................................ ............... 7 7 Collection of Data ................................ ................................ .......... 79 Variables ................................ ................................ ....................... 79 Test/Item Bias and Ethical Issues Ethical Issues Related to Human Participation ................................ ................................ 81 Diversity Issues ................................ ................................ ............. 81 Characteristi cs, Limitations and Delimitations of the Study ........... 82 Analysis of Data ................................ ................................ ............ 8 3 ................................ ................................ ........... 8 3 Chapter Four: Results ................................ ................................ ...................... 8 4 Demographics Charac teristics of the Participants ................................ ... 84 Demographic Characteristics of the Participating Institutions .................. 86 Demographic Character istics of the Participating Administrators ............ 92 Results for Research Questions ................................ .............................. 9 5 Analysis for Research Question 1 ................................ ................. 9 5 Dimension 1: Planning and Operation Strategies by Inst itutional Description ................................ .......................... 100 Dimension 2: Student Education Strategies by Institutional Description ................................ .......................... 106 Dimension 3: Teaching and Faculty Development Strategies by Institutional Description ................................ ..................... 111 Ana lysis for Research Question 2 ................................ ............... 1 16 Ana lysis for Research Question 3 ................................ ............... 12 3 Analysis for Research Question 4 ................................ ............... 1 28 Analysis fo r Research Question 5 ................................ ............... 1 3 4 Subscale 1 Planning and Operation Strategies ........................ 1 34 Subscale 2 Student Education Strategies ................................ 1 3 8

PAGE 6

iii Subscale 3 Teaching and Faculty Development Strategies ................................ ................................ ............... 1 41 Analysis for Research Question 6 ................................ ............... 1 44 Results of Multiple Regression for Administrative Planning and Operation Strategies ................................ ....................... 1 4 5 Results of Multiple Regression for Student Education Strategies ................................ ................................ ............... 1 46 Results of Multiple Regression for Teaching and Faculty Development Strategies ................................ ........................ 1 4 7 Additional Findings : Main Difficulties for Achieving Internation al ization ................................ ................................ ........... 1 48 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ..................... 1 5 4 Chapter Five: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations ................. 1 5 6 Priority Level of Planning and Operation Strategies for Internationalization ................................ ................................ ........... 1 60 Institutional D escription ................................ ............................... 161 World R egion ................................ ................................ .............. 162 P osition ................................ ............................... 162 Institutional Status ................................ ................................ ....... 163 Number of International Undergraduate Students ....................... 164 E xperience ................................ ..... 165 Implications of Findings for Planning and Operations Strategies a nd R ecommendations for Practice 1 6 6 Priority Level of Student Education Strategies for Internationalization ... 168 Institutional D escription ................................ ............................... 168 World R egion ................................ ................................ .............. 170 P osition ................................ ............................... 170 Institutional S tatus ................................ ................................ ....... 170 Number of International Undergraduat e Students ....................... 170 P roficiency ................................ ............. 171 I nternational E xperience ................................ ..... 171 Implications of Findings for S tudent Education Strategies and Recommendations for Practice ................................ .............. 17 1 Priority Level of Teaching and Faculty Development Strategies for Internationalization ................................ ................................ ........... 173 Institutional D escription ................................ ............................... 173 World R egion ................................ ................................ .............. 174 P osition ................................ ............................... 175 Institutional S tatus ................................ ................................ ....... 175 L anguage P roficiency ............................ 176 I nternational E xperience ................................ ..... 176 Imp lications of Fi ndings for Teaching and Faculty Development Strategies and Recommendations ` f or Practice ................................ ................................ ............. 1 76

PAGE 7

iv Similarities To and Differences F rom Findings .................. 1 77 Main Difficulties for Internationalization and Recommendations f or Pract ice ................................ ................................ ............................ 18 1 Conclusions and Recommendations for F urther R esearch .................... 184 Summary ................................ ................................ ............................... 186 References ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 187 Appendices ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 193 Appendix A: Instrument Strategic Internationalization Priority Scale ................................ ................................ ........... 19 4 Appendix B: Certificate of Completion of Human Participant Protections (IRB) ................................ ......................... 197 Appendix C: IRB Exempt Certification for the Study ............................. 198 Appendix D: E mail I nvitation to Survey Participants ............................ 200 Appendix E: E Mail Remind er Invitation to Participate i n Survey ........ 201 Appendix F: Permission to use the Higher Educ ational Presidential Global Leadership Survey ................................ .......... 202 Appendix G : Higher Educational Presidential Global Leadership Survey ................................ ................................ ......... 204 Appendix H: Validity Evidence ................................ .............................. 208 Appendix I: Reliability Evidence for the Strategic Internationalization Prior ity Scale (SIPS) .................... 21 8 Appendix J: Descriptive Statistics and Frequencies for Subscale 1 Planning and Operation Strategies ............................. 2 2 9 Appendix K: Descriptive Statistics and Frequencies for Subscale 2 Student Education Strategies ................................ ...... 23 7 Appendix L: D escriptive Statistics and Frequencies for Subscale 3 Teaching and Faculty Development Strategies ........... 24 3 Appendix M: Statistical Analysis from SAS for Research Question 1 .... 2 4 9 Appendix N: Statistical Analysis from SAS for Research Question 2 .... 28 3 Appe ndix O : Statistical Analysis from SAS for Research Question 3 .... 29 7 Appendix P : Statistical Analysis from SAS for Research Question 4 .... 31 0 Appendix Q : Statistical Analysis from SAS for Research Question 5 Statistical Factorial Analysis of Variance by Position and Region ................................ ................................ .. 32 2 Appendix R : Statistical Analysis from SAS for Research Question 6 .... 3 5 8 A bout the Author ................................ ................................ ................... End Page

PAGE 8

v List of Tables Table 1 International Student Recruitment Strategies among the Top Five Destination Countrie s ................................ ............................ 29 Table 2 Quantitative Measurement Approach to Internationalization ......... 46 Table 3 Characteristics of an Internationalized Institution .......................... 61 Table 4 Teaching and Faculty Development Subscale Scoring Sampl e ................................ ................................ .......................... 64 Table 5 Example of Composite Score for the Teaching and Faculty Development Subscale ................................ ................................ 65 Table 6 Research Study Rotated Factor Matrix ................................ ......... 70 Table 7 Factor Analysis Total Variance Explained For Dissertation Study 71 Table 8 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Tests of Model Fit From MPlus .... 72 Tab le 9 Cronbach Alpha Reliability Estimate for Pilot Study of the Strategic Internationalization Priority Scale (N=92) ....................... 7 3 Table 10 Confidence Intervals for Reliability Estimates of the Strategic Internationalization Priority Scale (N=92) ................................ ...... 74 Table 11 Final Cronbach Alpha Reliability Estimate for the Strategic Internationalization Priority Scale ................................ .................. 75 Table 12 Final Confidence Intervals for Reliability Estimates of the Strategic Internationalization Priority Scale ................................ ... 76 Table 13 Target Population by R egion ................................ ......................... 78 Table 14 Descriptive Statistics for Research Response Population Sample ................................ ................................ .......................... 85

PAGE 9

vi Table 15 Chi Square Goodness of Fit Test Statistic for Specified Proportions ................................ ................................ .................... 8 5 Table 16 Confidence Intervals for Proportions: Research Sample of 349 86 Tab le 17 List of Identified Universities Participating in the Study ................. 8 6 Table 18 Descriptive Statistics for Institutional Status ................................ .. 88 Table 1 9 Descriptive Statistics for Type of Institution ................................ ... 88 Table 20 Number and Percentages of Participants by Country ................... 89 Tab le 21 Number of International Undergraduate Students at the Participants Institution ................................ ................................ ... 90 Table 2 2 Number of International Graduate Students at the Participants Institution ................................ ................................ ... 9 0 Table 23 Descriptive Statistics of Institutional Size by Total Number of Students ................................ ................................ ........................ 91 Table 24 Internationalization Level ................................ .............................. 92 Table 25 ....... 92 Table 26 ....... 93 Table 27 Descriptive Statistics for Years of Experience in Higher Education Administration ................................ .............................. 93 Table 28 Descriptive Statistics for Age Groups of Participants .................... 93 Ta ble 29 Descriptive Statistics for Gender ................................ ................... 94 Table 30 Descriptive Statistics for Engl ish Language Proficiency ................ 94 Table 31 Descriptive Statistics for International Experience ........................ 95 Table 32 Perceptions of Priority Level For Planning and Operation Strategies ................................ ................................ ...................... 96 Table 33 Perceptions of Priority Level for Student Education Strategies ..... 97

PAGE 10

vii Ta ble 34 Perceptions of Priority Level for Teaching and Faculty Development Strategies ................................ ................................ 97 Table 35 Internationalization Level ................................ .............................. 99 Table 36 Number .... 99 Table 37 Perceptions of Planning and Operation Strategies Based On ................................ .......... 100 Table 38 Single Factor ANOVA for Planning and Operation Strategies By Institutional Description ................................ .......................... 104 Table 39 Tukey Statistical Test for Planning and Operations ................................ ........... 105 Table 40 Perceptions of Student Education Strategies f or Internationalization Based o Internationalization Level ................................ ............................ 106 Table 41 Single Factor ANOVA for Perceived Priority Level of Student Education Strategies for Internationalization b y Institutional Description ................................ ............................... 109 Table 42 Tukey Statistical Test for Student Education Subscale by ................................ ............................... 110 Table 43 Perceptions of Teaching and Faculty Development Strategies f or Internationalization Based o Internationalization Level ................................ ............................ 111 Table 44 Single Factor ANOVA for Perceived Priority Level of Teaching and Faculty Development Strategies for Internationalization by Institu tional Description ...................... 115 Table 45 Tukey Statistical Test for Teaching and Faculty Development ................................ ........... 116 Table 46 Perceptions of Planning and Operation Strategies for Internationalization ................................ ................ 117 Table 47 S ingle Factor ANOVA for Planning and Operation Strategies by Region ................................ ................................ .................... 118

PAGE 11

viii Table 48 Tukey Statistical Test for Planning and Operations Subscale by Region ................................ ................................ .................... 119 Table 49 Perceptions of Student Education Strategies f or Internationalizat ion ................................ ................................ 124 Table 50 Single Factor ANOVA for Perceived Priority Level of Student Education Strategies for Internationalization ............................... 12 5 Table 51 Tukey Statistical Test for Student Education Subscale by Region ................................ ................................ ......................... 125 Table 52 Perceptions of Tea ching and Faculty Development Strategies for Internationalization .......................... 129 Table 53 Single Factor ANOVA for Perceived Priority of Teaching and Faculty Development Strategies for Internationalization ............. 130 Table 54 Tukey Statistical Test for Teaching and F aculty Development Subscale by Region ................................ ................................ .... 131 Table 55 MANOVA Procedure for Planning and Operation Strategies From SAS ................................ ................................ ................... 135 Table 56 MANOVA Summary Table for Planning and Operations ............. 136 Table 57 Means for Planni ng and Operation Strategies By Region/ Position ................................ ................................ ........... 137 Table 58 MANOVA Procedure for Student Education Strategies From SAS ................................ ................................ ................... 138 Table 59 MANOVA Summary Table for Student Education ....................... 139 Table 60 Means for Student Education Strategies by Region/Position ...... 140 Table 61 MANOVA Procedure for Teachi ng and Faculty Development Strategies from SAS ................................ ................................ .... 14 2 Table 62 ANOV A Summary Table for Teaching ................................ ........ 14 3 Table 63 Means For Teaching and Faculty Development Strategies By Region/Position ................................ ................................ ........... 14 4 Table 64 ANOVA Table for the Regression Analysis of Planning and Operations ................................ ................................ .................. 14 6

PAGE 12

ix Table 65 Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis with Planning and Operation Variable s ................................ ................................ .... 146 Table 66 ANOVA Table for the Regression Analysis of Student Education ................................ ................................ .................... 14 7 Table 67 Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis with Student Education Variable s ................................ ................................ .... 147 Table 68 ANOVA Table for the Regression Analysis of Teaching and Faculty Development ................................ ................................ .. 14 8 Table 69 Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis with Teaching and Faculty Devel opment Variable s ................................ ................... 148 Table 70 Top Difficult ies fo r Internationalization ................................ ........ 149 Table 71 Top Difficulties for I nternati onalization by R egion ....................... 152 Table 72 Top Difficulties for Internationalization by Institutional Description ................................ ................................ .................. 153 Table 73 Summary of Significant Differences for Institutional Character istics ................................ ................................ ............ 159 Table 74 Characteristics ................................ ................................ ............ 159 Table 75 Fa culty Membership by Position ................................ ................. 163 Table 76 Institutional Status by Internationalization Level .......................... 163 Table 77 Number of International Undergraduate Students by Region ...... 164 Table 78 Number of International Undergraduate Students by Internationalization Level ................................ ............................ 165 Table 79 International Experience by Institutional Status .. 16 5 Table 80 International Experience by Posit ion .................. 1 6 6

PAGE 13

x List of Figures Figure 1 Categories of Internationalization at the Institutional Level ........... 13 Figure 2 Higher Education Internationalization at the World Level .............. 14 Figure 3 International Post Secondary Student Enrollments in the Top Five Destination Countries ................................ ............................ 28 Figure 4 Trends in International Enrollments ................................ ............... 28 Figure 5 Conceptual Framework for Higher Education Internationalization ................................ ................................ ........ 54 Figure 6 University Stakeholders and Internationalization Dimensions ....... 5 5 Figure 7 Internationalizatio n Constructs and Relationships ......................... 60 Figure 8 Summary of Critical Literature for Instrument Development .......... 61 Figure 9 Constructs and Number of Items ................................ ................... 64 Figure 10 Content Validation Timeline ................................ .......................... 66 Figure 11 Strategic International Priority Scale Factor Model Diagram ...... 68 Figure 12 Hierarchical Structure of Target Population ................................ .. 77 Figure 13 Graph o f t he Cell Means Obta ined for Planning and Operation Strategies b y Region/Position ................................ ..................... 137 Figure 14 Graph of t he Cell Means Obtained f or Student Education Strategi es by Region/Position ................................ ..................... 14 1 Figure 15 Graph of the Cell Means Obtained f or Teaching a nd Faculty Development Strategies b y Region/Position ............................... 144 Figure 16 Top Difficulties for Internationalization ................................ ........ 1 50 Figure 17 Top Difficulties for Internationalization b y Region ....................... 15 3

PAGE 14

xi Figure 18 Top Difficulties for Internationalization by Institutional Description ................................ ................................ .................. 15 4

PAGE 15

xii Abstract The purpose of the study was to identify international university on organizational strategies to support higher education internationalization. Internationalization is the conscious effort to integrate international, intercultural, and global dimensions into the ethos and outcomes of higher education (NAFSA, 2008). A de scriptive survey design cross sectional. The online survey was sent to 1,043 top university administ rators at 149 universities in 50 countries. These universities had active international agreements with the University of South Florida at the time of the study. Approximately 350 university presidents, vice presidents, and deans, from 33 countries and 6 5 universities participated in the study. ANOVA, MANOVA, and Multiple Regression analyses were used to examine data in the three dimensions of internationalization: 1) Planning and operations, 2) Student Education, and 3) Teaching and Faculty Development. The statistical programs used for data analysis were SAS 9.2, SPSS 18.0 and Mplus 5. In general, the study participants perceived the three dimensions as having a medium priority level. Planning and operation strategies, and student education strategies, were rated higher than those for teaching and faculty development. Four of the 34 strategies were perceived as having a high priority

PAGE 16

xiii level: 1) Motivating students to participate in study abroad programs, 2) Establishing institutional collaboration with fo reign universities, 3) Communicating an institutional global vision, and 4) Increasing visibility of international focus on In contrast, the following strategies were perceived as having a low priority level: 1) Creating a branch ca mpus abroad, and 2) Considering foreign language fluency in salary and promotion decisions. The research findings revealed that there were differences in perceptions based on the following demographic characteristics: 1) Institutional description, 2) Insti participants identifie d the following top difficulties in achieving internationalization at their institutions: 1) Lack of economic resources, 2) Lack of faculty involvement, 3) Lack of planning and coordination, and 4) Lack of governmental support. The implications of these re sults are presented as they relate to the research and practice of higher education administration, educational leadership and policy development.

PAGE 17

1 Chapter One Introduction Higher education institutions around the world are continuously looking for strategies to cope with the unique changes characteristic of the 21 st century global society. The expanding use of technolog ies such as the internet, the emergent interdependence of world economies, and the increase d mobility of individuals across nat ions are challenging the way universities have tra ditionally delivered education. This flow of technolog ies econom ies knowledge, people, values, and ideas across borders is known as globalization (Organization of Economic Co operation and Development, 20 00). The main approach to respond to the rapid effects of globalization by universities worldwide is the conscious process of integrating international, intercultural, and global dimensions into the philosophy, delivery and outcomes of postsecondary educat ion a process termed internationalization (Hill & Green, 2008; Knight, 2003; NAFSA, 2008). Experts advocate the implementation of internationalization to prepare students with the required competencies to become productive contributors to society ( Green, 2003; National Association for Foreign Student Advisers, 2003). Successful professionals need to be involved in local as well as global activities Failure to see the world as whole can have devastating consequences for individuals and nations alike (Frie dman, 2005 ).

PAGE 18

2 A clear distinction from globalization, which refers to worldwide phenomena, is the fact that internationalization can be conceptualized at several levels, including the world, region, nation, state, community, organization, and individual ( Horn et al., 2007). For instance, at the national level, internationalization can be defined as the extent to which a nation is linked with other nations around the world. At the individual level, internationalization consists of cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions that generally reflect the extent to which persons are able to function successfully across cultures (Fry, 1987; Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005; Horn et al., 2007; Rosen, 2000). At the organizational level, internationalization implies t he integration and infusion of international, intercultural, and global dimensions into the ethos and outcomes of higher education (NAFSA, 2008). Exa mples of ethos and outcomes are in stitutional mission and culture, student education and academic mobility, curriculum and instruction, faculty development, and administrative planning and operations. An internationalization plan begins with a revision of the core mission, vision and values of the institutions that redefine boundaries and consciously expand the ir global outreach and impact. This vision must be accompanied by administrative commitment, financial and human resources. Internationalization is a complex process where some strategies can easily be applied while others require long plan that will ultimately stand the test of time is one that allows some flexibility while remaining true to p.12 ) says. Institutions around the world are prioritizing internationalizatio n through an

PAGE 19

3 array of strategies such as reviewing or setting an institutional global vision, emphasizing study abroad programs, increasing international curricular content, and creating partnerships with institutions abroad (Callan, 2000; Harman, 2004). The largest example of higher education internationalization is the Bologna Process which was officially signed by 26 European countries in Bologna, Italy, in June 1999 to address higher educational concerns after the consolidation of the European Union. The purpose of this process is to create a European higher education system founded on international cooperation and academic exchange that is attractive not only to European students and staff but also to students and staff around the world. The Bologna P rocess seeks to facilitate academic mobility, prepare students as active citizens in democratic societies and t o offer extensive access to top class higher education based on democratic values and academic f reedom (Bologna Process, 2010). Adelman (2008) e xplains that the Bologna process has become the largest restructuring of higher education ever undertaken. It currently involves 16 million students in 46 countries, with over 4000 institutions of higher education. It is a great challenge because some of t hese institutions have been doing business the same way for 800 years. These institutions have agreed to implement common rules for degrees, credits and certifications. Some of the reforms include easy readability and comparable degrees organized in a thr ee cycle structure (bachelor master doctorate). Others are quality assurance in accordance with European standards and guidelines, and a fair recognition of foreign degrees in accordance with the Council of Europe/UNESCO Recognition

PAGE 20

4 Convention (Bologna Pro cess, 2010). As a result of the founding of the Bologna process, similar international developments began taking place in other regions of the world such as Latin America, Asia and Africa which challenge the global leadership that American higher educa tion institutions have been enjoying for decades (De Witt, 2005; Phillips & Schweisfurth, 200 8). A noncommercial approach to internationalization has been central to university and national strategies in Europe. On the other ch is focused on a sophisticated business, academic, and service operation based on a public private partnership. In this way, Australian universities can be informed of policies and practices as they develop in Europe and other potential destinations of i nternational students (Adams, 2007). In Australia, international education has become a highly successful export industry that by 2006 was worth some $8 billion annually making it the This business approac h is characterized by the autonomy universities have to set their own fee levels and make their own decisions about how they invest in marketing and recruiting, infrastructure, student support, and teaching. The only prohibition for Australian universities is to subsidize foreign students from government funds. By 2006 Australia had 140,000 foreign university students onshore and 45,000 offshore (Adams, 2007). In contrast to Australia, the U.S. government offers a range of scholarship opportunities to int ernational students. For example, the Fulbright Foreign

PAGE 21

5 Student Program is a merit based scholarship that targets graduate students and covers support such as tuition, living allowances, travel, and health coverage during study abroad and teaching. This pr ogram, sponsored by the U.S. Department of State, is funded at $95 million per year and awards more than 3,000 scholarships annually. The United States has historically been a magnet for international students, but this trend has drastically changed in the last few years as competition has become fierce to recruit students around the world. Within the past few years student academic mobi lity has extensively increased. According to the Institute of International Education (2009) an estimated 2.9 million stu dents worldwide are pursuing their higher education outside their home countries, a 57% increase since 1999. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization ( UNESCO, 2009) examined the trends in enrollment of internationally mobile st udents in the top five destination countries the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Australia. The United States enrolled one fifth of all international students in 2006, but these students constitute a small proportion of total U.S. enrollment. The Department of Commerce estimates that international education contributed $15.5 billion to the U.S. economy in 2006 (American Council of Education, 2009). The vast majority of international students in the U.S.A are from Asian countries, f ollowed by neighboring Mexico and Canada. Since 2002, India has sent the highest number o f students to the United States 94,563 students in 2008, a 13 percent increase from 2007. China sends the second highest number of students (81,127 in 2008), followe d by

PAGE 22

6 South Korea and Japan. The UNESCO (2009) report also suggests that the landscape of international student enrollment is shifting with potentially new patterns of mobility emerging in Singapore and the Persian Gulf States Compared with other parts of the world, particularly since the 1990s, internationalization in Asian universities is occurring at an unprecedented speed which is evident in the surge of branch campuses, franchises, corporate programs, online learning, and study abroad programs (Hua ng, 2007). While the economic recession is causing educational budget cuts in the United States and other countries, Asian countries are investing billions in expanding laboratories, developing research, and attracting foreign faculty and students. These c ountries se e their future in education and h World War II path to growth. Asian countries realize the necessity to create good universities and attr act the best minds in the world in order to move into the next phase of deve lopment ( Hvistendahl 2009 ). Because of its emphasis on higher education development Asia is emerging as a strong competitor for the United States. A report from the National Science Foundation (2008) revealed that patents filed by inventors living in t he U.S. had dropped from 55% in 1996 to 53% in 2005. Also the U.S. share of papers published in peer reviewed journals fell from 63% in 1992 to 58% in 2003 while articles from China, Singapore, South Korea and Taiw an increased (Mahbub ani, 2010 ). South Korea has pledged about $600 million over in an effort to raise the

PAGE 23

7 quality of research at 30 universities. Among the 81 foreign researchers to take positions for the pr oject are nine international Nobel Prize winners in areas such as chemistry. The process of internationalization in Latin America and Africa is occurring at a slower pace than the rest of the world. The mid 1990s opened up the Latin American economy through inter national commercial agreements that generated a pressing need to develop human resources with international competencies, which caused considerable growth in international academic activities. Latin American universities have embraced internationalization as part of a strategy to i mprove the quality of education but the amount of scholarly exchange and research collaboration remains low (Avila, 2007). Latin America has the lowest rate of student mobility in the world and Latin Americans accoun t for just 1 0% of foreign college students studying in the United States each year (Organization for Economic Coop eration and Development, 2009).However, s igns of improvement for internationalization in the region are increasing with the Latin American Academic Coalit ion project that involves approximately 80 universities and international accreditation agencies seeking to unify accreditation and credit exchange systems (Lloyd, 2009). Lack of government spending for academic collaboration and the low level of foreign l anguage proficiency in the region are just two of the major challenges for internationalization of Latin American institutions. In reviewing the research and ide as of several authors, a number of characteristics believed to be critical to the internationa lization of higher

PAGE 24

8 education institutions become clear (Horn, Mendel, & Fry, 2007; Knight, 2003; Olson, Green, & Hill, 2006 ). There seems to be general agreement that some or all of the following characteristics are necessary for a successful international ization plan: Institutionalizing a global vision and mission. Providing students with opportunities for academic mobility and proficiency in languages. Facilitating the development of global expertise in faculty and staff through international fellowship s, travel grants and reward systems. Developing interdisciplinary courses and programs focused on global issues. Increasing the global diversity of faculty, staff and students while fully integrating them into the academic community. Ensuring that daily operations and planning are guided by institutional global goals which in many cases include setting up overseas operations and working with universities abroad to engage in global research (McCarthy, 2007; Olson, Green, & Hill, 2006; Robertson, 2008). Although the importance and opportunities of internationalization have been recognized by the majority of administrators and university leaders around the world, some serious risks associated with the process have also been pointed out. In a 2005 study con ducted by the International Association of Universities in 95 countries, 70% of the participants agreed that the growing and the

PAGE 25

9 threat of brain drain were the main risks to maintai ning quality programs and academic integrity in institutions of higher education (IAU, 2006). Skeptics fear education, meaning that institutions would lose their uniqueness and become like fast food franchises (Healey, 2008; Prakash & Stuchul, 2004). The American Association of University Professors and the Canadian Association of University Teachers (2009 p.2 ) have energetically opposed the view of the World Trade Organizatio of higher education as another commodity in a very lucrative global marketplace. and sold in the international marketplace and subject to the rules of competitive trade that govern a deregulated global economy. Participating in the movement for international education can rest on laudable educational grounds b ut those grounds will be jeopardized if hard earned standards and protections are w eakened rather than exported The American Association of University Professors (2009) warns that the fast and unregulated expansion of branch campuses threatens the integrity of higher education in the U.S. and Canada. The rapid growth of branch campuse s has occurred because foreign programs and resources are usually less costly making them financially more attractive than North American institutions staffed with tenure track faculty (AAUP, 2009). Therefore, the number of faculty teaching overseas under temporary contracts for low wages with few benefits is steadily growing. A nother threat to maintain ing educational quality is that basic principles

PAGE 26

10 of academic freedom and nondiscrimination are less likely to be observed in countries marked by authoritari an rule (AAUP & CAUT, 2009). Consequently, professional associations around the world urge the adoption of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO, 1997) recommendation concerning the Status of Higher Education Teaching Personnel, with its emphasis on academic freedom, institutional autonomy, collegial governance, nondiscrimination, and employment security (AAUP & CAUT, 2009; Ed ucation International, 2004 ). The key for curriculum internationalization is faculty. Profes sors who have spent time abroad as adults are more likely to incorporate international content i nto their teaching; however, lack of faculty participation in study and travel abroad remains the biggest obstacle for internationalization of curriculum (Hudzi k, 2006; Stohl, 2007). Research explains the reason. It is not that faculty members do not value internationalization but their lack of participation is due to administration (Sulli van, 2008). For a university to be internationalized it is essential for its leaders to have a new set of strategies and competencies to face the challenges of globalization. Presidents, vice presidents and deans have the ultimate responsibility for the future of the institution. The strategies implemented by high ranking administrators have the potential to achieve an institution wide impact (Robertson, 2005). Higher education internationalization can only occur for institutions in which top administrat ive commitment is emphasized through the

PAGE 27

11 implementation of organizational strategies to support the process (Hill & Green, 2008). Statement of the Problem There is little research perspectives on organi zational strategies to support higher education internationalization (Altbach, 2004; Jang, 2009; Sullivan, 2008). I nternationalization is the conscious effort to integrate and infuse international, intercultural, and global dimensions into the ethos and ou tcomes of higher education which include institutional mission, vision and values; student education and academic mobility; curriculum, instruction and research; faculty development; administrative structure, planning and operations of higher education ins titutions (Knight, 2003; NAFSA, 2008; Olson et al., 2006). Colleges and universities have a responsibility to prepare their students with the educational means to compete in a dynamic workplace in a continually changing global environment (Navarro, 2004). Marquardt and Berger (2000) identified seven leadership competencies for business executives to succeed in a globalized world : possessing a global mind set creating global culture and vision developing global human resources leading global strategic pla nning creating global operations fostering global structure

PAGE 28

12 promoting global learning (2005) study on university presidential leadership determined the level of importance of these seven general competencies in the context of higher educati on by examining their level of importance as perceived by American university presidents and trustees. There is little research on the actual translation of those competencies into substantial strategic activities generated by top university administrators to support higher education internationalization. O rganizational support in terms of providing financial and human resources a s well as recognition for internationalization plays a significant role in institutional quality enhancement (Horn et al., 2007; Jang, 2009). Purpose of this Study The purpose of this study was to identify international university organizational strategies to support higher education internationalization. Understanding global views of these strategi es would facilitate communication among universities worldwide for the implementation of such strategies. Furthermore, the results would help align international resources to nurture and develop the professionals needed for the 21st century economy while i mproving institutional quality (Jang, 2009; Robertson, 2005). Organizational strategies for internationalization were rated by university presidents and deans worldwide according to the perceived priority level of such strategies within their universities. The research was conducted in 58 countries at 164 universities that have an international agreement with the University of South Florida. From each university, seven administrators including

PAGE 29

13 the president, vice president and five deans received the survey The administrators of the University of South Florida also took part in the study. To achieve this purpose, the following strategies for internationalization at the institutional level were studied in three categories or constru cts as presented in Figu re 1: 1) Administrative planning and operations, 2) Student education, and 3) Teaching and faculty development. These categories were selected because they represent the main stakeholders of a university the administrators, students and faculty. The inter connectedness of the stakeholders with in the global environment accelerates the process of internationalization. See Figure 1. Figure 1 Categories of Internationaliza tion at the Institutional Level The involvement of all stakeholders is critical for the internationalization of the institution. However, administrators at the higher levels presidents, vice presidents and deans const itute the basis for the process because they have the power to allocate financial and human resources into the specifi c strategies for internationalization. The activities and functions of each category continuously overlap s For example, administrative benchmarking can identify specific courses or degrees that should be offered by the institution and suggest the ir creati on to

PAGE 30

14 professors. C hanges in the curriculum would be done by faculty, but it is ultimately the choice of the students who pursue those degrees or courses. As t he higher education institution compo sed of the three stakeholders connects with more universitie s abroad the process of internationalization takes place at the world level (Figure 2). Figure 2 Higher Education Internationalization at the World Level A s internationalization activities enter the core of higher education the need for evaluating the process to maximize institutional effectiveness also increases (Horn et al., 2007). Four approaches to measure internationalization were identified by Knight (1999): activity, competency, ethos, and process. An example of activity would be a study abr oad program. A competency would be the ability to speak a foreign language. An illustration of the ethos approach

PAGE 31

15 process approach could be integrated into several types of qualit y assurance systems, such as accreditation, program reviews, and rankings (Horn et al., 2007). Some of the institutions that have achieved a number of these goals were identified by Horn et al. (2007) with the development of a ranking system to measure th e international dimension of top universities in the United States. A total of 77 research universities were analyzed based on public ly available data. internationalization level was determined by its meeting the 19 indicators found in the In ternationalization Index Score (Horn et al., 2007) The index scores student characteristics, scholar characteristics, research orientation, curricular content, and organizational support. The results revealed that seven of the top 11 institutions in the s tudy were also among the top institutions in the Top American Research Universities report (Lombardi et al., 2003). The convergence of these two ranking systems could mean there is a close link between indicators of internationalization and indicators of r esearch performance. Results of the study ranked Columbia University in first place followed by the University of California Berkeley, Georgetown University, the University of Chicago, Harvard University, Michigan State Un iversity, and Yale University. Fo r the purpose of the present study, international university administrators were asked about leadership strategies for internationalization at the institutional level. Leadership strategies refer to the activities approach to measuring internationalization from the perspective of administrators as they are one of the three stakeholders of higher education institutions and a key engine of

PAGE 32

16 th e internationalization process. Subsequently, the worldwide responses were compared to identify differences and similar ities in responses from research participants. Research Questions The following research questions guided the development and conduct of this study: 1. What are the perspectives of higher education administrators on strategic internationalization as an in stitutional priority? Do the ir perceptions differ based on institutional description? 2. To what extent do international university administrators perceive planning and operation strategies for internationalization as an institutional priority? 3. To what extent do international university administrators perceive student education strategies for internationalization as an institutional priority? 4. To what extent do international university administrators perceive teaching and faculty development strategie s for internationalization as an institutional priority? 5. To what extent, if any, do the perspectives of university administrators differ on internationalization based on their position? 6. Do demographic characteristics of international university admin istrators such responses? Significance of the Study o rganizational strategies to support internationalization would help improve

PAGE 33

17 responses to global demands to nurture and develop the professionals n eeded in the 21st century economy (Dellow, 2009). Some of the specific outcomes of these global leadership strategies would be the development of more international r esearch conducted in partnership with foreign universities to tackle world problems. Other outcomes would be the increasing participation of students in study abroad programs and a visible presence of international students on campus. Consequently, there w ould be a greater awareness of global issues that can affect national security, environment and general well being. Universities would invest in the development of global competencies in stakeholders (i.e. students and faculty) to better respond to intern ational needs with a sense of global citizenry and responsibility. Finally, world language skills in stakeholders would increase to facilitate communication between nations. Definitions of Terms The following terms are used in this study: Internationaliza tion: intercultural, and global dimensions into the ethos and outcomes of postsecondary education. To be fully successful, it must involve active and responsible engagement of the academic commun ity in global networks 2008 p.3 ). This includes student education, curriculum and instruction, faculty development, and administrative planning and operations of higher education institutions. Higher Educatio n: education acquire d in degree granting institutions at the undergraduate and graduate level such as colleges and universities that

PAGE 34

18 offer bachelor, master and doctoral degrees. Globalization: worldwide phenomena characterized by the flow across borders of technol ogy, econo my, knowledge, people, and values, which a ffect nations in different ways given their unique histories, traditions, cultures, and priorities (The Organization of Economic Co operation and Development, 2000). Academic Mobility: postsecondary students and fa culty relocating to another institution outside their own country to study or teach for a limited time. It is affected by cultural, socio economical, intellectual and linguistic barriers. Partnerships: cooperative agreements between higher education inst itutions and other distinct organizations to coordinate activities, share resources, or divide responsibilities related to a specific project or goal (Kinser & Green, 2009). Public institutions: universities or colleges that are predominantly funded by pub lic means through a national or state government. For the purpose of this research, public universities also include national universities which are created by a government but can operate without direct oversight or control by the state. Private instituti ons: universities or colleges not funded or operated by governments although they may receive public subsidies, especially in the form of tax breaks and public student loans and grants. In some countries, private universities may be subject to government r egulation.

PAGE 35

19 Chapter Two Review of Literature The purpose of this chapter is to present a review of the literature on higher education internationalization and the role of top university administrators in implementing strategies to support internati onalization. The literature review provides the starting point for a conceptual framework presented later in this chapter. The purpose of this study was to identify international university organizational strategies to suppo rt higher education internationalization. The review of the literature begins with an explanation of the following concepts : globalization and internationalization. Then, internationalization is explored within the context of higher education. Other aspect s of internationalization such as academic mobility, curriculum change, and the role of administration and faculty are examined. Finally, a conceptual framework for the study is presented along with the need for additional research. Globalization and Inte rnationalization Globalization and internationalization have very different meanings. While globalization refers to uncontrollable world level phenomena, internationalization refers to managed links of organizations, nations, or individuals across countri es (Horn et al., 2007). Globalization is a phenomenon characterized by the

PAGE 36

20 integration of regional economies, societies, and cultures through a globe spanning network of communication and trade. Internationalization refers to strategies implemented by inst itutions, countries or individuals to cope with the globalization phenomenon. Friedman (2005) explained globalization as the flattening of the world. He argues that globalized trade, outsourcing, supply chaining, and political forces have permanently trans formed the world for both better and worse. He warns that the globalization process is increasing rapidly and will continue to have a growing impact on business organization and practices. Globalization is the context of economic and academic trends that are part of the reality of the 21st century (Altbach & Knight, 2007). Although there are different definitions and interpret ations of the term it began to be extensively used by economists and other social scientists during the 1960s. By the second half of the 1980s the term was widely used in mainstream society (Hopkins, 2004). The United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (2002) pointed out that globalization can be defined according to contexts such as political, economic, and env ironmental. Therefore, in an economic context it refers to the reduction and removal of barriers between national borders to facilitate the flow of goods, capital, services and labor. Considerable barriers such as visa procedures still exit in the flow o f labor. Despite the efforts by a number of countries to slow down the process to protect their respective industries, the pace of globalization has increased rapidly since the fourth quarter of the twentieth century (ESCWA, 2002). The Organization of Econ omic

PAGE 37

21 Cooperation and Development (2000) sees globalization as the flow of technology, economy and knowledge across borders that can affect each country in a different way due to its emphasizes the impact of globalization on the educational field by including values, ideas and culture in an inclusive frame. Therefore, globalization emphasizes culture, while internationalization emphasizes organizational relationships. The term internationalization has been i ncreasingly used to describe the process of the growing involvement of enterprises in international markets (Gerald, 2007). Internationalization can be conceptualized at several levels, including the world, regional, national, state, community, organizatio n, and individual. For example, there are emerging theories on internationalization within the e conomics and business contexts. One of these theories is the Technology Gap w hich implies the advantage a country gains by introducing new products into a mark et. When new goods are produced as a result of research activity and entrepreneurship, the innovating country enjoys a monopoly until other countries learn to produce similar goods (Gandolfo, 1998). Theories provided by business experts give an idea of the relevance of internationalization in higher education. Traditionally, universities are at the center of research and innovation that can benefit a nation and the entire world. Internationalization of Higher Education Internationalization in the contex t of higher education emerged as a strategic approach to cope with the forces of globalization challenging postsecondary institutions. The nature of education implies an international perspective. However, terms related to globalization and internationaliz ation

PAGE 38

22 processes are relatively new in the educational environment as compared with other fields such as business administration and economics. A common agreement on the terms among education experts has not yet been reached (Hill & Green, 2008). According to the American Council of Education, single term that covers all the concepts encompassed by the words international, implying similar meanings (Hill & Green, 2008 p 28 ). O lson explains that globalization was a term frequently used until events like the terrorist attacks o f September 11, 200 1, which began to alter the meaning in a negative way. Globalization became a loaded term implying the hegemony of the capitalis t system the domination of rich countries over poor, and the loss of national culture. As a term, g lobal has preserved its linguistic neutrality, while globalization has not at the present time (Olson et al 2006 p.vi). Another commonly used term is global lear ning, which refers to knowl edge, skills and attitudes students acquire through a variety of experiences that enable them to understand and appreciate world cultures and events ( Olson et al. 2006). For the purpose of this research the term internationali conscious effort to integrate and infuse international, intercultural, and global dimensions into the ethos and outcomes of postsecondary education. To be fully successful, it must involve active and responsible engagement of the acad emic community in global networks and partnerships (NAFSA, 2008). Examples of institutional strategies for internationalization are its inclusion in the institutional mission statement and financial support provided for student and curriculum

PAGE 39

23 internation alization. In educational literature, i nternational education is sometimes used synonymously with internationalization, although the former generally refers to the various activities of language study, study abroad, and internationally focused courses. Int ernationalization can involve many different strategies, initiatives, processes, and stakeholders across campus so that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts (Olson et al., 2006). Faculty I nternatio nalization A study conducted by ACE in 2002 surveyed faculty about international experiences and attitudes concerning internationalizati on. The sample was a stratified, random sample of 1,027 faculty members from campuses selected from the institutional sample. The majority of faculty participants w ere employed full time as faculty members (98%), tenured (62%), whit e (80%) and male (60%). Participants we re determine d to be representative of faculty throughout the United States (Siaya & Hayward, 2003). The study concluded the following: Faculty agreed that they had a responsibility to teach students international skills and knowledge. The majority (67%) of the faculty agreed that it was the responsibility of faculty to provide students with an international awareness of other cultures and international issues. This percentage did not diffe r greatly by institutional type, yet some variance did exist among faculty at different institutions as to whether they believed their students actually were graduating with global skills and kn owledge. In contrast, a s ignificant nu mber of faculty participants did not see the value or importance of international education to the undergraduate experience or curriculum. Thirty six percent of faculty agreed with

PAGE 40

24 her countries, addition, more than 25% agreed that in ternational education is useful but not necessary. The study also found that faculty at research universities were m ost likely to have traveled abroad for academic purposes and to have stayed the longest. Language competency was higher among faculty who had traveled abroad. Most importantly, the majority of faculty believed that international work would not increase the ir chances for tenure and promotion. This fact greatly discouraged faculty from participating in internationalization even if there were other types of campus incentives in place (Siaya & Hayward, 2003). Odgers and Giroux ( 2006) demonstrated that interna tionalization changes are reflected in individual teaching practices The purpose of their study was to gather faculty feedback about the extent to which their intercultural sensitivity and their ability to teach an internationalized course had changed as a result of participating in a year long process of curriculum internationalization. Each participant found that his approach to teaching had been impacted by the t hought process and reflections h e had started as a result of participating in the program. F or instance, a faculty member disclosed: about something that seems to be third party but in effect it forces people to take a look at themselves. If you were to set up a workshop an d say ,

PAGE 41

25 zero attendance but when you talk about internationalizing the curriculum, it gets around to the same issue (Odgers & Giroux, 2006). Curriculum I nternationalization Curr iculum internationalization is the most important strategy to ensure that all students acquire the knowledge and skills needed in a globalized world (Green & Shoenberg, 2006). The internationalization of curriculum is the process of including international content for teaching. This curriculum development is aimed at integrating international content into the formal and operational aspects of the curriculum. Formal refers to course content and materials. Operational refers to teaching and learning methods, grouping of students, the place and time of courses, etc. according to the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (2000, p. 4). The internationalization of curriculum provides an exceptional opportunity for faculty to infuse an international dimension into their courses. It implies an alignment of educational programs with global learning outcomes. Olson et al. (2006, p p 39 41) suggest a mapping exercise for curriculum internationalization. This exercise should engage different members of t he institution in working with the outcomes and in addressing important questions about global learning opportunities offered to students. However, Olson et al. cautioned against the tendency to drop a desired learning outcome because it does not appear i n the exercise. Th e suggested mapping practice can be applied at different levels, for instance, revising existing courses or redesigning curriculum to include the global

PAGE 42

26 learning outcomes. Furthermore, Olson et al. noted that institutions working with ACE have found that regular incentive and faculty development opportunities can encourage faculty to re conceptualize their courses to address new global learning outcomes (Olson et al., 2006, p p 41 42). Odgers and Giroux (2006) agreed that an internatio nalized curriculum can be improved by developing which has seamless connections to all the different cultures in the world and is transparent if there are particular cultural biases where before it used to be built One of the most recent and vigorous undertakings for embedding international education within the curriculum has been pursued by the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York, w ith the initial collaboration of universities in Denmark and Singapore. Under the REACH (Rensselaer Engineering Education Across Cultural Horizons) program, engineering students at RPI go abroad as an integral part of the undergraduate curriculum while 500 to 600 international students arrive at the RPI for a semester of study The I nstitute is seeking to expand the program to universities in Asia, Europe, S outh America and eventually Australia and Africa (Guess, April 2008). Student Compe tencies and Academic Mobility Student academic mobility has increased extensively in the last few years. According to the Institute of International Education (2009) an estimated 2.9 million students worldwide are pursuing their higher education outside their home

PAGE 43

27 countries, a 57% increase since 1999. A similar trend is occurring in faculty and institutional mobility. However, data revealed that U.S. faculty members are a mong the least mobile worldwide and rank last among 14 countries on measures like percentage of articles published in a foreign country or co written with foreign colleagues (IIE, 2009). The European Union has at this point the most mobile faculty and stud ents. The American Council on Education (2009) explains that although historically the United States has been a magnet for international students, the past does not necessarily predict the future: After the events of September 11, 2001, U.S. enrollments of international students briefly dipped, as visa restrictions tightened and perceptions grew in some countries that America no longer welcomed international students. At the same time, for the past decade, other countries have been intensifying their effo rts to bring international students to their institutions. As a result, the U.S. share of the growing international student market fell from 28 percent to 20 percent between 2000 and 2006. In order to understand the new competitive landscape for internat ional students, UNESCO (2009) examined enrollment trends of internationally mobile students in the top five destination countries United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Australia (Figure 3).

PAGE 44

28 Figure 3 International Post Secondary Stud ent Enrollment in the Top Five Destination Countries The UNESCO report also highlights how enrollment trends are shifting by demonstrating the rise of new destinations such as Singapore and Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates. The United St ates enrolled one fifth of all international students in 2006, but these students constitute a small proportion of the total U.S. enrollment compared to other countries (ACE, 2009) illustrated in Figure 4. Figure 4 Tren ds in International Enrollments These changes in student mobility have amplified the recruitment efforts by universities around the world and the competition is gettin g tougher. In Table 1 some of the international recruitment efforts by the top destination countries are 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 International Postsecondary Student Enrollment in Top Five Destination Countries: 1999 2007 US UK France Germany Australia United States United Kingdom Germany France Australia 20% 13% 8% 8% 7% 3.3% 14.1% 11.4% 11.2% 17.8% Share of all International Postsecondary and Proportion of Total National Enrollment : 2006 Percent Share of World's International Students International Students as Percentage of National Total Enrollment

PAGE 45

29 shown (ACE, 20 09). Table 1 International Student Recruitment Strategies among the Top Five Destination Countries The continually changing landscape of internationally mobile students demonstrates the need for university administrators to be involved in strategicall y direct recruitment and retention efforts for international students in order to guarantee the quality and susta inability of the institutions. Institutional C ulture The value placed on international and intercultural learning by the holders can be either a barrier or motivator for internationalization. These characteri stics belong to the individuals but are later reflected in the culture of the organization. Cultural differences can lead to

PAGE 46

30 confrontation. Person al knowledge and expert ise need to be cultivated. For instance, academic, cultural and language expertise can be critical for individual willingness to engage in internationalization (Kinser & Green, 2009). Lack of funding is detrimental for internationalization efforts. Finan cial support for course development and international travel is frequently in short supply. Budget cuts generally hit travel first. Small investments can be greatly beneficial to the institution in the area of grants for course development, partial funding for faculty travel and free time for curriculum development. These small investments can have a big impact on making an institution more internationalized. External funding is also essential to support global institutional activities. Organizational stru ctures and operations must be aligned with strategic goals of internationalization to be productive (Kinser & Green, 2009). Other efforts for internationalization include partnerships. Partnerships are cooperative agreements between a higher education ins titution and another organization to coordinate activities, share resources, or divide responsibilities related to a specific project or goal. All partnerships share three elements. First, partnerships reflect involvement with an entity outside the formal organizational structure of the institution. Second, partnerships entail a spirit of cooperation. Third, partnerships are about working toward a common goal or completing a specific project (Kinser & Green, 2009). The rationale for the various types of par tnerships depends on the particular needs or expectations of the institutions seeking them. The most common reason is the advantage acquired through cooperation ity to undertake activities it

PAGE 47

31 could not engage in alone, either because it lacks the required expertise or it does not have sufficient resources (Kinser & Green, 2009). The main disadvantage of partnerships is the occurrence of cooperation conflicts. Kinser surprise to those leading these initiatives, but recognized as one element inherent in any complex source of conflict when different business styles or language barriers become disruptive. Cultural differences and similarities are even more evident at institutional branch campuses. International branch campuses are college or university sites that are physically detached from the main university or college area and located in a foreign country. Branch campuses usually involve a partnership with a foreign university to offer joint degree programs. The American Council on Education (2009) acknowledged th at there is still debate on a single definition for sites. The most common characteristics of branch campuses are as follows : The branch campus rents or acquires educational facil ities (including libraries, laboratories, classrooms, and/or faculty and staff office space) in a different country from the parent institution. The branch campus offers courses in more than one field of study leading to a degree. The degree is conferred by the parent institution (either alone or with a

PAGE 48

32 partner institution). Students take the majority of their courses and finish their degree where the branch campus is located. The branch campus offers primarily face to face instruction. The branch campu s has permanent administrative staff. The number of international branch campuses has grown rapidly in recent years, with the United Arab Emirates hosting the most institutions at the present (McMurtrie, 2009). Ruby (2010) warns about the risks of branch campuses and the need to learn from past fa ilures in pointing out that 26 of 30 American branches in Japan failed during the 1980s and 90s. Understanding the institutional culture and g lobal cultures is fundamental in any type of internationalization progr am. B enefits of I nternationalization During the past several decades, internationalization has emerged as a frequently heralded goal of higher education (Childress, 2009). Internationalization includes the policies and practices undertaken by academic s ystems, institutions, and individuals to cope with the global academic environment. The perceived benefits from internationalizati on include commercial advantage knowledge and language acquisition, and curriculum enhancement with international content, et c. (Altbach & Knight, 2007). The International Association of Universities (2009) collected data from a 2009 survey sent to its member institutions in 115 countries. The results revealed that international awareness for students is the number one benefit from

PAGE 49

33 internationalization according to 24% of the participant institutions. Other benefits include strengthened research and production (16%), cooperation and solidarity (10%), internationalized curriculum (11%), and improved institutional prestige (10%). The perceived benefits of internationalization have motivated a variety of initiatives such as branch campuses, cross border collaboration and programs for international students. Efforts to monitor international initiatives and ensure quality are integr al to the international higher education environment according to Altbach & Knight (2007). Quality in higher education is a complex matter because postsecondary institutions are under continuous demands for high quality services. Higher education instit utions have to compete for top faculty, students and research grants which increases the international reputation and cost effectiveness of the institutions (Jang, 2009). A major rationale for internationalization is the assumption that there is value ad ded to the quality of higher education systems when the international dimension of instruction, research and service are enhanced (Knight, 1997). Jang (2009) conducted a study to examine the relationship between internationalization and the quality of hi gher education using the pre existing data collected originally by Horn et al (2007), Lombardi et al (2003), and U.S. News and multiple regression analysis using the following six internationalization variables: international students, U.S. study abroad, internationalized faculty and scholars, international research activities, internationalized curriculum, and

PAGE 50

34 organizational support. The seven quality variables of the research were competitiveness, faculty competitiveness, undergraduate competitiveness, and institutional reputation. 009) demonstrated a positive relationship bet ween internationalization and quality of higher education. The presence of international students was found to have statistically significant and positive effects on all the quality variables except for research competitiveness. Internationalized faculty h ad statistically significant effects on advanced training competitiveness and financial stability. Finally, organizational support for internationalization played a significant role in institutional quality enhancement. Another concern about quality in i nternationalization of higher education is delivering education across borders. In this situation assurance and recognition are fundament al. Altbach and Knight (2007) ho ld that since many countries do not have the capacity or political will to implement re gulatory systems to evaluate out of country providers, international regulatory frameworks for quality assurance or accreditation are imperative. Yet t he lack of a common set of rules makes the monitoring of international activities very difficult. Other q uestions arise about the process of ensuring quality of courses or programs offered by public or private institutions and particularly by the new private commercial companies and providers. Finally, the role of accreditation is critical as market forces in crease or decrease the reputation of providers and their courses. The accreditation process is becoming internationalized and

PAGE 51

35 commercialized according to Altbach and Knight (2007). For example, legitimate national and international accreditation agencie s now work in many countries. Professional accreditation bodies like the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (engineering) from the United States and the European Quality Improvement System (business) also offer their services abroad. A rela ted and growing problem is the emergence of un recognized, illegitimate accreditation organizations/groups/bodies degrees with mini mal or no course work. Altbach and Knight (2007) urge warnings about these accreditation and degree mills to students, employers, and the public. Internationalization of Higher Education Worldwide Experts agree that the movement of programs and education providers across national borders will significantly grow (Altbach & Knight, 2007). During the past decade new types of providers, forms of delivery, and collaborative partnerships have emerged. New providers include commercial information technology, me dia companies, corporate universities, professional associations, and international conglomerates. Traditional higher education institutions alongside the new providers are increasingly using a combination of face to face and virtual modes to deliver educa tion to students around the world. This is accomplished through twinning, franchising, articulation, validation, and joint or double degree arrangements. Some institutions try to set up a physical presence through branch campuses, independent institutions, teaching and testing centers, and acquisitions or mergers with local higher education institutions (Altbach &

PAGE 52

36 Knight, 2007; Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, 2010). The degree of internationalization is uneven around the world mostly for econo mic and political reasons. Some internationalization efforts tend to focus on countries in specific regions like the Bologna Process in Europe. Institutions from developed countries tend to benefit more from recruiting the best students worldwide because their prestige allows them to be more selective. Institutions in developing countries seek to attract foreign universities and faculty to improve the quality of the education delivered. Countries like China, Malaysia, and India are developing strategies to attract students and to export educational programs and institutions within Asia. In addition, the Middle East region is internationalizing quickly. For example, Saudi Arabia is establishing new private universities that involve foreign institutions like the University of Arizona Also, Harvard University is planning to set up a branch campus in the United Arab Emirates (Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, 2010). North Ame rica: United States and Canada Colleges, universities and private compani es within the United States are undertaking several initiatives and partnerships to deliver cross border education courses and programs (Altbach & Knight, 2007). Traditionally, i nternational education has played a key role in the history of America, its de velopment, culture and security. World War II challenged the United States expertise in languages and cultures. The Cold War would not have ended without the support of government leaders to promote foreign language studies and study abroad programs to l earn and understand the world beyond U.S. borders (NAFSA,

PAGE 53

37 2007). International education lost its momentum when the Cold War was over but it became relevant again with the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. America was not prepared for terrorism; one weakness that left America exposed was lack of language skills which gave easy access for terrorists to plot against the country. L ack of knowledge about other countries and cultures made the country unaware of the unforeseen assault. Inst ead of living in the unknown which creates fear, international education can develop the expertise required to be prepared for global challenges such as terrorism. The Association of American Universities (AAU) compares current terrorist challenges with those faced 50 years ago after the launch of Sputnik by the Soviet Union. The AAU (2006) advocates for active policy development and government and academic involvement to secure the borders in the same way America did in 1958 by enacting the National Def ense Education Act. This was based research (AAU, 2006). After the 9/11 attacks, the Commission on National Security (2001) cation pose a greater threat to U.S. national security over the next quarter century than any AAU (2006) members concur that the responsibility of securing the nation is not alone because all citizens must be involved. They point out the essential roles research universities and higher education institutions have to play. In order to meet these challenges AAU members suggest

PAGE 54

38 strategies such as enhanced research and innovation More educat ion in math ematics sciences, and languages is needed. It is imperative for America to promote cultural knowledge advance local brainpower and attract international talent. AAU members encourage univers ities to continue to work with C ongress and the adm inistration to combat the misperception that international students, scholars, scientists, and engineers are no longer welcome in the U.S. after the 9/11 attacks. This association also promotes working with the Department of State and Homeland Security to improve the visa process so that bona fide international students, scholars, scientists, and engineers can enter the U.S. in a secure, timely, and efficient manner (AAU, 2006). The Association of International Educators (NAFSA, 2007) also cautions about th e dangers of expecting the country to retain its competitive edge if its workforce lacks strong international and cross cultural knowledge and skills. They urge for the development of an international education policy to produce graduates with the knowledg e and skills required for a glob al workforce, a policy that highlights national security and academic leadership. Horn et al. (2007) measured internationalization at 77 top research universities in the United States. Data were collected and analyzed from publicly available sources observing 19 indicators of internationalization which pertain to student and scholar characteristics, research orientation, curricular content, and e of internationalization. Results from this study revealed that seven of the top 11

PAGE 55

39 institutions used for the study also ranked among the top 11 internationalized institutions including Columbia University, University of California Berkley, Harvard Unive rsity and Yale University. The results imply a close link between indicators of internationalization and indicators of research performance. Horn et al. (2007) propose that i f internationalization is an important priority for research universities, then knowledge of how the institution performs across a broad range of indicators is influential for measuring success. They advise that leadership commitment to internationalization is fundamental. Some higher education institutions in the U.S. are already in the process of internationalization. For example, George Washington University and Syracuse University both have initiatives to set up branch campuses in South Korea. Other American colleges and universities have increased partnerships with China, India, M alaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, and the Middle East. For instance, the University of Missouri at St. Louis helped to establish the Gulf University of Science and Technology in Kuwait and the Modern College of Business and Science in Oman (Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, 2010). On the other hand, Canada has l ong lagged behind other English speaking nations such as the United States, Australia and Britain, but this dynamic is rapidly changing. In 2009 Canadian universities reported a big jump in foreign student enrollment, including students from the United States (Birchard, 2009). For instance, the Canadian International Management Institute (CIMI, 2010) represents the recruiting interests of 10 Canadian universities and

PAGE 56

40 c olleges and signed an agreement with the Chinese Scholarship Council in 2004 to offer a foundation and credit transfer program to students in China wanting Canadian university degrees. Students remain in China to acquire foundation studies, cultural adjust ment, and language training for the first 3 years of this 5 year program. Afterward students can move to Canada for the final two years if they meet grade requirements. Other internationalization initiatives from Canadian institutions include The Al Ahra m Canadian University in Egypt and the Pakistan Virtual University (Altbach & Knight, 2007). Europe The European Union has actively sought higher education internationalization as part of the economic and political integration objectives for the contine nt One of the first programs was the ERASMUS exchange project, giving students the opportunity for international academic experiences (Altbach & Knight, 2007; Huisman & van der Wende, 2005). Later, the creation of the Bologna Process expanded the integrat ion of higher education by striving to harmonize the entire academic system to ensure compatible degree structures, transferable credits, and equal academic qualifications throughout the European Union. The Bologna Process now involves 16 million student s in 46 countries, with over 4000 in stitutions of higher education, m any of which have been doing business the ir own way for 800 years. Now, however, t hey have all agreed to adopt common rules for degrees, credits, and certification and communication of st udent outcomes (Adelman, 2008). The Bologna process exhibits the importance of working in conjunction with foreign institutions to complem ent and

PAGE 57

41 learn from one another. Consequently, new research policies have resulted in a more competitive environment wi thin Europe and around the world. Altbach and Knight (2007) acknowledge that within the northern Eurasia region, Russia has developed major economic reforms that have significant implications for higher education. For example, many universities like the Moscow International Slavonic Institute and the Moscow State University of Industry operate programs abroad in countries such as Bulgaria. Russia is also the host country for joint degree programs, twinning, and franchise arrangements with countries like E ngland, India, Switzerland, Netherlands, Greece and Spain. For example, t he British Open University has 80 business training centers across Russia (Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, 2010). Asia: Particularly China Internationalization of highe r education in Asia can be traced back to the late 1800s when many countries of the region made various endeavors to establish modern higher education systems by sending students and members of faculty abroad for advanced studies or research (Huang, 2007). New higher education systems adopted by countries such as China and Japan tried to conform to Western models provided by Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. From 1945 to the 1980s, internationalization in this region was influenced by the Cold War, and individual countries were divided into two large groups. One group accepted the models of the former Soviet Union while the other followed American models. The main characteristics of internationalization at the time was the mobility of people between individual

PAGE 58

42 countries and a transition from technical assistance to the third world by developed countries. Since the 1990s the growing phenomenon of globalization has dramatically changed higher education in Asia. In facing the challenge s of a global competitive environment, Asian countries are realizing the importance of creating outstanding domestic institutions and educational programs to facilitate export and enhance the quality of their higher education. Although Asia still imports more programs or institutions from countries like the United States than exporting them, the goal of Asia is to turn things around (Huang, 2007). Australia According to Adams (2007) Australia has dramatically changed in the past 20 years after feder al government policy in 1986 moved the education of foreign students from a taxpayer subsidized activity to a highly active export industry This policy made it illegal for higher education institutions to financially support foreign students from governme nt funds. Although the government gave universities the freedom to manage their budgets and decide upon educational fees, it also mandated a minimum fee for courses that institutions could not go below. As a result of these changes, international postsecon dary education in Australia became the fourth largest export industry in the country worth approximately eight billion US dollars by 2006. However, the international student numbers in Australia have declined after a decade of expansion. Latin America Diverse initiatives for internationalization ar e taking place in Latin America,

PAGE 59

43 where Australia and the United States are the top providers for international education followed by India and China who have become increasingly active in the region. However, according to the Observatory on Borderless Hig her Education (2010) concern about past experiences of foreign degree mill institutions taki ng advantage of the locals have caused the reinforcement of governmental supervis ion to prevent further damage. Ther efore, the main challenges in the regi on are quality assurance and national and international recognition of providers, programs, credit s, and qualifications due to those past negative experiences with foreign providers. For example, Latin America n unive rsities have international partnerships with American institutions such as Texas A&M, and Endicott College of Beverly, Massachusetts Partnerships with European universities are also common. The Bologna University of Italy has branch campuses in Chile, Arg entina, Brazil, Colombia and Panama. The Technical Institute of Monterrey, with its main campus in Mexico, is widely recognized for its online and distance education programs delivered to several Latin American countries (Altbach & Knight, 2007). Africa Africa exhibits the fewest internationalization initiatives in the world with some exception in South Africa (Altbach & Knight, 2007). The quantity of programs offered by foreign universities in South Africa has declined since new strict government regul ations and accreditation processes were implemented. Many institutions are leaving because of accreditation issues. Universities like the Bond and Monash from Australia and the Netherlands Business School are

PAGE 60

44 two of the few institutions that still have bra nch campuses in South Africa. One of the first cross border initiatives on the continent outside of South Africa is a branch campus established in Nigeria in 2007 by the Netherlands Business School in partnership with the African Leadership Forum Altbac h and branch university campus in Kenya in 2002 that specializes in nursing education. How Internationalized are Universities? Higher education institutions need to develop a stra tegic framework for internationalization because individual strategies such as study abroad programs are only a piece of a larger structure. The process requires articulating explicit goals and developing coherent and mutually reinforcing strategies to rea ch those goals Green (2007) described. Frequently, internationalization task forces or committees are given the task to coordinate the activities that already exist. However, a n advanced institutional strategy consists of a well articulated plan of activit ies that connects student learning outcomes with the acti vities intended to produce them, so Olson, Green, and Hill (2005) recommend the following strategies for internationalization: 1) Articulated commitment which is reflected in the extent to which an institution has written statements or established policies to support internationalization. 2) Academic offerings such as availability of for credit academic courses with an international focus including foreign language education and study abroad.

PAGE 61

45 3) An organizational infrastructure designed to provide the resources needed to support and promote internationalization, including physical facilities, human resources, communications and technology. 4) External funding where funding activities are specificall y focused on promoting international education programs, activities and research. 5) Institutional investment in faculty professional development opportunities to help faculty increase their international skills and knowledge as well as infusing internat ional content in curriculum. 6) Increasing the number of international students on campus and the amount of funding used to recruit them. An internationalized university provides a planned learning environment to foster a variety of international learning experiences for as many students as possible. A strategic plan is fundamental, but institutions rarely consider internationalization a sufficient priority to devote a section of the institution al plan to it or to develop a separate plan that addresses th e several dimensions of internationalization (Olson et al., 2005). Asse ssment of I nternationalization Quantitative and qualitative approaches to measure internationalization can be used. The quantitative approach allows for institutional comparisons by specifying the degree to which an institution is internationalized. This approach utilizes measurable indicators to assess internationalization (Jang, 2009 ; Horn et al., 2007). For instance, Horn, Hendel, and Fry (2007) used 19 indicators of internationali zation such as the number of international students to assess the

PAGE 62

46 international dimension of U.S. research universities (Table 2). The indicators were clustered in the areas of student, faculty and scholars, research and grants, curriculum, and institution al characteristics. Table 2 Quantitative measurement app roach to internationalization. Rubric Indicators Student characteristics Percentage of international students on campus Number of Marshall scholars Number of Rhodes scholars Number of Fulbrig ht fellows Number of Peace Corps volunteers Percentage of study abroad participants Percentage of non English language graduates Scholar characteristics Number of faculty who have been Fulbright scholars Number of Fulbright scholars from other cou ntries Percentage of international faculty and research associates Number of international postdoctoral fellows Research orientation Number of Title VI centers Fund for the Improvement of Post Secondary Education Grants Number of Ford internation al project grants Number of campus centers focused on international agencies Funds received from international agencies Curricular content Number of mainstream non English languages Number of less commonly taught languages Language credit requi rements International perspective credit requirements Number of degree programs at international locations Organizational support Presence of senior administrators for international activities Salary of the top international administrators Numbe r of books in international collection international institutions) a The indicator was subsequently omitted The survey m ethod is most commonly used to gather data in the quantitative approach for measuring internationalization. The survey method has the advantage of enabling comparisons among similar institutions. It also allows institutions to compare their own practices a nd policies with other colleges and universities. On the other hand, qualitative approaches are used for self improvement, instead of comparisons with other institutions (Knight, 2002).

PAGE 63

47 Administrative Leadership in Higher Education The American Council on E ducation ( 1998) suggests h igher education institutions must be more globally focused and administrative leadership is fundamental to facilitate this change (Fischer & Koch, 1996). The role of leadership is critical for internationalization to succeed because t he most powerful obstacle to the process occurs when institutional leaders do not view internationalization as relevant (Green, 2007). Many higher education institutions such as community colleges perceive their mission as local and therefore glob al learning is not valued. However, the lack of a broader vision to connect with the global while meeting local needs is fundamental in preparing students with the knowledge and skills required in the 21 st century. Goldsmith and Walt (1999) have identified five emerging competencies for the global leaders of the future: 1) Thinking globally 2) Appreciating cultural diversity 3) Developing technological savvy 4) Building partnerships and alliances 5) Sharing leadership Thinking globally requires e ffective leadership ; it is the key to sustained organizational progress. Green (2007) acknowledged that the institutions most successful in internationalization have presidents and chief academic officers who are enthusiastic supporters of internationalization. Th ese top administrators consistently communicate a global vision to faculty, staff, students, and external stakeholders. Moving beyond the philosophical encouragement, real financial

PAGE 64

48 support is needed to sustain the process. General leadership skills are re quired, yet Kinser and Green (2009) identified some specific leadership qualities for internationalization. For example, leaders need to be flexible and creative because partnerships can be unpredictable. Also, leaders need to develop cross cultural skills to work with a wide variety of partners. Leaders must be capable of negotiating while avoiding confrontation. Finally, leaders must be patient and perseverant because of the time it takes to develop partnerships. What R esearch Tells Us Previous studies have demonstrated the importance of a strong match between institutions and those who lead them (Lively, 2000; Hahn, 1995; Stewart, 2001). Shared values and the capacity to understand the natu re of the institutions increase the effectiveness of the leader. on presidential leadership concluded that 23 of the 44 global competencies rated by American university presidents were perceived as very important for not 1 ) Communicating a global vision 2) Viewi ng the world without boundaries 3) Reading publications on worldwide e ducational issues 4) Initiating policies and procedures that enh ance global thinking and action 5) Modeling global behavior in ac tion, communication, and vision 6) Knowing how to access resources to meet the challenges of globalization

PAGE 65

49 7) Ensuring that the institution has a clear global mission b uilt on global values and norms 8) Using systemic thinking in evaluating and modifying a global strategy 9) Seeing the institution as se rv ing the world through knowledge development and service to the global communi ty 10) Possessing the ability to balance tensions resulting from global and local and cultural differences 11) Having the ability to promote a global mind set for faculty and staff 12) Possessing the ability to make decisions in the face of global complexi ties 13) Possessing the ability to describe clearly the forces behind the gl obalization of higher education 14) Understanding that the forces of technological and science innovation, and the speed of c hange are part of globalization 15) Valuing the need fo r training in cross cultural communication s kills for all involved globally 16) Appreciating the need for training among faculty and staff on global issues aff ecting research and scholarship 17) Knowing the importance of multiple languages for students, fa culty, and staff. 18) Providing support for overseas initiatives for faculty and staff such as pre depart ure programs 19) Sensitizing institutional culture towar d global intellectual diversity 20) Determining that the institution's struct ure is streamlined and seamless 21) Encouraging and rewarding learning to all facult y and staff as well as

PAGE 66

50 students 22) Utilizing technology to enhance learning and knowledge management on a worldwide basis 23) Developing the use of multicultural learning materials includi ng videos and software Robertson (2005) also asked university trustees to rate the global competencies needed for presidents. Trustees rated the global competencies less important than presidents with only 14 out of the 44 competencies viewed as very impo rtant and none as critical. In particular trustees saw competencies that refer to global operations as less important than did presidents. Barriers to Internationalization Risks and Negative Views The main obstacles to internationalization are both i nstitutional and individual (Green, 2007). Institutional obstacles arise when internationalization is individual obstacles surface when faculty and students do not have the exp ertise or interest required to participate in internationalization. According to Green (2007), the most common barriers for internationalizing colleges and universities from the institutional side are the following : Institutional leaders do not see intern ationalization as relevant. There is a lack of institutional strategy. International programs and activities are unsystematic. There is no funding for the process. Global learning is not part of the curriculum.

PAGE 67

51 From the individual side, the most common o bstacles to internationalization are the following : perceiving international and intercultural learning as something disconnected from personal and academic goals and a lack of personal experiences with other cultures and languages A global mind set is t he ability to integrate intercultural, interdisciplinary, and global perspectives into daily feelings and acti vities (Paige & Mestenhauser, 1999). Although most of the literature on higher education internationalization highlights its benefits, the poten tial risks associated with it have also been noted These include the commercialization of higher education and brain drain, in which educated people leave a country in disproportionate numbers, thus reducing a valuable resource. Another concern is the dan gers of foreign degree mills (Healey, 2006; Labi, 2009; Mooney, 2006). Difficult access to international education opportunities for students in certain world regions like developing countries is also a criticism (Mooney, 2006). Commercialization of highe r education is perceived as the number one risk to maintain ing quality standards (Healey, 2006). The World Trade risk because it describes educational services as a commodity. It suggests foreign providers should be afforded the same public benefits and privileges as the domestic institutions of any member nation (AAUP, 2009). Consequently, the leading nations in the field of international education may dangerously focus on profits instead of standards. Organizations such as the American Council on Education, the Council for

PAGE 68

52 Higher Education Accreditation, the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, and the European University Association complain that trade liberaliza tion risks weakening governments' commitment to and investment in public higher education (AAUP, 2009). These organizations fear that the pace of overseas expansion threatens to affect the character of higher education in places like the United States and Canada by reducing the benefits and privileges traditionally enjoyed by faculty such as tenure, job security and academic freedom. Some scholars see internationalization as a dangerous process altogether. For instance, Prakash and Stuchul (2004) challen ge the assumptions about education as a universal good transformed into a universal human right. They use the metaphor of fast food to point out the Western obsession of using s far back as the parable of the Good Samaritan. Prakash and Stuchul complain that Westerners see the construction of "One World" as the "right path" defined by a set of universal moral obligations rooted in their own cultural myths. This assumption of kn owing the "right path" not only justified colonization but the Westernization of other cultures according to Prakash and Stuchul (2004). They feel that fast food and global education are following a similar path by being both economically profitable and s ymbolically significant in formulating dominant conceptions. They argue that global education and fast food are not developed in the best interest of people. They suspect that global education will potentially destro to the wa y fast food has universally

PAGE 69

53 Need for Additional Research There is a need for additional research because internationalization is a relatively new strategic approach used by higher education institutions in response to the rapi d global changes taking place in the 21st century. Internationalization will remain as a central force and research on the topic will help identify the effectiveness of institutional and individual strategies. Australian experts predict that approximately 15 million students will study abroad by 2025 compared to the current two million worldwide (AIU, 2009). Consequently, it is imperative to understand international trends. This is especially true for the United States as it had been the l eading host cou ntry for decades but has been experiencing a decline in enrollment in recent years. Altbach and Knight (2007) warn that several uncertainties may affect the pace of internationalization. Some of the uncertainties like terrorism threats include politic al realities and international security. Additionally, there is an uncerta inty in whether curriculum and academic models, designed in countries like the US, will be applied in other countries. Worldwide higher education is constantly reshaping; therefore, it is vital to study the process to guarantee competitiveness, leadership and even the survival of some postsecondary institutions. Conceptual Framework The conceptual framework for this study focuse d on internationalization as a strategic approach of h igher education institutions to face the challenges of

PAGE 70

54 globalization in the 21 st century (Figure 5). Some of the forces of globalization are a global economy, rapid changes in technology, more interconnectedness among individuals and countries, and the inc reased mobility of people across nations. in an ever changing environment. Top administrators play a critical role in the internationalization process as they have the pow er and responsibility to guide institutions. Figure 5 Conceptual Framework for Higher Education Internationalization However, administrators need to actively engage the stakeholders of the institution including students, faculty and staff and the larger international community for internationalization to take place (Figure 6). Administrative strategies to support higher education internationalization must focus on providing the resources and environment required for a ttaining internationalization.

PAGE 71

55 Figure 6 University Stakeholders and Internationalization Dimensions The conceptual framework wa s based on the literature review. The approach to measure organizational strategies for internationalization was done by using the Strategic Internation alization Priority Scale instrument (Appendix A) developed for this study and explained in the methods section. Summary of the Literature Review This literature review presented a summary of scholarly documents, empirical and non empirical papers and published research by international experts about perspectives, approaches and strategies for higher education internationalization. A particular emphasis was made on the critical role of top university administrators in the process. An overview of interna tionalization in institutions around the world was also comp iled. The literature review pointed out the perceived benefits, risks and obstacles to internationalization as well as controversial views on the topic. Clarification of terms such as globalizati on and internationalization were also addressed. Finally, a conceptual framework for the study was presented.

PAGE 72

56 Chapter Three M ethods This chapter describes the research design and methods that were used for this study. The purpose of the study was t o identify international university education internationalization. The parts of this chapter are the f ollowi ng : design of the study, population and sample, instruments, collection of data, analysis of data and summary. Design of the Study A descriptive survey design was used for this research (Gall et al., 2007, p. 301) It is a quantitative study. The main characteristics of this design are that the independent variables were not manipulated by the researcher which means that internal validity or the confidence in making causal connections between the independent variable and the dependent variable tend to be weaker compared to a true experiment or even a quasi experiment. This s tudy was cross sectional and examined organizational strategies to support higher education internationalization in three main dimensions: strategic planning and operations, student education, and te aching and faculty development. A web based questionnaire (Survey Monkey, 2008) method of gathering survey data was used. It provided the advantages of

PAGE 73

57 being cost effective, saving time, reducing of data entry error a nd mass distribution. The de pendent v ariable s were organizational strategies for higher education internationalization ere measured by the following three dimensions or constructs: 1) Strategic planning and operations 2) Student education and 3) Teaching and facult y development The independent variables were the characteristics of the research participants (university administrators) such as position (president and dean) and country where their universities are located. These individuals we re nested within universi ties and countries. Other demographic characteristics were analyzed in order to control for extraneous variables such as gender, age, years of experience in administration, international experience, and institution size. Instruments The instrument titl developed for this study (Appendix A). This 34 item instrument wa s the result of an adaptation of the 44 05) Development and i nitial V alidation The main purpose of the was

PAGE 74

58 to gather data to the priority level of organizational st rategies for higher education internationalization. The construction and development of the survey follow ed the steps in the systematic approach to test construction for subject centered measurement according to Crocker and Algina (2006 p. 66): 1. Identi fy the purpose for which the test scores will be used. 2. Identify behaviors that represent the construct or define the domain. 3. Prepare a set of specifications, delineating the proportion of items that should focus on each type of behavior. 4. Construct an initial pool of items. 5. Invite both e xpert and layperson review of items pool 6. Pretest it ems 7. Pilot test the items on a large sample representative of the examinee population for whom the test is intended (reliability, validity, utility, practi cality). 8. Determine statistical properties of item scores and, when appropriate, eliminate items that do not meet pre established criteria. 9. Design and conduct reliability and validity studies for the final form of the test. 10. Develop guidelines for administration, scoring and interpreting scores. The main purpose of this instrument wa s to gather data that can assist in r esearch and administrative decisions as follows: a. Research Decisions: This instrument wa s designed for a cross sectional doc toral research dissertation in higher education. The purpose of the dissertation wa on the priority level of organizational strategies for higher education internationalization. This instru ment can be use d in future longitudinal studies to establish changes in priorities and trends over time and to identify new priorities and/or organizational strategies. b. Administrative Decisions: The second purpose of this instrument wa s to

PAGE 75

59 assist inte rnational university administrators to identify the perceived priority level of organizational strategies in their institutions and to compare them with higher education institutions worldwide to understand differences and similarities. Based on results f ound from this survey, h igher education administrators can develop action plans aligned with the plans of their international partners as well as meeting world expectations in higher education. Understanding overall organizational strategies for internatio nalization can help individual efforts fo r success. particular attention was paid to meet ing the recommendations of standard 1.1. for each recommended interpretation and use of test scores, together with a comprehensive summary of the evidence and theory bearing on the intended use instrument was the participants for the dissertation. The participants are to p administrators of universities that have current international agreements with the University of South Florida. What the Instrument Measures Perceptions about the priority level of organizational strategies for internationalization by worldwide unive rsity administrators were measured. The survey is multidimensional because according to the literature review (Hill & Green, 2008; Robertson, 2005) there are three main dimensions of higher education internationalization that have sub dimensions as well (Figure 7 ): 1) Strategic planning and operations

PAGE 76

60 2) Student education and 3) Teaching and faculty development Figure 7 Internationalization Constructs and Relationship s Survey Item Development and Validity Item Pool The item pool consisted of the items from two survey instruments, the 2008) Internationalization (international university presidents and deans). n Priority Scale 22 of which items were adapted from the Leadership Survey after permission from Dr. Robertson was obtained (Appendix B). The other 12 items were adapted from the Internat (32 items) developed by Janice Sullivan. A summary of the critical literature review for the development of the instrument is presented

PAGE 77

61 in Figure 8 Figure 8 Summary of critical literature for instrument development Based on the literature review the characteristics of an internationalized higher education institution were determined. Those characteristics became the blueprint for the construction of the instrument. Survey items were selected and/or adapted according to the 34 i ndicators of internationalization presented in Table 3 Table 3 Characteristics of an Internationalized Institution (T his t able continues on the next page) HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION DIMENSION 1: PLANNING AND OPERATIONS Sub Dimension Internationalization Indicator Culture 1. Institutional global vision 2. Institutional policies enh ance global thinking and action 3. Mission statement reflects an international focus 4. Web site ref lects international perspective 5. Institutional presen ce at international conferences 6. Academic program s promoted through global media 7. There is a balanced mixed be tween global and local outreach

PAGE 78

62 8. Institutional capacity to deliver q uality services across cultures Structur e 9. Presenc e of a high level administrator for international activities. Operations 10. Campaigns are held to fundraise for internationalization. 11. Organizational resources are aligned with global strategies. 12. International activities and programs are monitored. 13. Institutional collaborations with foreign universities are established. 14. Branch campuses are set up abroad. DIMENSION 2: STUDENT EDUCATION Sub Dimension Internationalization Indicator Academic Mobility 1 5. Visible internati onal student presence on campus 16. Facilitation in transferring credits from recognized foreign universities 17. Students participate in study abroad programs. 18. Joint degree programs with foreign universities are offered. Curriculum 19. Students are required to take courses with international content. 20. Students participate in international research. 21. Foreign language credits for undergraduate students are required. 22. Interdisciplinary global programs with STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) are offered. Culture collection. 24. Intercultural interactions among students are promoted. DIMENSION 3: TEACHING AND FAC ULTY DEVELOPMENT Sub Dimension Internationalization Indicator Curriculum and Instruction 25. Financial incentives for curriculum internationalization are provided. 26. International research and teaching is considered during salary and prom otion decisions. 27. Faculty participation in international teaching and research is funded. 28. Acquisition of new technologies to enhance international teaching Academic Mobility 29. International faculty and staff are recruited. 30. Internat ional academic travel for faculty and staff is funded. Culture 31. Faculty engagement in campus internationalization is promoted. 32. Training is provided in cross cultural communication for faculty and staff. 33. Consideration is given to fore ign language fluency in salary/promotion decisions. 34. Global activities and research are featured in institutional publications. The indicators are structured by three main internationalization dimensions but their sub dimensions can overlap with in the main dimensions depending on the stakeholder or group (administrator, student or faculty). For instance, an internationalized university would exhibit a culture (mission, vision and values) that supports the internationalization process. Culture in this case is a sub dimension of internationalization that is recurring in all three main

PAGE 79

63 dimensions. Culture strategies are initiated by administrators; however, they can only succeed if faculty, students and staff adopt them and actively participate to m aintain them. Structure and operations are sub dimensions of internationalization that pertain to the daily activities of managers and staff. Academic mobility is a sub dimension that belongs to students and faculty as they can complement each other; fa study and research abroad. Faculty and students can also travel together. Finally, curriculum is a sub dimension that mostly depends on the activities of faculty and students. Faculty members have the capacity to modify curriculum and students chose the courses or degrees in which they want to enroll. Item S pecification The following number of items after pre testing measures each one of the four constructs (Figure 9 ): 1. Administr ative planning and operations = 14 Items 2. Student education = 10 items 3. Teaching and faculty development = 10 items

PAGE 80

64 Figure 9 Constructs and N umber of I tems Scoring A five point scale from No Priority to Top Priority was used in the final survey. During the pilot, a four point scale from No Priority to High Priory was used, but several participants indicated in the comments section that a five point scale would be preferable because it would offer a middle point option. Therefore, this change was ap plied to the final Instrument. No Priority was scored as 1 and Top Priority was scored as 5 (Table 4 ). Table 4 Teaching and Faculty Development Subscale Scoring Sampl e (T his t able continues on the next page) To what degree do you perceive the follo wing strategies as priority for your institution? NP= No Priority LP= Low Priority MP= Medium Priority HP= High Priority TP = Top P riority NP LP MP HP TP 25. Providing financial incentives for curriculum internationalization. 1 2 3 4 5 26. Considering international research and teaching during salary and promotion decisions. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 81

65 27. Funding faculty participation in international teaching and research. 1 2 3 4 5 28. Acquiring new technologies to enhance international teaching 1 2 3 4 5 29. Recruiting international faculty and staff. 1 2 3 4 5 30. Promoting faculty engagement in campus internationalization. 1 2 3 4 5 31. Providing training in cross cultural communication for faculty and staff. 1 2 3 4 5 32. Considering for eign language fluency in salary/promotion decisions. 1 2 3 4 5 33. Funding international academic travel for faculty and staff. 1 2 3 4 5 34. Featuring global activities and research in institutional publications. 1 2 3 4 5 Missing data Up to two mi ssing values per subscale per participant were accepted for scoring. A composite score was computed by takin g an average of item responses. For example, in the Teaching and Faculty Development Subscale for a score to be computed at least eight items of the ten need to be answered (Table 5 ). Table 5 Example of C omposite S Teaching and Faculty Development Subscale Person Item 25 Item 26 Item 27 Item 28 Item 29 Item 30 Item 31 Item 32 Item 33 Item 34 Composite 1 3 4 3 4 3 5 4 2 2 5 3.5 (35/10 ) 2 2 2 3 --2 3 3 4 5 1 2.8 (25/9) 3 3 4 --4 4 5 5 4 --3 4.0 (32/8) 4 2 --3 3 --4 2 4 1 --Missing Data Validity Evidence Content and Construct Validity Content validity refers to "the accuracy with which the questions adequately repr esent the qualities they are presumed to measure" (Jackson & Furnham, 2000, p. 147). Construct validity is the agreement between the theoretical concept and a specific measuring device or procedure. Content and construct validity were addressed by selectin g appropriate literature from dissertations, peer reviewed journals

PAGE 82

66 sites. Next, a panel of five subject matter experts reviewed the instrument and the ir suggested changes were applied in August 2009; pre test ing and tryouts took place in September 2009 including the feedback received from doctoral students in an advanced measurement course. Subsequently, a pilot test was conducted between October and November 2009 with a sample representative of the target population such as university presidents, deans, vice deans and directors from universities around the world. A total of 92 high level administrators in 26 countries participated in the pilot study. Finally the updated survey was sent to 1,043 administrato rs in 50 countries for the final dissertation study. A total of 358 participants from 35 countries filled out the survey for a 34% response. Figure 1 0 illustrates the validation process in chronological order. Th e content validation is a never ending proce ss; therefore, repeated use of the instrument will create opportunities for improvement. Figure 1 0 Content Validation Timeline desirability a way that would look beneficial for their institutions and not necessarily how things are really

PAGE 83

67 perceived, even though their answers do not present any risk. Therefore, the assurance of anonymity in responding was important for the study. Factor Analys e s A factor model diagram was developed based on theory and literature review (Figure 1 1). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analys e s were conducted for the pilot and final dissertation study Crocker and Algina (2006, p. 288) recommend ten participant s per question for an exploratory factor analysis, but fewer cases can be used when other conditions are present such as when the magnitude of loadings is strong Therefore, 340 responses is the ideal number to conduct a n exploratory factor analysis for th is instrument A total of 92 individuals participated in the pilot study and a total of 349 were used for analysis f o r the final dissertation study A s part of the validation process, two factorial methods were used. The default approach to dealing with m issing data in the statistical software SPSS (2010) package, listwise deletion, was employed for the factor analysis. Listwise deletion implies dropping any case with data missing on any variable involved anywhere in the analysis.

PAGE 84

68 Figure 1 1 Strategic Internationalization Priority Scale Factor Model Diagram Results from Fac tor Analyses in the Pilot Study The exploratory factor analysis used was the Principal Axis Factoring method of extraction with a Varimax rotation. The results of the pilot ind icate d eight factors ( Appendix H2 ). The factor pattern coefficients (the same as structure coefficients because of Varimax rotation) tended to be in the direction that was theoretically determined, although it gave more factors than the suggested model. A n initial confirmatory factor ana lysis was conducted with a four factor model. The results did not show strong support for this model. However, it is important to remember that the number of cases and items were very low. The model of fit found a comparati ve fit index ( CFI ) of .74, but it should be greater

PAGE 85

69 than .95. The estimate RMSEA (Root Square Error of Approximation) should be lower than .06, but it was found to be .09 T he SRMR (Standardized Root Mean Square Residual) was .077 and should be below .08. Consequently, the model was modified to a three factor model (first order correlation) for better fit. Furthermore, the CFA indicated that questions 26 and 27 had correlated errors which are not desirable because errors should be random. Question 27 also was identified as lacking theoretical purpose as it was similar to question 26 and therefore could create confusion for participants. As a result qu estion 27 was eliminated and the instrument changed from 35 items to 34 items. The results from the explor atory and confirmatory factor analyses supported the validity of the items, although they also highlighted potential areas fo r improvement to make sure the items fit the model. Some changes followed by more factor analysis studies are recommended. Result s from Factor Analyses in the Dissertation Study New validity evidence was determined after results from the dissertation survey were obtained. The data from the 349 participants were analyzed with the software SPSS using exploratory factor analysis. The data obtained in the final study have the advantage of meeting the recommendation suggested by Cr ocker and Algina (2006, p. 288). In this case the ideal number is 340 and the obtained number of cases was 349. Listwise deletion was again used for dealing w ith missing data The exploratory factor analysis used was Principal Axis Factoring method of extraction with a Varimax rotation. The exploratory factor analysi s indicated

PAGE 86

70 that 13 out of 14 items load ed in factor one as suggested in the model. Five out of ten loaded in factor two as suggested in the model. Finally, n ine out of ten items load ed in factor three as suggested in the model The loadings of the items on the factors after Varimax rotation are presented in Table 6 The total variance is shown in T able 7 Also see Appendix H1 for communalities and other relevant information. The factor pattern coefficients tended to be in the direction that was theoretically determined and results show a closer fit to the three models suggested than the results fou nd during the pilot. Table 6 Research Study Rotated Factor Matrix (This t able continues o n the next page) Rotated Factor Matrix a Factor 1 2 3 .538 .213 .519 .550 .166 .529 .651 .226 .280 .591 .295 .392 .571 .454 .222 .648 .342 .197 .602 .264 397 .479 .306 .425 .661 .245 .301 .718 .259 .041 .713 .291 .310 .617 .196 .453 .472 .347 .435 .310 .381 .193 .525 .224 .346 .447 .340 .336 .446 .271 .500 .376 .539 .244 .282 .407 .530 .518 .470 .195 .182 .489 .208

PAGE 87

71 .504 .378 .073 .508 .475 185 .289 .317 .617 .406 .662 .142 .448 .663 .172 .292 .644 .393 .274 .744 .195 .239 .604 .353 .221 .569 578 .249 .642 .349 .207 .694 .057 .164 .611 .503 .224 .643 .368 Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Varimax wit h Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 23 iterations. Table 7 Factor Analysis Total Variance Explained f or Dissertation Study Total Variance Explained Factor Initial Eigenvalues Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings Total % of Variance Cumula tive % Total % of Variance Cumulative % dimension0 1 16.766 49.311 49.311 7.468 21.966 21.966 2 2.068 6.083 55.394 7.053 20.743 42.709 3 1.328 3.906 59.300 4.364 12.835 55.544 Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Confirmatory Factor Analys is (CFA) in Mplus Software Version 5 ( Muthen & Muthen, 2007 ) was also conducted in ordered to determine the fitness of the model based on research results ( Table 8 ). Including all the questions, the model had a Comparative Fit Index (CFI) of .84. Comparati ve Fit Index is an incremental index that evaluates how well a target model replicates the sample covariance matrix relative to how well a baseline model reproduces the sample covariance matrix. CFI falls between 0 and 1, with higher numbers indicating

PAGE 88

72 be tter fit. A CFI higher than .95 indicates an adequate fit (Hu & Bentler, 1998). CFI is not related to sample size. The second measure obtained from the Confirmatory Factor Analysis was the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). The model, with a ll the questions included, had a RMSEA of .085 which indicate s a reasonable fit. RMSEA is an absolute fit index that evaluates how well a target model reproduces the sample covariance matrix. This implies a comparison to the best possible model. RMSEA is r elatively insensitive to sample size. MacCallum, Browne, and Sugawara (1996) suggest that a RMSEA lower than .05 indicates a close fit while a RMSEA lower than .08 indicates a reasonable fit. A RMSEA higher than .10 suggest a questionable fit. Finally, t he third measure obtained from the CFA was the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR). The SRMR for the model was .054 which indicates an adequate fit. SRMR is also an absolute fit index. Smaller values in a SRMR indicate a better fit. Hu and Bentl er (1998) suggest that a value lower than 08 indicates an adequate fit. Table 8 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Tests of Model F it from Mplus (This table continues on the next page) Chi Square Test of Model Fit Value 1843.203 Degrees of Freedom 524 P Value 0.0000 CFI/TLI CFI 0.838 TLI 0.827 RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error Of Approximation) Estimate 0.085 90 Percent C.I. 0.081 Probability RMSEA <= .05 0.000 SRMR (Standardized Root Mean Square Residual) Value 0.054

PAGE 89

73 Reliability E vidence Reliability refers to the desired consistency (or reproducibility) of the test scores (Crocker & Algina 2006, p. 105). A Cronbach alpha higher than .80 is ideal in education while in other fields like health an alpha higher than .95 is desirabl e in cases such as illness detection. More items tend to produce larger reliability estimates Reliability evidence from the two instruments used for the development of this survey was as follows: the reliability scores found from 005) ranged from .80 to .91 per subscale (seven subscales), and the range of the Cronbach alphas for the subscales in the second instrument (Sullivan, 2008) was .88 to .92 (three subscales). Reliability Evidence from Pilot Study Reliability estimates fo und during the pilot study suggest ed that the Cronbach alphas ranged from .86 in the Student Education s ubscale to .88 in the Teaching and Faculty s ubscale. Given the fact that these subscales have only 10 to 14 items, the results indicated very good inter nal consistency. Cronbach alpha reliability estimates and the normality scores (skewness and kurtosis) for the Strategic Inte rnationalization Priority Scale are shown in Table 9 The confidence intervals for reliability estimates of the instrument are pres ented in Table 10 Table 9 Cronbach Alpha Reliability Estimate for Pilot Study of the Strategic Internationalization Priority Scale ( n =92) Subscale N of Items Cronbach Alpha Range Item Total Correlation M SD Range of Skewness Range of Kurtosis A dministrative Planning & Operations 14 .88 .30 (Q14) to .68 (Q6) 2.90 0.57 0.08 (Q10) to 0.81 (Q13) 0.05 (Q9) to 1.30 (Q14) Student Education 10 .86 .32 (Q18) to .65 (Q23) 2.88 0.62 0.15 (Q19) to 0.62 0.49 (Q16) to 1.06 (Q2 1)

PAGE 90

74 (Q16) Teaching & Faculty Development 10 .88 .45 (Q28) to .76 (Q27) 2.68 0.67 0.08 (Q26) to 0.43 (Q25) 0.40 (Q28) to 1.08 (Q31) Note: Items were scaled from 1 (No Priority) to 4 (High Priority). Table 10 Confidence Intervals for Reliability Estimat es of the Strategic Internationalization Priority Scale ( n =92) 95% Confidence Interval For Average Measures Subscale N of Items Intraclass Correlation Lower Bound Upper Bound Administrative Planning & Operations 14 .88 .84 .91 Student Education 10 .86 .82 .90 Teaching & Faculty Development 10 .88 .85 .92 Item discrimination index from pilot study : I tem discrimination refers to the degree to which items differentiate among participants in terms of the characteristic being measured (i.e., betwee n high and low scorers). Discrimination can be measured in many ways. Given the fact that this survey measures three different dimensions of internationalization, the i tem d iscrimination Index obtained from SPSS was used to determine discrimination in each subscale (Appendix D ). Results revealed that the lowest item to total correlation in the first subscale was item .30 (Q14) and the highest wa s .68 (Q6) which means that the most discriminatory item of that subscale wa s question 6. In the second subscale question 18 ha d the lowest item to total correlation (.32) and question 23 ha d the highest (.65). The third subscale exhibit ed the lowest item to total correlation in question 28 (.45) and the highest in question 27 (.76).

PAGE 91

75 Reliability E vidence from D issertation Study After the data collection period ended, new reliability and validity estimates for the scores found took place. The new evidence presented in T able 11 indicate s better reliability estimates compare to those found during the pilot study. The new Cronbach alphas range d from .88 for the second subscale (Student Education) to .94 for the first subscale (Administrative Planning and Operations). The new scores remain ed within appropriate normality ranges. No extreme values of skewness or kurt osis were found. Skewness refers to asymmetry of the distribution. This statistic ranges from 1 to +1. Normal distributions have zero skewness ( Groeneveld & Meeden 1984 ). Kurtosis refers to the peakedness of distributions. It is also defined as the lo cation and scale free movement of probability mass from the shoulders of a distribution into its cent e r and tails (Balanda and MacGillivray, 1988). Furthermore the new confidence intervals for the reliability estimates indicate d that the three subscales f e ll within acceptable levels. See Table 12 Table 11 Final Cronbach Alpha Reliability Estimate for the Strategic Internationalization Priority Scale Subscale N of Items N of Cases Cronbach Alpha Range Item Total Correlation M SD Range of Skewne ss Range of Kurtosis Administrative Planning & Operations 14 341 .94 .47 (Q14) to .79 (Q11) 3.28 0.7 0.05 (Q10) to 0.77 (Q14) 0.03 (Q7) to 0.63 (Q10) Student Education 10 340 .88 .50 (Q21) to .68 (Q18) 3.25 0.7 0.03 (Q21) to 0.48 (Q2 4) 0.03 (Q17) to 0.85 (Q21) Teaching & Faculty Development 10 344 .93 .64 (Q32) to .79 (Q27) 2.88 0.8 0.01 (Q29) to 0.41 (Q32) 0.19 (Q33) to 0.74 (Q25)

PAGE 92

76 Table 1 2 Final Confidence Intervals for Reliability Estimates of the Strategic International ization Priority Scale 95% Confidence Interval For Average Measures Subscale N of Items N of Cases Intraclass Correlation Lower Bound Upper Bound Administrative Planning & Operations 14 341 .94 .93 .95 Student Education 10 340 .88 .86 .90 Teach ing & Faculty Development 10 344 .93 .92 .94 After the initial survey was outlined, reviewed by experts, pretested and ndings from the pilot gave good evidence of validity and reliability from the obtained scores. Subsequently, the validity and reliability of the scores found during the actual dissertation confirmed the robustness of the instrument. The new reliability sco res were higher than those found during the pilot. Validity of the instrument is a continuous and ongoing process Therefore the future u se of the instrument and the evidence found in new studies will assist in this process. It is important to point out that one of the most significant contributions of this study to the research in the area of higher education internationalization is the development of the Strategic Internationalization Priority Scale. This instrument was developed through a very rigorou s process of validity and reliability measurement. Research P articipants international university presidents and deans. The units have a hierarchical

PAGE 93

77 structure because they are nested w ithin universities and universities are nested within countries. See Figure 12. Figure 12 Hierarchical Structure of Target Population According to the standard 1.2 of the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA et al., 2006, p. 17) the population for which a test is appropriate should be clearly delimited. Common characteristics of the population are as follows : Top level higher education administrators (university presidents and deans) Adults (Approximat ely 30 to 65 years old) Pos tsecondary educational level Multiple languages including English as primary or secondary language depending on the country where they live or are native Multiple Cultures Population and Sample Population The total target population was approximately 1, 043 university presidents, vice presidents and deans at 149 universities (including the University of South Florida) in 50 countries (Table 3). The universities currently have an active international agreement with the University of South Florida. Country University Administrator: (position)

PAGE 94

78 Agree ments between the University of South Florida and other institutions are usually initiated by faculty or researchers of either university to develop research, study abroad programs or other international activities. An analysis by the International Affair s office is conducted to verify that all requirements for partnerships are met. Finally, the agreement is signed between the parties and it implies mutual collaboration for international activities regardless of which inst itution initiated the process. For each university, one president/rector, one vice president/vice rector and/or provost and around five deans were sent the survey. That means approximately seven people per university were surveyed. The survey was sent to five countries in Asia, one in A ustralia, 15 in Europe, 15 in Latin America and 2 in North America. See Table 13 for target population by region. Table 13 Target P opulation by Region (This table continues on the next page) World Region Number Of Partner In stitutions Target Population n T arget population Africa 5 (Egypt, Ghana, Nigeria, Tanzania, and Zambia) 7 49 5% Asia 12 (China, India, Israel, Japan, Malaysia, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam) 29 203 1 9% Australia & Oceania 1 (Australia) 5 35 3% Europe 15 (Denmark, England, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Turkey and Wales) 38 266 26% Latin America 15 (Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Haiti, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela) 42 294 28% North America 2 (Canada and USA) 28 196 19% Total 50 149 1043 100% For the North American region, 27 insti tutions of higher education in the United States and Canada were randomly selected to participate in the study in

PAGE 95

79 addition to the University of South Florida. The list of USA institutions was obtained from the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Tea ching (2010) website. The list of Canadian institutions was ob tained from the Association of Universities and C olleges of Canada (2010) website. Sample A sample of 281 was recommended for a margin of error of 5% and a confidence level of 95% with a res earch distribution of 50%. The goal for this research was to survey the total population. There were 349 responses to the survey. The participants were university presidents, vice presidents and deans from 33 countries and approximately 65 universities. Collection of Data An online questionnaire (through Survey Monkey) was administered. An adaptation of the 44 The modi consisted of 34 items 22 of which we while the other 12 we Sullivan (2008) based on the American Council of Hayward, 2003). Variables The independent variables are the characteristics of the participants such as gender and age. On the ot her hand, the dependent variables are the measured

PAGE 96

80 or observed va riable s. Examples: Third research question: T o what extent do international university administrators perceive student education strategies for internationalization as an institutional priori ty? Constitutive definition : Preparing students to be capable to compete in a globalized economy with professionalism, responsibility and a sense of global citizenship. Operational definition: Responses to the 10 items on t Sub in the S trategic I nternationalization P riority S cale Fourth Research Question : To what extent do international university administrators perceive teaching and faculty development strategies for internationalization as an institutional priority? Constitutive definition: De velopment of global and cross cultural competencies in faculty and staff to facilitate internationalization of curriculum and worldwide collaboration and research. Operational definition: ching & Faculty Strategic Internationalization Priority Scale. Dependent Variable: Perspectives on teaching and facult y development strategies Independent Variables: Characteristics of participant administrators (Position, Country, etc) Dependent Variable: Perspectives on student education strategies Independent Variables: Characteristics of participant administrators (Position, Country, etc)

PAGE 97

81 Test/Item Bias and Ethical Issues Ethical Issues Related to Human Participation so there was no risk associated with their respon ses. Participants were contacted only once when they received the email with the survey link to fill out the online survey. It wa s not possible for the researcher to track or identify participants ; no I.P. comp uter addresses were collected. In order to en was voluntary. Therefore, there wa s a limitation of the study related to violation of the statistical assumption of independence of observations because administrators from the same university might have similar responses. Diversity Issues The questionnaire wa s written in English, but many of the participants we re individuals for wh om English wa s not their first language. Nevertheless, uently. At the beginning of the questionnaire, a notice on English proficiency to respond to the survey was given. Participants were asked to determine their level of English comprehension. The instrument was adapted keeping in mind the Standards advice: i f the linguistic or reading ability is not part of the construct of interest, the test should be kept to the minimum necessary for the valid assessment of the intended construct (AERA, APA, & NCME, 1999 p. 82). Furthermore, the suggestions given by Kopriv a (2000, pp. 34 35) when testing English learners were also followed: Use of short and clear sentences Use of consistent paragraph structure

PAGE 98

82 Minimizing rephrasing or rewording ideas Use of high frequency words Avoiding colloquialism or words with more tha n one meaning. Characteristics, Limitations and Delimitations of the Study T he hierarchical structure of the unit of analysis is par t of the nature of this study. Research participants are nested within universities and their identity should remain anony mous. Therefore, this characteristic is pointed out in this section even though it is not a limitation. In order to keep adm anonymous, participants were not required to reveal the name of their institutions. The nested structure of th e data cannot be explore d w ithout knowing what institution the participant came from. The assumption of independence may have been violated b ecause it was likely that multiple responses came from the same institution. Glass and Hopkins (1996) explain that in order to conduct analysis of variance the following assumptions should be met: 1) Independence of cases; 2) Normal distribution of the scores; and 3) Homogeneity of variances which means that the variance of data in groups should be the same. Another limitation is that responses will only be obtained through survey questions; therefore, valuable input from other means such as interviews and observations will not be present. The main delimitation of the study is that data were collected only from uni versities engaged in active partnerships with the University of South Florida. Consequently generalization of the results to all higher education institutions cannot be implied.

PAGE 99

83 Analysis of Data Data w ere analyzed using Analysis of Variance to identify significant differences and similarities. A NOVA M ANOVA and Multiple Regression analyses were utilized to further examine the three constructs: 1) Administrative planning and operations, 2) Student Education, 3) Teaching and Faculty Development. The last research question, the impact of demographic characteristics such as ge was analyzed with multiple regression analysis The statistical programs used for data analysis were SAS vers ion 9.2, SPSS version 18.0 and MPlus versi on 5 Summary Chapter Three described the methods used in conducting this research including the design of the study, population and sample, instrument, collection of data, limitations and delimitations of the study, ethical issues and diversity, and data analysis.

PAGE 100

84 Chapter Four Results This chapter contains a summary of the research findings i ncluding descriptive statistics and results from the analysis of variance and linear regression s The purpose of the study was to identify internation al university e ducation internationalization. This chapter begins with the demographic characteristics of the participants followed by the results from the five research questions and a review of the chapter. Demographic Characteristics of the Participants The total number of participants was 358 top level university administrators for a to tal percentage response of 34%. Answers from four administrators who identified their posi presidents and deans were not counted because only those 3 positions were the target population of this study Table 14 provides the number of administrators in each world region and the resulting participant rates of return. From the 358 responses seven were deleted because the participants did not identify the country and/or the world region where the ir institution wa s located. with only two res ponses of the expected 49; t h

PAGE 101

85 Table 14 Descriptive Statistics for Research Response Population Sample World Region Target Population Number of Participants Response Percent Africa 49 2 4% Asia 203 45 22% Australia 35 14 40% Europe 2 66 98 37% Latin America 294 78 26% North America 196 114 58% Did not identify region 7 Total Population Sample 1,043 358 34% Affairs office. Some of this information may not be current due to reasons such as new or in progress agreements. The new sample of 349 was examined using a Chi Square Goodness of Fit method (Table 15 ) based on proportions of the total population A confidence interval study w as then conducted (Table 16 ) to determine the appropriateness of the sample. The results of the Chi Square were statistically significant which means the observed frequencies did not match the expected frequencies. The responses from Australia were lower than expected while those from North America were higher. Nevertheless the confidence intervals for proportions were within acceptable ranges Therefore t he responses of these 349 participants were included in the final data analysis. Table 15 Chi Squ are Goodness of Fit T est S tatistic for S pecified P roportions (T his t able continues on the next page) World Region Frequency Percent Test Percent Cumulative Frequency Cumulative Percent Asia 45 12.89 20.00 49 12.89 Australia 14 4.01 3.00 59 16.91 Europ e 98 28.08 27.00 157 44.99 Latin America 78 22.35 30.00 235 67.34 North America 114 32.66 20.00 349 100.00

PAGE 102

86 Chi Square Test for Specified Proportions Test Statistic n 349 Chi Square 44.9504 DF 4 <.0001 Table 16 Confidenc e Intervals for Proportions: Research Sample of 349 World Region Sample Proportion Sample Size Level of Confidence Lower Limit Upper Limit Asia 0.22 349 90 0.18576 0.25855 Asia 0.22 349 95 0.17972 0.26638 Asia 0.22 349 99 0.16840 0.28205 Australia 0.4 0 349 90 0.35779 0.44374 Australia 0.40 349 95 0.34996 0.45222 Australia 0.40 349 99 0.33493 0.46881 Europe 0.37 349 90 0.32864 0.41336 Europe 0.37 349 95 0.32102 0.42181 Europe 0.37 349 99 0.30644 0.43842 Latin America 0.26 349 90 0.22333 0.30036 L atin America 0.26 349 95 0.21677 0.30846 Latin America 0.26 349 99 0.20440 0.32456 North America 0.58 349 90 0.53609 0.62268 North America 0.58 349 95 0.52762 0.63064 North America 0.58 349 99 0.51108 0.64594 Demographic Characteristics of the Partic ipating Institutions Provi di Participants who identified their universities made up 36% of the total number o f participants (126 of 349). inst itutions were identified. The list of institutions by region is presented in Table 17 Table 17 List of Identified Universities Participating in the Study (This table continues o n the next page) REGION UNIVERSITY Asia Nankai University, China Shang hai Jiao Tong University, China King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Saudi Arabia Kongju University, South Korea National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan Australia Edith Cowan University, Australia Macquarie University, Australia Deakin Univ ersity, Australia Europe Aarhus School of Business, Denmark University of Copenhagen, Denmark Universit degli Studi di Siena, France ESC Rennes School of Business, France Universit de Perpignan France University of Applied Sciences Ravensburg Wein garten, Germany

PAGE 103

87 University of Cologne, Germany University Osnabrck, Germany American College of Thessaloniki, Greece University of Latvia, Latvia University of Aveiro, Portugal University of Mlaga, Spain Universidad Politecnica de Valencia, Spain Univers idad de Oviedo, Spain University of Navarra, Spain Jnkping University, Sweden Uppsala University Sweden Latin America College of the Bahamas, Bahamas Escuela Politecnica del Ejercito, Ecuador Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Ecuador Universidad d el Norte, Colombia Universidad El Bosque, Colombia Universidad Autnoma del Estado de Hidalgo, Mexico Universidad Veracruzana, Mexico IUTE, Venezuela North America Concordia University, Canada McGill University, Canada Memorial University of Newfoundl and, Canada University of Ottawa, Canada University of Manitoba, Canada Universit Laval, Canada Broward College, USA Centenary College of Louisiana, USA Harvard University, USA Hillsborough Community College USA Kennesaw State University, USA Kent State University, USA Methodist University USA Missouri University of Science & Technology, USA Morgan State University, USA Ohio University, USA Polk State College Florida, USA St. Petersburg College, USA The University of Oklahoma, USA University of Alaska Fairbanks, USA University of Arkansas Fayetteville, USA University of Arkansas Little Rock, USA University of California Berkeley, USA University of California Davis, USA University of Illinois, USA University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, USA Universi ty of Iowa, USA University of Michigan Flint, USA University of Missouri Columbia, USA University of South Florida Tampa, USA University of South Florida St. Petersburg, USA West Virginia University, USA The majority of participants (75.4%) were from pu blic institutions u niversities or colleges predominantly funded by public means through national or state government. The rest of the participants classified their institutions as private (24.6%). Private institutions are universities or colleges not fund ed or

PAGE 104

88 operated by governments although they may receive public subsidies, especially in the form of tax breaks and public student loans and grants. The descriptive statistics for institutional status are presented in T able 1 8 Table 1 8 Descriptive Statis tics for Institutional Status Status n % Public 263 75.4% Private 86 24.6% n =349 A total of 220 (63%) participants were from research do ctorate granting universities. Participants from underg raduate and postgraduate degree granting institutions up participants. Only 6.6% percent of the participants were from colleges or undergraduate degree granting institution s The descriptive statistics for the type of institution are presented in Table 19 Table 19 D escriptive Statistics for Type of Institution Type of institution n % Research doctorate granting university 220 63% Undergraduate and post graduate ( Master ) degree granting institution 106 30.4% Undergraduate degree granting institution 23 6.6% n = 3 49 Study participants were from 33 countries. The number and percentages of participants by countr y are presented in Table 20 The participating countries we re the following : Australia, Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada China, Colombia, Denmark, Domin ican Republic, Ecuador, England, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, India, Ital y Jamaica, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Malaysia, Mexico, The Netherlands, Panama, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Trinidad and Tobago, USA, and Venezuela.

PAGE 105

89 Table 20 Number and Percentages of Participants by C ountry Country n % 1 Australia 14 4. 0 2 Bahamas 2 0. 6 3 Bolivia 2 0.6 4 Brazil 17 4.9 5 Canada 12 3.4 6 China 9 2.6 7 Colombia 16 4.6 8 Denmark 6 1.7 9 Dominican Republic 2 0.6 10 Ecuador 9 2. 6 11 England 10 2.9 12 Finland 3 0.9 13 France 16 4.6 14 Germany 16 4.6 15 Greece 5 1.4 16 India 5 1.4 17 Italy 2 0.6 18 Jamaica 1 0.3 19 Japan 2 0.6 20 Korea, South 16 4.6 21 Latvia 5 1.4 22 Malaysia 1 0.3 23 Mexico 18 5.2 24 The Netherlands 3 0.9 25 Panama 5 1.4 26 Portugal 2 0.6 27 Saudi Arabia 4 1.1 28 Spain 22 6.3 29 Sweden 8 2.3 30 Taiwan 8 2.3 31 Trinidad & Tobago 1 0.3 32 United States of America 102 29.2 33 Venezuela 5 1.4 n = 349 Participants were asked to identify the number of international undergraduate students with a student visa. Thirteen participants (3.8%) d id not have international undergraduate students in their universities/colleges. Participants for which the number of international undergraduate students se lected was between 1 and 299 made up 33.6% of the total number of participants Twenty two percent of the participants ha d between 300 to 1000 international undergraduate students in their institutions. Some of the participants (15.4%) did not know the num ber of international undergraduate students attending their universities. The descriptive statistics of the institutions by the

PAGE 106

90 number of international undergraduates students enrolled are presented in Table 2 1 Table 2 1 Number of International Undergra duate Students at the Participants Institution International Undergraduate Students n % None 13 3.8% Between 1 299 116 33.6% Between 300 1000 76 22.0% More than 1000 87 25.2% 53 15.4% n =345 In addition, participants were asked to identify the number of international graduate students in their institutions. Descriptive statistics based on this demographic characteristic are shown in Table 22 Twenty two p articipants (6.4%) reported hav ing no international graduate students at the ir institutions A total of 39.4% of the participants reported between 1 to 299 international graduate students at their schools. Twenty five percent of the p articipants ha d between 300 to 1000 international graduate students enrolled in their ins titutions Twelve percent of the participants had more than 1000 international graduate students and 16.5% did not know how many of these students were enrolled at their campuses. Table 22 Number of International Graduate Students at the Participant Institutio n International Graduate Students n % None 22 6.4% Between 1 299 136 39.4% Between 300 1000 88 25.5% More than 1000 42 12.2% 57 16.5% n =345 The institutional size of the participant universities was determined by

PAGE 107

91 asking the total number of their student population. Approximately half the participants (51%) were from institutions enrolling more than 20,000 students. Nearly 34% were from institutions enrolling 5 ,000 to 20,000 students in their institutions. Finally, 14.7% of partici pants worked in schools having fewer than 5,000 students enrolled The frequencies and percentages by institutional size are shown in Table 23 Table 23 Descriptive Statistics of Institutional Size by Total Number of Students Students n % Fewer than 50 00 51 14.7% 5000 20,000 117 33.6% More than 20,000 180 51.7% n =348 Participants were asked to describe their institutions according to the perce i ved level of internationalization. They were given four options : 1) Global, 2) International, 3) Natio nal and 4) Local The following definitions were given for each category: 1. Global: Extensive curriculum internationalization, study abroad programs in most disciplines, international professors, global outreach, international components in most administrat ive roles. 2. International: Moderately internationalized curriculum, international professors, some overseas programs, global research in select areas, and an international division reporting directly to the president. 3. National: Minimal internationalization of curriculum, few international professors, some international research, an international office reporting to a vice president or dean. 4. Local: Main focus on serving the local population.

PAGE 108

92 Nearly half of the participants (49.4%) described their institutions as nternational The the participants Only 9.5% of the participants described their institutions as ocal Descriptive statistics by the perceived interna tionalization level are presented in Table 24 Table 24 Descriptive Statistics of Perceived Internationalization Level Internationalization Level n % Global 75 21.6% International 172 49.4% National 68 19.5% Local 33 9.5% n =348 D emographic Characteristics of the Participating A dministrators Participants were asked to identify their organizational position. Seven percent were presidents, rectors or chancellors. Vice presidents and vice chancellors made up 23.5% of the participants The majority of participants (69.3%) were deans or vice deans organizational position are exhibited in Table 25 Table 25 Descriptive Organizational Positio n n % President/ Rector/ Chancellor 25 7.2% Vice President/ Vice Chancellor/ Vice Rector 82 23.5% Dean/ Vice Dean 242 69.3% n =349 Participants were asked if they we re also faculty members at the time of filling out the survey. Fifty eight percent of the participants were professors/faculty members in addition to their administrative roles. The are presented in Table 26

PAGE 109

93 Table 26 Descriptive ulty Faculty n % Yes 200 58.0% No 145 42.0% n =345 Participants were asked t he number of years of experience they had working in higher education administ ration The descriptive statistics for this demographic characteristic are shown in Table 27 Nineteen percent had fewer than 5 years of experience. Nearly 39% percent had between 5 to 15 years of experience. Twenty eight percent had between 16 to 25 years of experience in higher education administration. Finally 14.4% of the participants had mo re than 25 years of experience in higher education administration. Table 27 Descriptive Statistics for Years of Experience in Higher Education Administration Years Of Experience n % Less than 5 years 66 19.0% 5 15 years 135 38.8% 16 25 years 97 27. 9% More than 25 years 50 14.4% n =348 Participants were asked their age. Ten percent of the participants were under 35 years of age. Twenty five percent were between 36 and 45 years old. Nearly 37% were between 46 to 55 years old and 28.6% were 56 y ears old or are present ed in Table 28 Table 28 Descriptive Statistics for Age Groups of Participants Age: n % Under 35 years 34 9.8% 36 45 years 86 24.9% 46 55 years 127 36.7% 56 years or mor e 99 28.6% n =346 Gender is another characteristic that was asked of survey participants Fourteen participants skipped this question. Therefore, the percentages are

PAGE 110

94 ba sed on the 335 who provided answers. The majority of participants were males (67.8%) while 32.2% were females gender are presented in Table 29 Table 29 Descriptive Statistics for Gender Gender n % Female 108 32.2% Male 227 67.8% n =335 The survey inquired about level of English languag e proficiency More than half (59.4%) of the participants spoke English as a s econd l anguage. Native speakers of English made up 39.55 % of the total participants Only 1.2% of the participants were helped by a qualified translator in order to fill out the survey. The descriptive statistics for English language proficiency of the participants are exhibit ed in Table 30 Table 30 Descriptive Statistics for English Language Proficiency English Language Proficiency n % Native speaker of English 137 39.5% Sp eak English as a second language 206 59.4% Helped by a qualified translator 4 1.2% n =347 Research participants were asked to identify their le vel of international experience and were given four options : 1) Extensive, 2) Moderate, 3) Minimal and 4) None. The following definitions were given to the participants to assist them in the process of selecting the category that applied to them: 1. Extensive: Numerous experiences in studying and living abroad, extensive collaborative experiences and assignment s in international settings.

PAGE 111

95 2. Moderate: Some travel experiences abroad and attendance at international conferences and events, some collaborative experience in international settings. 3. Minimal: Limited travel experiences abroad, limited international collabo rative experiences. 4. None Thirty three percent of the participants had extensive international experience. Forty three percent of the participants had moderate international experience. Participants with minimal international experience made 22.4% of the to tal number of participants and only 1% did not have any international experience. The descriptive statistics for participants international experience are shown in Table 31 Table 31 Descriptive Statistics for International Experience International Ex perience n % Extensive 116 33.3% Moderate 150 43.1% Minimal 78 22.4% None 4 1.1% n =348 Results for Research Question s A nalysis for Research Question 1 Question 1 What are the perspectives of higher education administrators on strategic internat ionalization as an institutional priority? Do the perceptions differ based on institutional description ? In t he first question, the participants were asked to d etermine the priority level of 3 4 strategies organized within three dimensions through the ins trument The three dimensions were

PAGE 112

96 as follows : 1 ) P lanning and operation strategies (Table 32 ) ; 2 ) S tudent education strategies (Table 33 ) ; and 3 ) T eaching and faculty development strategies ( Table 34 ) Values for means reported used the following interpretation: 1.0 1.50, no priority; 1.51 2.50, low priority; 2.51 3.50 medium priority ; 3.51 4.50 high priority and 4.51 5 top priority The research participants perceived three planning an d operation strategies as having high priority level T hey were these : 1) Communicating an institutional global vision (3.57). 2) 3) Establishing institutional collaboration with foreign universities (3.64). Table 32 Perceptions of Priority Level for Planning and Operation Strategies Item Total score (SD) Priority Level 1. Communicating an institutional global vision. 3.57 (0.91) High 2. Initiating policies that enhance global thin king and action. 3.48 (0.86) Medium 3. Pledging a mission to serve the world through education. 3.49 (0.93) Medium 3.55 (0.85) High 5 Increasing institutional visibility a t international conferences. 3.36 (0.89) Medium 3.27 (0.90) Medium 7. Creating a balanced mix between global and local outreach. 3.32 (0.88) Medium 8. Developing the expertise to de liver quality services across cultures. 3.41 (0.89) Medium 9. Funding a high level administrative position for international activities. 3.17 (1.01) Medium 10. Initiating fundraising campaigns to support internationalization. 2.87 (1.08) Medium 11 Aligning organizational resources with university global strategies. 3.25 (0.98) Medium 3.36 (0.89) Medium 13. Establishing institutional collaboration with foreign universities 3.64 (0.96) High 14. Setting up a branch campus abroad. 2.10 (1.07) Low Total score 3.27 Medium On the other hand, the strategy of establishing a branch campus abroad was perceived as having a low priority level with a score of 2.10. The other ten strategies had a medium priority level according to the perceptions of the participating administrators. The overall rating of the planning and operations subscale (14 items) was 3.27 which implie d a medium priority level.

PAGE 113

97 Table 33 Perceptions of Priority Level for Student Education Strategies Item Total Score (SD) Priority Level 15. Fostering global recruitment to attract the best students. 3.50 (1.01) Medium 16. Facilitating the transfer of credits from recognized foreign universities. 3.38 (0.95) Medium 17. Motivating students to participate in study abroad programs. 3.65 (0.88) High 18. Offering joint degree programs with foreign universities. 3.12 (1.05) Medium 19. Requiring students to take courses with international content. 3.1 9 (0.95) Medium 20. Encouraging students to participate in international research. 3.21 (0.98) Medium 21. Requiring foreign language credits for undergraduate students. 2.98 (1.17) Medium 22. Offering interdisciplinary global programs with STEM (Scie nce, Technology, Engineering and Math). 3.02 (1.06) Medium 3.09 (0.97) Medium 24. Promoting intercultural interactions among students. 3.37 (0.98) Medium Total score 3.25 Med ium All research participants perceived one student education strateg y as having high priority level: Motivating students to participate in study abroad programs The other nine strategies had a medium priority level according t o the perceptions of the participating administrators. The overall rating of the student education subscale (10 items) was 3.25 which i ndicated a medium priority level. Table 34 Perceptions of Priority Level for Teaching and Faculty Development Strategie s Item Total Score (SD) Priority Level 25. Providing financial incentives for curriculum internationalization. 2.73 (0.96) Medium 26. Considering international research and teaching during salary and promotion decisions. 2.82 (0.98) Medium 27. Fundi ng faculty participation in international teaching and research. 2.97 (0.98) Medium 28. Acquiring new technologies to enhance international teaching. 2.98 (1.07) Medium 29. Recruiting international faculty and staff. 3.07 (1.02) Medium 30. Prom oting faculty engagement in campus internationalization. 3.05 (1.00) Medium 31. Providing training in cross cultural communication for faculty and staff. 2.82 (0.97) Medium 32. Considering foreign language fluency in salary/promotion decisions. 2.40 (1.10) Low 33. Funding international academic travel for faculty and staff. 2.83 (0.94) Medium 34. Featuring global activities and research in institutional publications. 3.06 (1.04) Medium Total score 2.87 Medium

PAGE 114

98 The research participants percei ved nine of the ten teaching and faculty development strategies as having a medium priority level. One strategy was p erceived as having a low priority: Considering foreign language fluency in salary/promotion decisions overall rating of the teaching and faculty development subscale (10 items) was 2.8 7 which indicated a medium priority level. Clearly this subscale was rated lower than the previous two subscales. Participants were also asked to describe their institution accord ing to the extent of internationali zation within their institution in order to identify any differences between the responses based on their current condition. The institutions could be classified as G lobal, I nternational, N ational or L ocal. The characteri stics of the institutions based on the ir extent of internationalization are the following: Global: Extensive curriculum internationalization, study abroad programs in most disciplines, international professors, global outreach, international components in most administrative roles. International: Moderately internationalized curriculum, international professors, some overseas programs, global research in select areas, and an international division reporting directly to the president. National: Minimal inter nationalization of curriculum, few international professors, some international research, an international office reporting to a vice president or dean. Local: Main focus on serving the local population.

PAGE 115

99 A total of 348 participants identified the level of internationalization within their institutions Only one participant did not answer this question. The descriptive statistics analysis is presented in T able 35 The results indicate that 75 participants identified their institutions as G lobal, 172 partici pants identified their institutions as I nternational, 68 participants classified their institutions as N ational and 33 identified their institutions as L ocal. The number of participants 36 Ta ble 35 Descriptive Statistics of Perceived Internationalization Level Internationalization Level n % Global 75 21.6% International 172 49.4% National 68 19.5% Local 33 9.5% n =348 Table 36 Number of Participants by Region and I Global International National Local Total n n n n Asia 12 (3 .4 %) 23 (6 .6 %) 7 (2%) 3 ( 1 %) 45 ( 13 %) Australia 7 (2%) 7 (2%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 14 ( 4 %) Europe 29 (8 .3 %) 53 (15 .2 %) 16 (4 .6 %) 0 ( 0 %) 98 ( 28 %) Latin America 5 (1 .4 %) 35 (10%) 19 (5 .5 %) 18 (5 .2 %) 77 ( 22 %) North America 22 (6 .4 %) 54 (15 .5 %) 26 (7 .5 %) 12 ( 3 .4 %) 114 ( 33 %) Total 75 (2 1.6 %) 172 (4 9.4 %) 68 (1 9.5 %) 33 (9 .5 %) 348 ( 100 %) Research participants were asked to rate the priority level of the presented i nternationalization strategies. A Likert type rating scale was used to ask the participating administrators to select from no priority, low priority, medium priority, high priority and top priority In each category descr iptive statistics are reported base d on the perceived internationalization level of the institutions (Global, I nternatio nal, N ational or L ocal ) Values for means reported used the following interpretation: 1.0 1.50, no priority; 1.51 2.50, low priority; 2.51 3.50 medium

PAGE 116

100 priority ; 3.51 4.50 high priority and 4.51 5 top priority The responses are presented based on the dimension to which the strategies belong : planning and operation, stud ent education and teaching and facult y dev elopment Dimension 1: Planning and Operation Str ategies by Institutional Description strategies for internationalization based on institutional description are presented in Table 37 Overall participants in G lobal institutions ra ted these strategies as having a high level priority (3.7). Participants in I nternational institutions rated these strategies as having a medium level priority (3.3). Participants in N ational universities also rated them as a medium level priority (2.9). F inally, L ocal institutions rated planning and operation strategies as a medium priority (3.2). Table 37 Perceptions of Planning and Operation Strategies Based on (This table continues on the next page) Item Global (n=75) International (n=172) National (n=68) Local (n=33) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) 1. Communicating an institutional global vision. 4.2 ( 0.66) 3.6 (0.79) 3.2 (0.89) 2.6 (0.96) 2. Initiating policies that enhance global thinking and ac tion. 4.1 (0.66) 3.5 (0.79) 3.2 (0.92) 2.9 (0.82) 3. Pledging a mission to serve the world through education. 3.9 (0.80) 3.5 (0.79) 3.1 (0.98) 3.2 (1.01) 4. Increasing visibility of international 4.0 (0.80) 3.6 (0.74) 3.1 (0.93) 3.2 (0.93) 5 Increasing institutional visibility at international conferences. 3.7 (0.78) 3.4 (0.83) 3.1 (0.95) 2.9 (0.99) programs through global media. 3. (0.97) 3.3 (0.79) 2.9 (0.86) 3.1 (1.03) 7. Creating a balanced mix between global and local outreach. 3.7 (0.78) 3.3 (0.82) 3.0 (0.90) 3.1 (0.98) 8. Developing the expertise to deliver quality services across cultures. 3.7 (0.86) 3.4 (0.85) 3.1 (0.90) 3.4 (0.91) 9. Fundi ng a high level administrative posit ion for international activities. 3.6 (1.01) 3.3 (0.91) 2.5 (0.90) 2.9 (1.10) 10. Initiating fundraising campaigns to support internationalization. 3.2 (1.16) 2.9 (1.01) 2.4 (0.93) 2.6 (1.22) 11. Aligning organizational resources with university global strategies. 3.7 (0.78) 3.3 (0.92) 2.8 (0.95) 2.9 (1.22)

PAGE 117

101 international activities and programs. 3.6 (0.82) 3.5 (082) 3.0 (0.94) 3.0 (0.94) 13. Establishing institutional collaboration with foreign universities. 4.0 (0.99) 3.7 (0.85) 3.3 (1.02) 3.0 (0.78) 14. Setting up a branch campus abroad. 2.6 (1.27) 2.1 (0.97) 1.8 (0.88) 1.8 (1.02) Total score 3.69 3.31 2.89 2.90 Standard Deviation 0 .59 0 .60 0 .77 0 .72 Priority Level High Medium Medium Medium The following summary indicates perceptions about the priority level of each planning and operations strateg y by institutional description (see A ppendix M1 for graphics): Strategy C Global and International univers ities perceived this strategy as having a high level priority with scores of 4.2 and 3.6 respect ively National and Local universities perceived strategy 1 as a medium level priority with scores of 3.2 and 2.6 respectively. Strategy 2 Initiating polici es that enhance global thinking and action Global universities perceived this strategy as having a high level priority with a score of 4.1. International, National and Local universities perceived strategy 2 as a medium level priority with scores of 3.5, 3.2 and 2.9 respectively. Strategy 3 Pledging a mission to serve the world through education Global universities perceived strategy 3 as having a high level priority with a score of 3.9. International, National and Local universities perceived this s trategy as a medium level priority with scores of 3.5, 3.1 and 3.2 respectively.

PAGE 118

102 Strategy 4 site Global and International universities perceived this strategy as having a high level pri ority with scores of 4.0 and 3.6 respect ively National and Local universities perceived strategy 4 as a medium level priority with scores of 3.1 and 3.2 respectively. Strategy 5 Increasing institutional visibility at international conferences Global universities perceived this strategy as having a high level priority with a score of 3.7. International, National and Local universities perceived strategy 5 as a medium level priority with scores of 3.4, 3.1 and 2.9 respectively. Strategy 6 Marketing media Global universities perceived strategy 6 as having a high level priority with a score of 3.7. International, National and Local universities perceived this strategy as a medium level priority with score s of 3.3, 2.9, and 3.1 respectively. Strategy 7 Creating a balanced mix between global and local outreach Global universities perceived this strategy as having a high level priority with a score of 3.7. International, National and Local universities p erceived strategy 7 as a medium level priority with scores of 3.3, 3.0 and 3.1 respectively. Strategy 8 Developing the expertise to deliver quality services across cultures Global universities perceived this strategy as having a high level priority wi th a score of 3.7. International, National and Local universities

PAGE 119

103 perceived strategy 8 as a medium level priority with scores of 3.4, 3.1 and 3.4 respectively. Strategy 9 Funding a high level administrative position for international activities Global universities perceived this strategy as having a high level priority with a score of 3.6. International and Local universities perceived strategy 9 as a medium level priority with scores of 3.3 and 2.9 respectively. Nation al universities perceived this st rategy as a low level priority with a score of 2.5 Strategy 10 Initiating fundraising campaigns to support internationalization Global, International, and Local universities perceived strategy 10 as a medium level priority with scores of 3.2, 2.9, and 2.6 respectively. National universities perceived this strategy as a low level priority with a score of 2.4. Strategy 11 Aligning organizational resources with university global strategies Global universities perceived this strategy as having a high l evel priority with a score of 3.7. International, National and Local universities perceived strategy 11 as a medium level priority with scores of 3.3, 2.8 and 2.9 respectively. Strategy 12 Monitoring the institution progr ams Global universities perceived this strategy as having a high level priority with a score of 3.6. International, National and Local universities perceived strategy 12 as a medium level priority with scores of 3.5, 3.0 and 3.0 respectively.

PAGE 120

104 Strategy 13 Establishing institutional collaboration with foreign universities Global and International universities perceived this strategy as having a high level priority with scores of 4.0 and 3.7 respect ively National and Local universities perceived strat egy 13 as a medium level priority with scores of 3.3 and 3.0 respectively. Strategy 14 Setting up a branch campus abroad Global universities perceived strategy 13 as a medium level priority with a score of 2.6. International, National, and Local unive rsities considered this strategy a low level priority with scores of 2.1, 1.8, and 1.8 respectively. The second part of this question asked if the perceptions differ based on institutional descriptions For the Planning and Operation s ubscale t he data w ere analyzed using a Single Factor ANOVA ( Table 38 ) The null hypothesis of this question implies that the scores are equal for each group (H o : U GL = U IN = U NA =U LO ). However, the obtained F was 22.61with an alpha of 0.05 and 3 degrees of freedom. The crit ical F is 2.63. Therefore the null hypothesis was rejected. The ANOVA results present evidence t hat suggest there are statistically ns about planning and operation strategies for internationalization base d on their institutional description which can be G lobal, I nternational, N ational or L ocal. Table 38 Single Factor ANOVA for Planning and Operation Strategies by institutional D escription (This table continues on the next page) Dependent Variable: Planni ng and Operations by Institutional Description Description n Mean Std Dev Global 75 3. 6 9 0. 59 International 172 3. 31 0. 60 National 68 2.90 0. 76 Local 33 2.8 9 0.7 2

PAGE 121

105 ANOVA Summary Table: Planning and Operations by I nstitutional D escription Source of Variation df SS MS F P value F crit Between Groups 3 27 925 9. 308 22 61 <.0001 2.63 Within Groups 344 1 4 1. 601 0.411 Total 347 169. 526 A multiple comparison statistical test (Tukey test) wa s conducted to determine where t he differences we re found The results from the pair comparison Tukey test demonstrated that G lobal and I nternational institutions we re statistically different. P articipants f ro m G lobal institutions rated planning and operation strategies as a high priorit y with a score of 3.6 9 while participants from I nternational universities perceived these strategies as a medium priority with an overall score of 3.31. Global institutions also were statistically different compared to N ational and L ocal institutions. Gl obal institutions rated these strategies higher than N ational and L ocal institutions did. International institutions had statistically significant differences compared to N ational and L ocal institutions. International universities rated planning and operat ion strategies higher than N ational and L ocal universities. Results from the Tukey test are presented in Table 39 Table 39 Tukey Statistical Test for Planning and Operations Subscale by (This table continues on the next page) The ANOVA Procedure Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for Planning NOTE: This test controls the Type I experimentwise error rate. Alpha Error Degrees of Freedom Error Mean Square Critical Value of Studentized Range 0.05 344 0.411631 3.65098 Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level are indicated by *** Level Comparison Difference B etween Means Simultaneous 95% Confidence Limits GL IN 0.38670 0.15750 0.61589 *** GL NA 0.79600 0.51865 1.07335 *** GL LO 0.80509 0.45909 1.15109 ***

PAGE 122

106 IN GL 0.38670 0.61589 0.15750 *** IN NA 0.40930 0.17204 0.64657 *** Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for Planning Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level are indicated by *** IN LO 0.41839 0.10362 0.73317 *** NA GL 0.79600 1.07335 0.51865 *** NA IN 0.40930 0.64657 0.17204 *** NA LO 0.00909 0.34231 0.36049 LO GL 0.80509 1.15109 0.45909 *** LO IN 0.41839 0.73317 0.10362 *** LO NA 0.00909 0.36049 0.34231 Dimension 2 : Student Education Strategies by Institutional Description s on student education strategies for internationalization based on institutional description are presented in Table 40 In general participants in G lobal institutions rated these strategies as having a high level priority (3.6 ). Participants in I nternati onal institutions rated these strategies as having a medium level priority (3.3). Participants in N ational universities also rated them as a medium level priority (2.9). Finally, L ocal institutions rated student education strategies as a medium level prior ity (2.9 ). Table 40 Perceptions of Student Education Strategies for Internationalization (T able continues on next page) Item Global (n=75) International (n=172 ) National (n=68) Local (n=33) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) 15. Fostering global recruitment to attract the best students. 4.0 (1.02) 3.6 (0.85) 3.0 (0.95) 2.8 (0.99) 16. Facilitating the transfer of credits from recognized foreign universities. 3.7 (1.02) 3.5 (0.83) 2.9 (0.90) 3.0 ( 1.05) 17. Motivating students to participate in study abroad programs. 4.0 (0.88) 3.8 (0.76) 3.2 (0.85) 3.2 (0.92) 18. Offering joint degree programs with foreign universities. 3.3 (1.36) 3.2 (0.90) 2.9 (0.97) 2.7 (1.13) 19. Requiring students to take c ourses with international content. 3.6 (1.02) 3.3 (0.88) 2.9 (0.96) 2.6 (0.75) 20. Encouraging students to participate in international research. 3.7 ( 0.89) 3.3 (0.89) 2.9 ( 0.96) 2.7 (1.23) 21. Requiring foreign language credits 3.2 (1.44) 3.0 (1.12) 2.8 (1.07) 2.7 (0.95)

PAGE 123

107 for undergraduate stude nts. 22. Offering interdisciplinary global programs with STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math). 3.4 (1.17) 3.1 (0.97) 2.7 (1.08) 2.7 (0.98) 23. Expanding the international collection at the universit 3.4 (0.95) 3.1 (0.88) 2.9 (1.07) 2.9 (1.13) 24. Promoting intercultural interactions among students. 3.6 (1.07) 3.4 (0.88) 3.0 (1.04) 3.4 (0.93) Total score 3.59 3.33 2.92 2.87 Standard Deviation 0 .72 0 .59 0 .73 0 .70 Priority Level High Medium Medium Medium The following summary perceptions about the priority level of each student education strateg y by institutional description (see A ppendix M3 for graphics): Strategy 15 Fostering g lobal recruitment to attract the best students : Global and International universities perceived strategy 15 as having a high level priority wit h scores of 4.0 and 3.6 respectively. National and Local universities perceived this strategy as a medium level priority with scores of 3.0 and 2.8 respectively. Strategy 16 Facilitating the transfer of credits from recognized foreign universities : Global universities perceived this strategy as having a high level priority with a score of 3.7. International, National and Local universities perceived strategy 16 as a medium level priority with scores of 3.5, 2.9 and 3.0 respectively. Strategy 17 Motivating students to participate in study abroad programs : Global and International universities perceived strategy 15 as a high level priorit y with scores of 4.0 and 3.8 respectfully. National and Local universities perceived this strategy as a medium level priority with each having a score of 3.2.

PAGE 124

108 Strategy 18 Offering joint degree programs with foreign universities : All universities scored strategy 18 as a medium level priority. Global institutions had a score of 3.3 while International, National, and Local institutions ha d scores of 3.2, 2.9, and 2.7 respectively. Strategy 19 Requiring students to take courses with international content : Global universities perceived strategy 19 as a high level priority with a score of 3.6. International, National, and Local universities considered this strategy a medium level priority with scores of 3.3, 2.9, and 2.6 respectively. Strategy 20 Encour aging students to participate in international research : Global universities perceived this strategy as a high level priority with a score of 3.7. International, National, and Local universities considered strategy 20 a s a medium level priority with score s of 3.3, 2.9, and 2.7 respectively. Strategy 21 Requiring foreign language credits for undergraduate students : All universities considered strategy 21 as a medium level priority with scores of 3.2, 3.0, 2.8, and 2.7 respectively. Strategy 22 Offeri ng interdisciplinary global programs with STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) : Strategy 22 was considered a medium level priority by all universities. Global universities had a score of 3.4 and International universities had a score of 3.1. National and Local universities scored this strategy 2.7.

PAGE 125

109 Strategy 23 library : Strategy 23 was considered a medium level priority with scores of 3.4 for Global and 3.1 for International while N ational and Local both scored 2.9. Strategy 24 Promoting intercultural interactions among students : Global universities perceived this strategy as a high level priority with a score of 3.6. International, National, and Local universities considered stra tegy 24 a medium level priority with scores of 3.4, 3.0, and 3.4 respectively. The second part of this question asked if the perceptions differ among d ifferent groups of participants. For the Student Education Subscale, the data were analyzed using a Sin gle Factor ANOVA ( Appendix M3 ). The null h ypothesis of this question implies that the scores are equal for each group ( H o : U GL = U IN = U NA =U LO ) However, the obtained F was 16.32 with an alpha of 0.05 and 3 degrees of freedom. The critical F is 2.63. Ther efore the null hypothesis was rejected. The ANOVA results present evidence that suggest there are statistically ns about student education strategies for internationalization based on institutional descr iption This description ca n be G lobal, I nternational, N ational or L ocal. See T able 41 Table 4 1 Single Factor ANOVA for Perceived Priority Level of Student Education Strategies for Internationalization by Institutional Description Dependent Variable: St udent Education by Institutional Description Description n Mean Std Dev Global 75 3. 58 0. 73 International 172 3. 31 0. 59 National 68 2.9 1 0.7 0 Local 33 2.8 7 0.7 3

PAGE 126

110 ANOVA Summary Table: Student Education by I nstitutional D escription Source of Variation d f SS MS F P value F crit Between Groups 3 2 1 26 5 7 .08 8 16 32 <.0001 2.63 Within Groups 344 1 4 9 444 0.4 34 Total 347 1 70 709 A multiple comparison statistical test (Tukey test) wa s conducted to determine where the differences we re fo und The results from the pair comparison test demonstrated that G lobal and I nternational institutions we re statistically different. Participants f ro m G lobal institutions rated student education strategies as a high priority with a score of 3.5 9 while par ticipants from I nternational universities perceived these strategies as a medium priority with an overall score of 3.3 3 Global institutions also were statistically different compared to N ational and L ocal institutions. Global institutions rated these str ategies higher than did N ational and L ocal institutions. International institutions showed statistically significant differences compared to N ational and L ocal institutions. International universities rated student education strategies higher than N ational and L ocal universities. National universities demonstrated statistically significant differences compared to L ocal institutions. Results from the Tukey test are shown in Table 42 Table 42 Tukey Statistical Test for Student Education Subscale by Instit Description (This table continues on the next page) The ANOVA Procedure Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for Student NOTE: This test controls the Type I experimentwise error rate. Alpha E rror Degrees of Freedom Error Mean Square Critical Value of Studentized Range 0.05 344 0.43443 3.65098 Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level are indicated by *** Level Comparison Difference B etween M eans Simultaneous 95% Confidence Limits GL IN 0.26796 0.03251 0.50342 ***

PAGE 127

111 GL NA 0.66663 0.38170 0.95156 *** GL LO 0.70861 0.35316 1.06406 *** IN GL 0.26796 0.50342 0.03251 *** IN NA 0.39867 0.15492 0.64241 *** Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for Student Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level are indicated by *** IN LO 0.44064 0.11727 0.76402 *** NA GL 0.66663 0.95156 0.38170 *** NA IN 0.39867 0.64241 0.15492 *** NA LO 0.04198 0.31902 0.40298 LO GL 0.70861 1.06406 0.35316 *** LO IN 0.44064 0. 76402 0.11727 *** LO NA 0.04198 0.40298 0.31902 Dimension 3: Teaching and Faculty Development Strategies by Institutional Description eaching and faculty d evelopment strategies for internationalization based on institutional description are presented in Table 43 In general, participants from G lobal, I nternational, N ational and L ocal institutions rated these strategies as having a medium level priority. The highest score was given by G lobal universities (3.17) and the lowest score was given by L ocal institutions (2.55). Table 43 Perceptions of Teaching and Faculty Development Strategies for Internationalization Based o evel (This table continues on the next page) Item Global (n=75) International (n=172 ) National (n=68) Local (n=33 ) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) 25. Providing financial incentives for curriculum internationalization. 2.9 (0.96) 2.8 (0.87) 2 .5 (0.92) 2.5 (1.33) 26. Considering international research and teaching during salary and promotion decisions. 3.2 (0.92) 2.9 (0.91) 2.4 (0.94) 2.4 (1.23) 27. Funding faculty participation in international teaching and research. 3.2 (1.04) 3.0 (0.93) 2. 6 (0.90) 2.8 (1.04) 28. Acquiring new technologies to enhance international teaching. 3.3 (1.09) 2.9 (1.05) 2.8 (0.99) 2.8 (1.17) 29. Recruiting international faculty and staff. 3.5 (1.11) 3.1 (0.90) 2.7 (0.99) 2.6 (0.98) 30. Promoting faculty engagemen t in campus internationalization. 3.5 (1.06) 3.1 (0.93) 2.7 (0.94) 2.6 (0.98) 31. Providing training in cross cultural communication for faculty and staff. 3.1 (1.05) 2.8 (0.90) 2.5 (0.89) 2.9 (0.96) 32. Considering foreign language 2.6 (1.28) 2.6 (1.11) 2.0 (0.84) 1.9 (0.74)

PAGE 128

112 fluency in salary/pro motion decisions. 33. Funding international academic travel for faculty and staff. 3.1 (1.08) 2.9 (0.89) 2.6 (0.87) 2.4 (0.79) 34. Featuring global activities and research in institutional publications. 3.3 (1. 14) 3.1 (0.92) 2.8 (1.05) 2.6 (1.14) Total score 3.17 2.92 2.56 2.55 Standard Deviation 0 .84 0 .74 0 .85 0 .73 Priority Level Medium Medium Medium Medium The following summary perceptions about the priority level of each teachin g and faculty development strateg y by institutional description ( s ee A ppendix M5 for graphics): Strategy 25 Providing fina ncial incentives for curriculum internationalization : Global and International universities scored strategy 25 as a medium level pr iority with scores of 2.9 and 2.8 respectively. Both National and Local universities considered this strategy a low priority with each scoring 2.5. Strategy 26 Considering international research and teaching during salary and promotion decisions : Globa l and International universities scored this strategy as a medium level priority with scores of 3.2 and 2.9 respectively. National and Local universities both considered strategy 26 a low priority each having a score of 2.4. Strategy 27 Funding faculty participation in international teaching and research All universities considered strategy 27 as a medium level priority with scores of 3.2, 3.0, 2.6, and 2.8 respectively. Strategy 28 Acquiring new techno logies to enhance international teaching : Stra tegy 28 was considered a medium level priority by all the universities. Global universities had a score of 3.3 and International

PAGE 129

113 universities had a score of 2.9. National and Local universities both scored this strategy 2.8. Strategy 29 Recruiting inter national faculty and staff : All universities considered strategy 29 a medium level priority Global universities had a score of 3.5 and International universities had a score of 3.1. National and Local universities scored this strategy 2.7 and 2.6 respe ctively. Strategy 30 Promoting faculty engagement in campus internationalization : Strategy 30 was considered a medium level priority by all universities. Global universities had a score of 3.5 and International universities had a score of 3.1. National and Local universities scored this strategy 2.7 and 2.6 respectively. Strategy 3 Providing training in cross cultural communication for faculty and staff : Global, International, and Local universities considered strategy 31 a medium level priority wi th scores of 3.1, 2.8, and 2.9 respectively. National universities considered this strategy a low level priority with a score of 2.5. Strategy 32 Considering foreign language fluency in salary/promotion decisions : Global and International universities perceived strategy 32 as a medium level priority with a common score of 2.6. National and Local universities considered this strategy a low level priority with scores of 2.0 and 1.9 respectively. Strategy 33 Funding international academic travel for fac ulty and staff : Strategy 33 was considered a medium level priority by Global,

PAGE 130

114 International, and National universities with scores of 3.1, 2.9, and 2.6 respectively. Local universities considered this strategy a low level priority with a score of 2.4. St rategy 34 Featuring global activities and research in institutional publications : Strategy 34 was considered a medium level priority by all the universities. Global universities had a score of 3.3 and International universities had a score of 3.1. Natio nal and Local universities scored this strategy 2.8 and 2.6 respectively. In general, G lobal universities scored each question higher than all the other universities. International universities scored each question higher than National and Local universi ties except for question 31. However, for question 31, International universities had a score of 2.8 and Local had a score of 2.9. Based on the grading they both considered this question a mediu m level priority. Natio nal and Local universities were mixed in their scoring depending on the strategy The second part of this question asked if the perceptions differ for d ifferent groups of participants. For the Teaching and Faculty Development Subscale, the data were analyzed using a Single Factor ANOVA (Tabl e 44 ). The null h ypothesis of this question implies that the scores are equal for each group ( H o : U GL = U IN = U NA =U LO ). However, the obtained F was 1 0 0 3 with an alpha of 0.05 and 3 degrees of freedom. The critical F is 2.63. Therefore the null hypothesi s was rejected. The ANOVA results present evidence t hat suggest there are statistically

PAGE 131

115 ns about teaching and faculty development strategies for internationalization based on their institutional descripti on. This description can be G lobal, I nternational, N ational or L ocal. Table 44 Single Factor ANOVA for Perceived Priority Level of Teaching and Faculty Development Strategies for Internationalization by Institutional Description Dependent Variable: Teach ing by Institutional Description Description n Mean Std Dev Global 7 4 3. 17 0. 84 International 172 2 9 3 0. 73 National 68 2. 54 0.7 3 Local 33 2. 56 0. 85 ANOVA Summary Table: Teaching by I nstitutional D escription Source of Variation df SS MS F P value F crit Between Groups 3 17 829 5 943 1 0.0 3 <.0001 2.63 Within Groups 344 203 292 0. 592 Total 347 221 120 A multiple comparison statistical test (Tukey test) wa s conducted to determine where the differences we re found The results fro m the pair comparison test demonstrated that global and national institutions we re statistically different. Participants f rom G lobal institutions rated teaching and faculty development strategies high er than did N ational universities Global institutions a lso were statistically different when compared to L ocal institutions. Global institutions rated these strategies higher than N ational and L ocal i nstitutions rated them International institutions had statistically significant differences compared to N ation al institutions. International universities rated student education strategies higher than did N atio nal universities. T he Tukey test results are shown in Table 45

PAGE 132

116 Table 45 Tukey Statistical Test for Teaching and Faculty Development Subscale by Institut The ANOVA Procedure Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for Teaching NOTE: This test controls the Type I experimentwise error rate. Alpha Error Degrees of Freedom Error Mean Square Critical Value of Studentized Range 0.05 343 0.592688 3.65103 Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level are indicated by *** Level Comparison Difference B etween Means Simultaneous 95% Confidence Limit s GL IN 0.23887 0.03744 0.51519 GL LO 0.61269 0.19666 1.02873 *** GL NA 0.62762 0.29375 0.96150 *** IN GL 0.23887 0.51519 0.03744 IN LO 0.37382 0.00390 0.75154 Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for Teaching Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level are indicated by *** IN NA 0.38875 0.10404 0.67346 *** LO GL 0.61269 1.02873 0.19666 *** LO IN 0.37382 0.75154 0.00390 LO NA 0.01493 0.40673 0.43659 NA GL 0.62762 0.96150 0.29375 *** NA IN 0.38875 0.6 7346 0.10404 *** NA LO 0.01493 0.43659 0.40673 Analysis for Research Question 2 Question 2 To what extent do international university administrators perceive planning and operation strategies for internationa lization as an institutional priority? Research participants were asked to determine the priority level of 14 planning and operation strategies for internationalization in order to identify similarities and differences based on world region ( Asia, Austral ia, Europe, Latin America and North America). A Likert type rating scale was used to ask the participants to select from no priority, low priority, medium priority, high priority and top priority The overall results of the subscale and individual items ar e presented in Table 46 ( s ee Appendix N1 for column charts of individual planning

PAGE 133

117 and operations strategies by region ) The data analysis for the second research question was conducted through one way ANOVA T he v alues for means reported used the followin g interpretation: 1.0 1.50, no priority; 1.51 2.50, low priority; 2.51 3.50 medium priority ; 3.51 4.50 high priority and 4.51 5 top priority Tests for normality (Shapiro Wilk test, Kolmogorov Smirnov and Cramer Von Mises tests) were conducte d (s ee A ppendix N 2 ) Results from these tests indicate that n either skewness n or kurtosis statistics were found. Also, the variance within groups is homogenous (equality of variance ). As mentioned previously results are not completely independent as admin names are reported only by some of the participants. Table 46 Perceptions of Planning and Operation Strategies for Internationalization (This table continues on the next page) It em Asia (n=45) Australia (n=14) Europe (n=98) Latin America (n=78) North America (n=114) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) 1. Communicating an institutional global vision. 3.78 (0.85) 4.29 (0.61) 3.47 (0.82) 3.49 (0.99) 3.44 (0.95) 2. Initiating policies that enhance global thinking and action. 3.60 (0.81) 3.86 (0.77) 3.50 (0.79) 3.46 (0.92) 3.35 (0.90) 3. Pledging a mission to serve the world through education. 3.78 (0.96) 3.71 (0.73) 3.56 (0.83) 3.72 (0.91) 3.26 (1.01) 4. Increasing visibility of international 3.86 (0.89) 4.00 (0.39) 3.66 (0.72) 3.56 (0.91) 3.27 (0.88) 5 Increasing institutional visibility at international conferences. 3.62 (0.91) 3.29 (0.83) 3.47 (0.78) 3.53 (0.92) 3.05 (0.89) 6. programs through global media. 3.35 (0.91) 3.86 (1.10) 3.34 (0.84) 3.46 (0.80) 2.94 (0.93) 7. Creating a balanced mix between global and local outreach. 3.33 (0.77) 3.64 (0.84) 3.36 (0.87) 3.44 (0.86) 3.08 (0.91) 8. Devel oping the expertise to deliver quality services across cultures. 3.33 (0.88) 3.79 (0.80) 3.41 (0.78) 3.42 (0.95) 3.37 (0.95) 9. Funding a high level administrative position for international activities. 3.29 (1.08) 4.14 (0.36) 3.26 (0.83) 3.03 (1.03) 3.0 3 (1.10) 10. Initiating fundraising campaigns to support internationalization. 3.02 (1.16) 2.93 (1.00) 2.87 (1.13) 3.19 (1.07) 2.60 (0.97) 11. Aligning organizational resources with university global strategies. 3.31 (0.82) 3.79 (0.70) 3.29 (0.93) 3.42 ( 0.97) 3.00 (1.06)

PAGE 134

118 international activities and programs. 3.18 (0.77) 3.86 (0.77) 3.36 (0.82) 3.40 (1.01) 3.33 (0.91) 13. Establishing institutional collaboration with foreign universities. 3.84 (1.09) 3.93 (0.92) 3.68 (0. 86) 3.60 (0.98) 3.44 (0.96) 14. Setting up a branch campus abroad. 2.42 (1.23) 2.21 (0.80) 1.91 (1.06) 2.04 (0.99) 2.14 (1.07) Total score 3.39 3.67 3.29 3.34 3.09 Standard Deviation 0 .67 0 .26 0 .62 0 .76 0 .74 Priority Level Medium High Medium Medium M edium In general participants from Australian universities scored planning and operation strategies as a high priority while participants from other world regions considered these strategies as having medium priority. The mean obtained from Australian participants was 3.67. The mean obtained for the other regions ranged from 3.09 in North America to 3.39 in Asia. In order to determine i f there were statistically significant differences by region a Single Factor ANOVA was conducted ( Table 47 and Append ix N 2 ) The null h ypothesis of this question implies that the scores are equal for each group ( H o : U AS = U AU = U EU =U L A = U NA ) However, the obtained F was 3.58 with an alpha of 0.05 and 4 degrees of freedom. The critical F is 2.40 Therefore the null hyp othesis wa s rejected. The ANOVA results present evidence t hat suggest there are statistically ns about planning and operation strategies for internationalization based on world region Five world region o ptions were provided: Asia, Australia, Europe, Latin America and North America Table 47 Single Factor ANOVA for Planning and Operation Strategies by Region (This table continues on the next page) Dependent Variable: Planning and Operations Region n Mea n Std Dev Asia 45 3.39 0.67 Australia 14 3.67 0.26 Europe 98 3.29 0.62 Latin America 78 3.34 0.76

PAGE 135

119 North America 114 3.09 0.74 ANOVA Summary Table: Planning and Operations by Region Source of Variation df SS MS F P value F crit Between Groups 4 6.83 8 1.709 3.58 0.0071 2.40 Within Groups 344 164.173 0.477 Total 348 171.010 A multiple comparison statistical test (Tukey test) wa s conducted in order to determine where the differences we re found T he Tukey test pair wise compariso n demonstrated that Australia and North America are statistically different. Australia n participants rated planning and ope ration strategies as a high priority with a score of 3.67 while North American participants perceived these strategies as a medium priority with 3.09 which was the lowest score in the group The Tukey test results are shown in Table 48 Table 48 Tukey Statistical Test for Planning and Operations Subscale by Region (This table continues on the next page) The ANOVA Procedure Tukey's S tudentized Range (HSD) Test for Planning NOTE: This test controls the Type I experimentwise error rate. Alpha Error Degrees of Freedom Error Mean Square Critical Value of Studentized Range 0.05 344 0.477247 3.87820 Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level are indicated by *** Level Comparison Difference B etween Means Simultaneous 95% Confidence Limits AU AS 0.28476 0.29499 0.86451 AU LA 0.33553 0.21435 0.88541 AU EU 0.37551 0.16577 0.91679 AU NA 0.57845 0.04194 1.11495 *** AS AU 0.28476 0.86451 0.29499 Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for Planning Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level are indicated by *** AS LA 0.05077 0.30387 0.40541 AS EU 0.0907 5 0.25039 0.43189 AS NA 0.29368 0.03984 0.62721 LA AU 0.33553 0.88541 0.21435 LA AS 0.05077 0.405 41 0.30387 LA EU 0.03998 0.24748 0.32744 LA NA 0.24291 0.03546 0.52129 EU AU 0.37551 0.91679 0.16577 EU AS 0.09075 0.43189 0.25039

PAGE 136

120 EU LA 0.03998 0.32744 0.24748 EU NA 0.20294 0.05803 0.46391 NA AU 0.57845 1.11495 0.04194 *** NA AS 0.29368 0.62721 0.03984 NA LA 0.24291 0.52129 0.03546 NA EU 0.20294 0.46391 0.05803 In general, participants in Australia p erce ived planning and operation strategies as a high priority (3.67) while participants in the rest of the international regions classified them as a medium priority (3.09 3.39). The following findings also emerged while revie wing the individual strategies (s ee A ppendix N1 for graphics): Strategy Communicating an institutional global vision : Participants from level priority (3.78 4.29) while participants from other reg ions saw this strategy as having a medium level priority (3.44 3.49). Strategy Initiating Policies that enhance global thinking and action : This strategy is considered as a high priority for participants located in Asia (3.60) and Australia (3.86). The same strategy was perceived as a medium priority for participants in Europe (3.50), Latin America (3.46) and North America (3.35). Strategy 3 Pledging a mission to serve the world through education This strategy was perceived as a high priority by participants in all regions except North America. North American participants rated this strategy as having medium priority with a score of 3.26 while participants in the other regions rated it from 3.56 to 3.78.

PAGE 137

121 Strategy Increasing visibility of inte rnational focus on institutions website : This strategy was perceived as a high priority strategy by participants in all regions except North America Participants from North American saw this strategy as having medium priority with a score of 3.27 while participants in the other regions rated it from 3.56 to 4.00. The highest score was given by Australian participants Strategy Increasing institutional visibility at international conferences : Participants from Latin America and Asia perceived this st rategy as a high level priority (3.53 3.62) while participants from other regions saw this strategy as having a medium level priority (3.05 3.47). Strategy media : This strategy was perceived as a medium priority level by participants in all regions except Australia. Participants from Australia rated this strategy as having high priority with a score of 3.86 while participants in the other regions rated it from 2.94 to 3.46. Strategy 7 Crea ting a balanced mix between global and local outreach : This strategy is seen as having a medium priority level by participants in all regions except Australia. Participants from Australia rated this strategy as having a high priority with a score of 3.64 while participants in the other regions rated it from 3.08 to 3.44. Strategy Developing the expertise to deliver quality services across cultures : This strategy was considered a medium level priority by participants in all regions except Australia. F or Australian participants this

PAGE 138

122 strategy ha s a high priority level (3.79). The medium priority scores obtained by the other regions ranged from 3.33 to 3.42. Strategy Funding a high level administrative position for international activities : Particip ants from Australia perceived this strategy as a high level priority with a score of 4.14. Participants in the other regions saw the same strategy as having a medium level priority with scores ranging from 3.03 to 3.29. Strategy Initiating fundraising campaigns to support internationalization : This strategy is perceived as a medium level prior ity by participants from all regions. The scores obtained for this strategy ranged from 2.60 in North American to 3.19 in Latin America. Strategy Aligning o rganizational resources with university global strategies : This strategy was considered a medium priority level by participants in all regions except Australia. For Australian participants this strategy has a high priority level with a score of 3.79. The medium priority scores obtained from other regions ranged from 3.00 to 3.42. Strategy programs : This strategy is seen as having a medium priority level by participants in all regions except Au stralia. Participants from Australia rated this strategy as having a high priority with a score of 3.86 while participants in other regions rated it from 3.18 to 3.40. Strategy Establishing institutional collaboration with foreign universities : T his strategy was considered a high priority level by

PAGE 139

123 participants in all regions except North America. Participants from N orth America saw this strategy as a medium priority level with a score of 3.44. The high priority scores obtained by the other regions ra nged from 3.60 in Latin America to 3.93 in Australia. Strategy Setting up a branch campus abroad : This strategy is perceived as a low priority level by participants from all the regions. The scores obtained for this strategy ranged from 1.91 in Europ e to 2.42 in Asia. Analysis for Research Question 3 Question 3 To what extent do international university administrators perceive student education strategies for internationalization as an institutional priority? Research participants were asked to de t ermine the priority level of ten student education strategies for internationalization and the ir responses were analyzed based on the region where their universities were located ( Asia, Australia, Europe, Latin America and North America) A Likert type ra ting scale was used and participants were asked to select from no priority, low priority, medium priority, high priority and top priority student education strategies for internationalization are presented in Table 49 C olu mn charts for individual items can be found in Appendix O1. The data analysis for the third research question was conducted through one way ANOVA The v alue for means reported used the following interpretation: 1.0 1.50, no priority; 1.51 2.50, low pri ority; 2.51 3.50 medium priority ; 3.51 4.50 high priority and 4.51 5 top priority

PAGE 140

124 Overall, participants from all regions scored student education strategies as having a medium priority level with means ranging from 3.01 in North America to 3.46 in Australia. In order to determine if there were statistically significant differences by region, a Single Factor ANOVA was conducted (Table 50 and Appendix O2). The null h ypothesis of this question implies that the scores are equal for each group ( H o : U AS = U AU = U EU =U L A = U NA ). However, the obtained F was 4.83. With an alpha of 0.05 and 4 degrees of freedom, the critical F is 2.40. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. Table 4 9 Perceptions of Student Education Strategies for Inte rnationalization Item Asia (n=45) Australia (n=14 ) Europe (n=98 ) Latin America (n=78) North America (n=114) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) 15. Fostering global recruitment to attract the best students. 3.71 (1.04) 4.50 (0.76) 3.69 (0 .87) 3.10 (1.00) 3.38 (1.03) 16. Facilitating the transfer of credits from recognized foreign universities. 3.16 (0.77) 4.00 (0.78) 3.86 (0.80) 3.37 (0.95) 2.99 (0.95) 17. Motivating students to participate in study abroad programs. 3.29 (0.94) 4.00 (0.7 8) 3.93 (0.78) 3.65 (0.82) 3.50 (0.90) 18. Offering joint degree programs with foreign universities. 3.40 (0.99) 3.71 (0.61) 3.13 (1.12) 3.33 (0.97) 2.76 (1.03) 19. Requiring students to take courses with international content. 3.16 (1.09) 3.50 (0.65) 3.39 (0.85) 3.04 (0.97) 3.04 (0.99) 20. Encouraging students to participate in international research. 3.24 (0.98) 3.50 (0.85) 3.44 (1.01) 3.45 (0.83) 2.81 (0.95) 21. Requiring foreign language credits for undergraduate students. 3.33 (1.15) 2.29 (0.97) 2.84 (1.25) 3.35 (1.07) 2.76 (1.14) 22. Offering interdisciplinary global programs with STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math). 3.42 (1.06) 2.43 (0.94) 3.02 (1.07) 3.10 (0.98) 2.83 (1.06) 23. Expanding the international collection at the univer 3.02 (0.78) 3.00 (0.96) 3.20 (0.96) 3.58 (0.97) 2.66 (0.89) 24. Promoting intercultural interactions among students. 3.07 (0.96) 3.71 (0.73) 3.19 (1.12) 3.54 (0.95) 3.44 (0.87) Total score 3.28 3.46 3.36 3.35 3.01 Standard Deviation 0 .70 0 .45 0 .70 0 .7 3 0 .67 Priority Level Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

PAGE 141

125 Table 50 Single Factor ANOVA for Perceived Priority Level of Student Education Strategies for Internationalization Dependent Variable: Student Education Region n Mean Std Dev Asia 45 3.28 0.70 Australia 14 3.46 0.45 Europe 98 3.36 0.70 Latin America 78 3.35 0.73 North America 114 3.01 0.67 ANOVA Summary Table: Student Education Source of Variation df SS MS F P value F crit Between Groups 4 9.203 2.30 0 4.83 0.0008 2.40 Within Groups 344 164.024 0.477 Total 348 173.227 The ANOVA results present evidence to suggest that there are statistically ns about student education strategies for interna tionalization based on world region. Five world regions were provided as options ; they were these : Asia, Australia, Europe, Latin America and North America. A multiple comparison statistical test (Tukey test) wa s conducted in order to determine where the d ifferences we re found The Tukey test results are shown in Table 5 1 Table 51 Tukey Statistical Test for Student Education Subscale by Region (This table continues on the next page) The ANOVA Procedure Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for Student N OTE: This test controls the Type I experimentwise error rate. Alpha Error Degrees of Freedom Error Mean Square Critical Value of Studentized Range 0.0 5 344 0.476816 3.87820 Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level are indicated by *** Level Comparison Difference B etween Means Simultaneous 95% Confidence Limits AU EU 0.09490 0.44613 0.63593 AU LA 0.11300 0.43663 0.66264 AU AS 0.18429 0.39520 0.76378 AU NA 0.45025 0.08601 0.98652 EU AU 0.09490 0.63593 0.44613 Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for Student Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level are indica ted by *** EU LA 0.01811 0.26923 0.30544

PAGE 142

126 EU AS 0.08939 0.25160 0.43038 EU NA 0.35535 0.09450 0.61620 *** LA AU 0.11300 0.66264 0.43663 LA EU 0.018 11 0.30544 0.26923 LA AS 0.07128 0.28320 0.42576 LA NA 0.33725 0.05899 0.61550 *** AS AU 0.18429 0.76378 0.39520 AS E U 0.08939 0.43038 0.25160 AS LA 0.07128 0.42576 0.28320 AS NA 0.26596 0.06741 0.59934 NA AU 0.45025 0.98652 0.08601 NA EU 0.35535 0.61620 0.09450 *** NA LA 0.33725 0.61550 0.05899 *** NA AS 0.26596 0.59934 0.06741 The results from this pair wise comparison test de monstrated that participants from Europe and North America have statistically different responses at the .05 level The Tukey test also revealed that responses obtained from Latin America are statistically differen t from those in North America. The overall score of student education strategies in North America is 3.01 while Europe has a In general, participants from all regions rated student education strat egies as having a medium level priority. The scores obtained ranged from 3.01 in North America to 3.46 in Australia. The following summary perceptions about the priority level of each student education strateg y by region (see A ppendix O1 for column charts ): Strategy Fostering gl obal recruitment to attract the best students : P articipants from Latin America and North America perceived this strategy as a medium level priority with scores of 3.10 and 3.38 respectively. Participants from other regions saw this strategy as having a hi gh level priority with scores ranging from 3.69 in Europe to 4.50 in Australia.

PAGE 143

127 Strategy Facilitating the transfer of credits from recognized foreign universities Participants in Australia (4.0) and Europe (3.86) considered this strategy a high prio rity. Participants in Asia (3.16), Latin America (3.37) and North America (2.99) perceived th is strategy as medium level priority. Strategy Motivating students to participate in study abroad programs : Participants in Asia (3.29) and North America (3. 50) pe rceived this strategy as medium level priority Participants for the other regions saw this strategy as having a hig h level priority with scores ranging from 3.65 in Latin America to 4.00 in Australia. Strategy Offering joint degree programs wit h foreign universities : Participants in Australia (3.71) considered this strategy a high priority. Participants from the other regions classified this strategy as a medium priority level with scores ranging from 2.76 in North America to 3.40 in Asia. Str ategy Requiring students to take courses with international content : Participants from all regions perceived this strategy as a medium le vel priority with scores ranging from 3.04 in Latin America to 3.50 in Australia. Strategy Encouraging studen ts to participate in international research Participants from all regions perceived this strategy as a medium level priority with scores ranging from 2.81 in North America to 3.50 in Australia.

PAGE 144

128 Strategy 21 Requiring foreign language credits for undergr aduate students Participants in Australia (2.29) p erceived this strategy as a low level priority. Participants from the other regions class ified this strategy as a medium level priority with scores ranging from 2.76 in North America to 3.35 in Latin Amer ica. Strategy Offering interdisciplinary global programs with STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math Participants i n Australia considered this strategy a low priority with a score of 2.43. Participants from the other regions rated this str ategy as having a medium priority level with scores ranging from 2.83 in North America to 3.42 in Asia. Strategy library : Participants in Latin America considered this strategy a high priorit y with a response score of 3.58. Participants i n other regions considered this strategy a medium priority with scores ranging from 2.66 in North America to 3.20 in Europe. Strategy Promoting intercultural interactions among students : Participants fro m Australia ( 3.71) and Latin America ( 3.54 ) considered this strategy a high priority Participants from the other regions rated this strategy as having a medium priority level with scores ranging from 3.07 in Asia to 3.44 in North America. Analysis for R esearch Question 4 Question 4 To what extent do international university administrators perceive teaching and faculty development strategies for internationalization as an

PAGE 145

129 institutional priority? Research participants were asked to de termine the priority level of ten teaching and faculty development strategies for internationalization A Likert type rating scale was used to ask the participating administrators to select from no priority, low priority, medium priority, high priority and top priority In ea ch category descriptive statistics are reported in Table 52 and Appendix P1 The data analysis for the first research question was conducted through one way ANOVA Values for means reported used the following interpretation: 1.0 1.50, no priority; 1.51 2.50, low priority; 2.51 3.50 medium priority ; 3.51 4.50 high priority and 4.51 5 top priority Table 52 Perceptions of Teaching and Faculty Development Strategies for Internationalization Item Asia (n=45) Australia (n=14) Europe (n=98) Latin America (n=78) North America (n=114) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) 25. Providing financial incentives for curriculum internationalization. 3.09 (0.73) 2.57 (0.94) 2.85 (0.93) 3.00 (0.98) 2.32 (0.92) 26. Considering in ternational research and teaching during salary and promotion decisions. 2.96 ( 0.77) 2.71 (0.83) 3.07 (0.98) 3.00 (0.95) 2.43 (1.01) 27. Funding faculty participation in international teaching and research. 3.11 (0.80) 3.07 (0.92) 3.09 (1.07) 3.04 (0.96) 2.75 (0.97) 28. Acquiring new technologies to enhance international teaching. 3.18 (0.81) 3.07 (1.00) 3.02 (1.04) 3.42 (1.11) 2.59 (1.04) 29. Recruiting international faculty and staff. 3.51 (1.08) 3.21 (0.89) 3.24 (1.05) 2.92 (0.88) 2.83 (1.00) 30. Pro moting faculty engagement in campus internationalization. 3.36 (0.88) 3.21 (0.89) 3.09 (1.11) 2.92 (0.88) 2.96 (1.02) 31. Providing training in cross cultural communication for faculty and staff. 3.04 (0.90) 2.93 (0.83) 2.73 (0.97) 3.05 (1.02) 2.61 (0.95) 32. Considering foreign language fluency in salary/promotion decisions. 3.18 (1.09) 2.21 (1.12) 2.67 (1.03) 2.73 (0.94) 1.68 (0.83) 33. Funding international academic travel for faculty and staff. 3.00 (0.77) 3.36 (0.84) 2.92 (1.01) 2.74 (0.83) 2.71 (1. 01) 34. Featuring global activities and research in institutional publications. 3.31 (0.95) 3.57 (0.65) 2.87 (1.09) 3.14 (1.00) 2.98 (1.07) Total score 3.17 2.99 2.95 2.99 2.57 Standard Deviation 0.72 0.57 1.03 0.80 0.75 Priority Level Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

PAGE 146

130 In general, participants from all regions scored teaching and faculty development strategies as having medium priority level. The means obtained ranged from 2 57 in North America to 3. 17 in A s ia. In order to determine if there were st atistically significant differences by region a Single Factor ANOVA was conducted (s ee Table 53 and Appendix P2) The null h ypothesis of this question implies that the scores are equal for each group ( H o : U AS = U AU = U EU =U L A = U NA ). However, the obtained F was 5 .3 8 With an alpha of 0.05 and 4 degrees of freedom, the critical F is 2.40. Therefore th e null hypothesis wa s rejected. The ANOVA results present evidence t hat suggest there are statistically ns about teaching and faculty development strategies for internationalization based on world region. Five world regions were provided as options ; they were these : Asia, Australia, Europe, Latin America and North America. Table 53 Single Factor ANOVA for Pe rceived Priority of Teaching and Faculty Development Strategies for Internationalization Dependent Variable: Teaching and Faculty Region n Mean Std Dev Asia 45 3.17 0.72 Australia 14 2.99 0.57 Europe 98 2.95 0.90 Latin America 78 2.99 0. 80 North America 114 2.57 0.75 ANOVA Summary Table: Teaching and Faculty Source of Variation df SS MS F P value F crit Between Groups 4 15.304 3.826 5.38 0.0003 2.40 Within Groups 344 244.823 0.711 Total 348 260.128 A multiple comparison sta tistical test (Tukey test) wa s conducted in order to determine where the differences we re found The results from the Tukey test demonstrated that Latin America and North America are statistically different.

PAGE 147

131 The overall score of Latin America was 2.99 whil e the score of North America wa s 2.57. The results also indicated that there were statistically significant differences between North America and Asia. The overall score for this dimension (or set of strategies) was 3.17 in Asia. The Tukey test results are shown in Table 54 Table 54 Tukey Statistical Test for Teaching and Faculty Development Subscale by Region The ANOVA Procedure Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for Faculty NOTE: This test controls the Type I experimentwise error rate. Alpha Error Degrees of Freedom Error Mean Square Critical Value of Studentized Range 0.05 344 0.711697 3.87820 Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level are indic ated by *** Level Comparison Difference B etween Means Simultaneous 95% Confidence Limits AS LA 0.1759 0.2572 0.6090 AS AU 0.1805 0.5275 0.8885 AS EU 0.3509 0.0657 0.7675 AS NA 0.5988 0.1915 1.0061 *** LA AS 0.1759 0.6090 0.2572 Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for Faculty Comparison s significant at the 0.05 level are indicated by *** LA AU 0.0046 0.6669 0.6761 LA EU 0.1750 0.1761 0.5260 LA NA 0.4229 0.0829 0.7628 *** A U AS 0.1805 0.8885 0.5275 AU LA 0.0046 0.6761 0.6669 AU EU 0.1704 0.4906 0.8314 AU NA 0.4183 0.2369 1.0735 EU AS 0.3509 0.7675 0.0657 EU LA 0.1750 0.5260 0.1761 EU AU 0.1704 0.83 14 0.4906 EU NA 0.2479 0.0708 0.5666 NA AS 0.5988 1.0061 0.1915 *** NA LA 0.4229 0.7628 0.0829 *** NA AU 0.4183 1.0735 0.2369 NA EU 0.2479 0.5666 0.0708 In general, participants from all regions rated teaching and faculty development strategies as having a medium level priority. The scores obtained ranged from 2.57 in North America to 3.17 in Asia. The following summary

PAGE 148

132 perceptions about the priority level of each teaching and faculty development strateg y by region (see A ppendix P1 for graphics): Strategy Providing financial incentives for curric ulum internationalization P articipants in North America considered this strategy a low priority with a score of 2.32. Participants in the other regions perceived this strategy as a medium level priority with scores ra n ging from 2.57 in Australia to 3.09 in Asia. Strategy Considering international research and teaching during salary and promotion decisions P articipants in North America considered this strategy a low priority with a score of 2.43. Participants in the other regions perceived this stra tegy as a medium level priority with scores ra n ging from 2. 71 in Austral ia to 3.07 in Europe. Strategy Funding faculty participation in international teaching and research Participants from all regions perceived this strategy as a medium level prior ity. The obtained scores fo r this strategy ranged from 2.75 in North America to 3.11 in Asia. Strategy Acquiring new technologies to enhance international teaching P articipants from all regions considered this strategy a medium priority with scores ranging from 2.59 i n North America to 3.42 in Latin America. Strategy Recruiting international faculty and staff Participants in Asia considered this strategy a high priority with a score of 3.51. The

PAGE 149

133 participants from other regions rated this strat egy as a medium priority level with scores ranging from 2.83 in North America to 3.24 in Europe. Strategy Promoting faculty engagement in campus internationalization P articipants from all regions considered this strategy a medium priority with score s ranging from 2.92 in Latin America to 3.36 in Asia. Strategy Providing training in cross cultural communication for faculty and staff Participants from all regions perceived this strategy a s a medium priority level. The obtained scores for this st rategy ranged from 2.61 in North America to 3.05 in Latin America. Strategy Considering foreign language fluency in salary/promotion decisions P articipan ts in Australia ( 2.21 ) and North America ( 1.68 ) considered this strategy a low priority. Partici pants in Asia, Europe and Latin America rated this strategy a medium level priory with scores ranging from 2.67 in Europe to 3.18 in Asia. Strategy Funding international academic travel for faculty and staff Participants from all regions considered this strategy a medium priority with scores ranging from 2.71 in North America to 3.36 in Australia. Strategy Featuring global activities and research in institutional publications Participants in Australia perceived this strategy as a high level pr iority with a score of 3.57. Participants from the other regions rated this strategy as a medium level priority with scores ranging from 2.87 in Europe to 3.31 in Asia.

PAGE 150

134 Analysis for Research Question 5 Question 5 To what extent, if any, do the perspect ives of university administrators differ on internationalization based on their positions? In order to determine if there were differences based on participants position and region, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted. The independe nt variables were participants which could be presidential (including responses of presidents and vice presidents) or deans (including responses of deans and vice deans). Responses from p residents and vice presidents we re grouped together as pre sidential positions because the ir roles involve more activitie s in the planning and operation al dimensions of universities while deans frequently spend more time working on academic affairs, and student and faculty matters. Subscale 1 Pl anning and Oper ation Strategies The d erceived priority level of Planning and Operation strategies for internationalization There are two independent variables: position and region. Position has two levels (Presi dential and Deans) while region has five levels (Asia, Australia, Europe, Latin America and North America). In a Multiple Analysis of Variance (MANOVA), three null hypotheses are tested ( ; ; and and k ). The null hypotheses suggest t here is no difference for row main e ffect; t here is no d ifference for column main effect; and t here is no difference for interaction main effect. The n ull hypothese s were tested using an alpha level of .05 in SAS

PAGE 151

135 The r esults obtained from SAS ( see Table 55 and A ppendix Q.1) demonstrated that at the .05 level there were statistically significant differences based on position ( row main effect ) and region ( c olumn main effect ).T here were interaction effects (position and region) as well Therefore the three null hypotheses for this question were rejected. The M ANOVA Summary table for Planning and Operation strategies is presented in Table 56 Table 55 MANO VA Proce dure for Planning and Operation Strategies from SAS (This table continues on the next page) The ANOVA Procedure Class Level Information Class Levels Values position (rows ) 2 1 2 region ( Columns ) 5 1 2 3 4 5 Number of Observations Read 349 Number of Observations Used 349 Dependent Variable: planning Sum of Source DF Squares Mean Square F Value Model 9 11.1214274 1.2357142 2.64 Error 339 158.4345038 0.4673584 ( MS within ) Corrected Total 348 169.5559312 Source Pr > F Model 0.0057 Error Corrected Total The ANOVA Procedure Dependent Variable: planning R Square Coeff Var Root MSE plannin g Mean 0.065591 20.89038 0.683636 3.272493 ( Grand Mean ) Source DF Anova SS Mean Square F Value position (r 1) 1 2.47214039 2.47214039 5.29 region (c 1) 4 6.66326019 1.66581505 3.56 position*region (r 1)(c 1) 4 1.98602685 0.49650671 ( MSb ) 1.06 Source Pr > F position 0.0221 ( reject null for position main effect ) region 0.0073 ( reject null for region main effect ) position*region 0.3751 ( reject null for interaction effect ) The ANOVA Procedure

PAGE 152

136 Level of ----------planning ---------position N Mean Std Dev 1 107 3.39906542 0.59565967 2 242 3.21652893 0.73296387 Level of ----------planning ---------reg ion N Mean Std Dev 1 45 3.38666667 0.67000678 2 14 3.67142857 0.26436738 3 98 3.30816327 0.61855726 4 78 3.34102564 0.76216300 5 114 3.10087719 0.73104309 Level of Level of ----------planning ---------position region N Mean Std Dev 1 1 10 3.67000000 0.62547760 1 2 5 3.56000000 0.23021729 1 3 31 3.41290323 0.50115994 Level of Level of ----------pla nning ---------position region N Mean Std Dev 1 4 16 3.61250000 0.50973850 1 5 45 3.23555556 0.66815742 2 1 35 3.30571429 0.66859944 2 2 9 3.73333333 0.27386128 2 3 67 3.25970149 0.66379526 2 4 62 3.27096774 0.80314690 2 5 69 3.01304348 0.76117422 Table 56 MANOVA Summary T able for Planning and Operations Source df MS F P Position (A) 1 2.47 5.29 <.05 Region (B) 4 1.67 3.56 <.05 AB 4 0.49 1.06 <.05 Within 339 0.47 Total 348 Research results s how evidence that there are differences in perceptions about planning and operation strategies based on position where participants in presidential positions (3.5) tended to rate higher such strateg ies as compared to deans (3.3). The results also indicate there are significant differences based on region since participants from Australia (3.6), Asia (3.5) and Latin America (3.5) scored the priority of planning and operation strategies higher than those in North America (3.1).

PAGE 153

137 The results also suggest th at there is an interaction effect between position and region. For instance, Australian deans (3.7) rated these strategies higher than Australian presidents and VPs (3.5) while Asian deans (3.3) rated these strategies lower than Asian presidents (3.6). Th erefore, the results suggest that depending on the region where the administrators are located they can rate the priorities differently. The obtained m eans for planning and operation strategies are presented in Table 57 A g raph of the cell means obtained for planning and operation strategies by region/position and their interaction s is shown in F igure 13 Table 57 Means for Planning and Operations Strategies by Region/Position Region Presidential Deans Total Std. Dev. Priority Level Asia (n=45) 3.6 3.3 3.4 0.67 Medium Australia (n=14) 3.5 3.7 3.6 0.26 High Europe (n=98) 3.4 3.3 3.3 0.62 Medium Latin America (n=78) 3.6 3.3 3.4 0.77 Medium North America (n=114) 3.2 3.0 3.1 0.73 Medium Total 3.4 3.3 Std. Dev. 0.59 0.73 Priority Level Medium M edium Figure 13 Graph of the Cell Means Obtained f or Planning a nd Operation Strategies b y Region/Position 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.6 3.2 3.3 3.7 3.3 3.3 3 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Asia Australia Europe Latin America North America Planning: Observed Cell Means Presidential Deans

PAGE 154

138 Subscale 2 Student Education Strategies The d erceived priority level of St udent Education strategies for internationalization re are two independent variables: position and region. Position has two levels (Presidential and Deans) while region has five levels ( Asia, Australia, Europe, Latin America and North America). The r esults obtained from SAS ( Table 5 8 and A ppendix Q.2) demonstrated that at the .05 level there were statistically significant differences based on position ( row main effect ) and region ( column main effect ) .T here were interaction effects (position and regio n) as well Therefore the three null hypotheses for this question were rejected. The M ANOVA Summary table for Student Education strategies is presented in Table 59 Table 58 MANOVA Procedure for Student Education Strategies from SAS (This table contin ues on the next page) The ANOVA Procedure Dependent Variable: student Sum of Source DF Squares Mean Square F Value Model 9 7.7557416 0.8617491 1.79 Error 339 162.9561781 0.4806967 Corrected Total 348 170.7119198 Source Pr > F Model 0.0685 Error Corr ected Total Dependent Variable: student R Square Coeff Var Root MSE student Mean 0.045432 21.32455 0.693323 3.251289 Source DF Anova SS Mean Square F Value position 1 2.68414229 2.68414229 5.58 region 4 2.03969811 0.50992453 1.06 position*region 4 3.03190125 0.75797531 1.58

PAGE 155

139 Source Pr > F position 0.0187 region 0.3759 position*region 0.1800 The ANOVA Procedure Level of ----------student ----------position N Mean Std Dev 1 107 3.38317757 0.64814481 2 242 3.19297521 0.71584920 Level of ----------student ----------region N Mean Std Dev 1 45 3.30222222 0.67604763 2 14 3.31428571 0.85021006 3 98 3.16734694 0.74885142 4 78 3.18846154 0.73466677 5 114 3.33859649 0.61837766 Level of Level of ----------student ----------position region N Mean Std Dev 1 1 10 3.560 00000 0.57965507 1 2 5 3.08000000 0.94180677 1 3 31 3.47096774 0.74930792 The ANOVA Procedure Level of Level of ----------stude nt ----------position region N Mean Std Dev 1 4 16 3.16250000 0.56435804 1 5 45 3.39555556 0.57483419 2 1 35 3 .22857143 0.69093774 2 2 9 3.44444444 0.82327260 2 3 67 3.02686567 0.71107731 2 4 62 3.19516129 0.77637819 2 5 69 3.30144928 0.64659578 Table 5 9 M ANOVA Summ ary T able for Student Education Source D f MS F P Position (A) 1 2.68 5.58 <.05 Region (B) 4 0.51 1.06 <.05 AB 4 0.76 1.58 <.05 Within 339 0.48 Total 348 Research results show evide nce that there are differences in perceptions about student education strategies based on position where participants in presidential positions (3.4) tended to rate higher such strateg ies as compared to deans (3.2). The results also indicate that there ar e statistically significant

PAGE 156

140 differences based on regions where participants from North America (3.5) scored the priority of student education strategies higher than those in the other regions (3.3). The results also suggest that there is an interaction e ffect between position and region. For instance, Australian deans (3.4) rated these strategies higher than Australian presidents and VPs (3.1) while European deans (3.0) rated these strategies lower than European participants in presidential positions (3. 5). Therefore, the results suggest that depending on the region where the administrators are located they can rate the priorities differently. The obtained means for student education strategies are presented in Table 60 A g raph of the cell means obtained for student education strategies by region/position and their interactions are shown in F igure 14 Table 60 Means for Student Education Strategies by Region/Position Region Presidential n=107 Deans n=242 Total Std. Dev. Priority Level Asia (n=45) 3.4 3.2 3.3 0.67 Medium Australia (n=14) 3.1 3.4 3.3 0.85 Medium Europe (n=98) 3.5 3.0 3.2 0.74 Medium Latin America (n=78) 3.3 3.2 3.1 0.73 Medium North America (n=114) 3.6 3.3 3.4 0.62 Medium Total 3.4 3.2 Std. Dev. 0. 6 5 0.7 1 Priority Level Med ium Medium

PAGE 157

141 Figure 14 Graph of the Cell Means Obtained f or Student Education Strategies b y Region/Position Subscale 3 Teaching and Faculty Development Strategies The d erceived priori ty level of Teaching and Faculty Development strategies for internationalization There are two independent variables: position and region. Position has two levels (Presidential and Deans) while region has five levels (Asia, Australia, Europe, Latin Amer ica and North America). The r esults obtained from SAS ( Table 6 1 and A ppendix Q.3) demonstrated that at the .05 level there were statistically significant differences based on position ( row main effect ) and region ( column main effect ). T here were also inte raction effects (position and region). Therefore the three null hypotheses for this question were rejected. The M ANOVA Summary table for Teaching and Faculty Development strategies is presented in Table 62 3.4 3.1 3.5 3.3 3.6 3.2 3.4 3 3.2 3.3 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Asia Australia Europe Latin America North America Student Education: Observed Cell Means Presidential Deans

PAGE 158

142 Table 61 MANOVA Procedure for Teaching and Faculty Development Strategies from SAS (This table continues on the next page) The ANOVA Procedure Dependent Variable: teaching Sum of Source DF Squares Mean Square F Value Mod el 9 17.5293048 1.9477005 3.23 Error 339 204.1375147 0.6021756 Corrected Total 348 221.6668195 Source Pr > F Model 0.0009 Error Corrected Total The ANOVA Procedure Dependent Variable: teaching R Square Coeff Var Root MSE teaching Mean 0.079080 27.00946 0.776000 2.873066 Source DF Anova SS Mean Square F Value position 1 2.94502949 2.94502949 4.89 region 4 4.79395468 1.19848867 1.99 position*region 4 9.79032060 2.447580 15 4.06 Source Pr > F position 0.0277 region 0.0956 position*region 0.0031 The ANOVA Procedure Level of ----------teaching ---------position N Mean Std Dev 1 107 3.01121495 0.76223691 2 242 2.81198347 0.80747351 Level of ----------teaching ---------region N Mean Std Dev 1 45 2.91111111 0.70974458 2 14 2.87857143 0.87369998 3 98 2.71734694 0.85434312 4 78 2.83974359 0.82844554 5 114 3.01403509 0.73555436 Level of Level of ----------teaching ---------position region N Mean Std Dev 1 1 10 3.24000000 0.41952354 1 2 5 2.44000000 0.91815031 1 3 31 3.18064516 0.81298600 Level of Lev el of ----------teaching ---------position region N Mean Std Dev

PAGE 159

143 1 4 16 2.78125000 0.75030549 1 5 45 2.98888889 0.74535599 2 1 35 2.81714286 0.75126784 2 2 9 3.12222222 0.79494933 2 3 67 2.50298507 0.79046786 2 4 62 2.85483871 0.852 51363 2 5 69 3.03043478 0.73410697 Table 6 2 A NOVA Summary T able for Teaching Source df MS F P Position (A) 1 2.94 4.89 <.05 Region (B) 4 1.20 1.99 <.05 AB 4 2.45 4.06 <.05 Within 339 0.60 Total 348 *Conc lusion: Reject null hypothesis for rows (position) Reject null hypothesis for columns (region) Reject null hypothesis for interaction effects Research results show evidence that there are differences in perceptions about teaching and faculty development strategies based on position where participants in presidential positions (2.9) tended to rate such strategies higher as compared to deans (2.8). The results also indicate that there are statistically significant differences based on region wher e participants from North America (3.2) scored the priority of student education strategies higher than those in the other regions. Participants from Latin America (2.7) scored the lowest followed by Australia (2.8). The results also suggest that there is an interaction effect between position and region. For instance, European presidents and VPs (3.2) rated these strategies higher than did European deans (2.5) while Australian participants in presidential positions (2.4) rated these strategies lower th an Australian deans (3.1). Therefore, the results suggest that depending o n the region where the administrators are located they can rate the priorities differently. The obtained means for teaching and faculty development strategies are presented in Table

PAGE 160

144 63 A g raph of the cell means obtained for teaching and faculty development strategies by region/position and their interactions are shown in F igure 1 5 Table 63 Means for Teaching and Faculty Development Strategies by Region/ P osition Region President ial n= 107 Deans n= 242 Total Std. Dev. Priority Level Asia (n=45) 3.2 2.8 2.9 0.71 Medium Australia (n=14) 2.4 3.1 2.8 0.87 Medium Europe (n=98) 3.2 2.5 2.8 0.85 Medium Latin America (n=78) 2.5 2.8 2.7 0.83 Medium North America (n=114) 3. 3 3.0 3.1 0.73 Medium Total 2.9 2.8 Standard Deviation 0.76 0.80 Priority Level Medium Medium Figure 1 5 Graph of the Cell Means Obtained f or Teaching a nd Faculty Development Strategies b y Region/Position Analysis for Research Q uestion 6 Question 6 Do demographic characteristics such as age, gender or 3.2 2.4 3.2 2.5 3.3 2.8 3.1 2.5 2.8 3 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Asia Australia Europe Latin America North America Teaching: Observed Cell Means Presidential Deans

PAGE 161

145 In order to respond to research question number six multiple regression was used for data analysis. The inde pendent variables were held constant to control for differences. T welve demographic characteristics were used for the multiple regression analysis : institutional status, institutional type, number of international undergraduate students, number of internat ional graduate students, institutional size, institutional description, faculty status, years of higher education experience, age, gender, English proficiency and international experience Using more than one regressor allows the study of variables in comb ination; it also improve s prediction and executes statistical control by holding constant the variables to control for differences. The R s quare i s the proportion of variance in Y that is predictable or explainable by the set of the 12 variables. The back ward regression procedure was used. It starts with all 12 predictors or regressors. Then the predictor with the smallest (k 1) order squared semi partial correlation is removed. Variables continue to be removed until it is possible to reject the null hypot hesis (Change in R squared=0). Rejecting the null means there is no variable that can be removed without statistically significantly decreasing the ability to predict the criterion variable. The multiple regressions were conducted for each one of the three dependent variables and the results are as follows: Results of Multiple Regression for Administrative Planning a nd Operation Strategies The results from the m ultiple regression analysis for administrative planning and o peration strategies indicate t hat there are statistically significant

PAGE 162

146 differences in responses based on four demographic characteristics: 1) institutional status 2) number of international undergraduate students, 3) institutional description and 4) international experience. The analys is of variance for the regression analysis is shown in Table 64 The results of the multiple regression analysis are presented in Table 65. According to the results, 25 % of the variability is explained by the suggested independent variables. Table 64 A N OVA Table for the Regression Analysis of Planning and Operations Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F Model 4 33.52348 8.38087 22.21 <.0001 Error 311 117.37720 0.37742 Corrected Total 315 150.90067 Table 65 Summar y of Multiple Regression Analysi s for Planning and Operation Variables ( n =316 ) Variable B SEB Inst itutional Stat us (1 = Public, 2 = Private) 0.3 9* 0. 10 .18 Institutional Type ( 1 = Research Doctorate, 2 = Masters granting, 3 = College) 0.11 0.07 .05 Number of Int ernational Undergrad uates (1 = None, 2 = 1 to 299, 3 = 300 to 1000, 0.0 7* 0.03 09* Institutional Size (1 = <5000, 2 = 5000 to 20000, 3 = >2000) 0.06 0.07 .03 I nst itutional Desc ription (1 = Global, 2 = International, 3 = National, 4 = Local) 0.2 0* 0.0 5 .10 Faculty Membership (1=yes, 2= No) 0.11 0.07 .05 Age (1 = <35 years, 2 = 35 45, 3 = 46 55, 4 = > 55) 0.05 0.05 .02 Gender (1 = Female, 2 = Male ) 0.06 0.05 .03 English Proficiency (1 = Native, 2 = ESL, 3 = Using Translator) 0.11 0.07 .05 Int ernational Exp erience (1 = Extensive, 2 = Moderate, 3 = Minimal, 4 = None) 0. 18* 0.0 5 .12* R2 0.25 F 8.26* p < .01. Results of Multiple Regression f or Student Education Strategies The results from the m ultiple regression analysis indicate that there are statistically significant differences in responses based on five demographic characteristics: 1) institutiona l status, 2) number of international undergraduate

PAGE 163

147 students, 3) institutional description, 4) English proficiency and 5 ) inte rnational experience. The analysis of variance for the regression analysis is shown in Table 66 The results of the multiple regres sion analysis are presented in Table 67. The variables that cannot be removed through the backward elimination process can also be seen in A ppendix R.2 According to the results, 23 % of the variability is explained by the suggested independent variables. Table 66 A NOVA Table for the Regression Analysis of Student Education Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F Model 5 32.15220 6.43044 16.71 <.0001 Error 310 119.29477 0.38482 Corrected Total 315 151.44697 Ta ble 67 Summary of M ultiple Regression Analysi s for Student Education Variables (n =316) Variable B SEB Inst itutional Stat us (1 = Public, 2 = Private) 0.31* 0.10 .14 Institutional Type ( 1 = Research Doctorate, 2 = Masters granting, 3 = College) 0.02 0.07 .01 Number of Int ernational Undergrad uates (1 = None, 2 = 1 to 299, 3 = 300 to 1000, 4 = 0.04* 0.05 .0 8* Institutional Size (1 = <5000, 2 = 5000 to 20000, 3 = >2000) 0.03 0.06 .01 Inst itutional Desc ription (1 = Global, 2 = International, 3 = National, 4 = Local) 0.24* 0.05 .11 Faculty Membership (1=yes, 2= No) 0.06 0.07 .03 Age (1 = <35 years, 2 = 35 45, 3 = 46 55, 4 = > 55) 0.09 0.05 .04 Gender (1 = Female, 2 = Male) 0.12 0.08 .06 English Proficiency (1 = Native, 2 = ESL, 3 = Using Translator) 0.27* 0.08 .13 Int ernational Exp erience (1 = Extensi ve, 2 = Moderate, 3 = Minimal, 4 = None) 0.14 0.05 .07 R2 0.23 F 7.53* p < .01. Results of Multiple Regression for Teaching and Faculty Development Strategies The results from the m ultiple regression analysis f or teaching and faculty development strategies indicate that there are statistically significant differences in responses based on four demographic characteristics: 1) institutional status, 2)

PAGE 164

148 institutional description, 3) English proficiency and 4) int ern ational experience. The analysis of variance for the regression analysis is shown in Table 68 The results of the multiple regression analysis are presented in Table 69. The variables that cannot be removed through the backward elimination process can als o be seen in Appendix R.3. According to the results, 22 % of the variability is explained by the suggested independent variables. Table 68 A NOVA Table for the Regression Analysis of Teaching and Faculty Development Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F Model 4 40.23388 10.05847 20.29 <.0001 Error 311 154.18008 0.49576 Corrected Total 315 194.41396 Table 69 Summary of Multiple Regression Analyses for Teaching and Faculty Development Variables ( n=316 ) Varia ble B SEB Inst itutional Stat us (1 = Public, 2 = Private) 0.32* 0.12 .14 Institutional Type ( 1 = Research Doctorate, 2 = Masters granting, 3 = College) 0.09 0.08 .04 Number of Int ernational Undergrad uates (1 = None, 2 = 1 to 299, 3 = 300 to 1000, 4 = 0.02 0.06 .01 Institutional Size (1 = <5000, 2 = 5000 to 20000, 3 = >2000) 0.07 0.07 .03 Inst itutional Desc ription (1 = Global, 2 = International, 3 = National, 4 = Local) 0.18* 0.06 .0 9* Faculty Membership (1=yes, 2= No) 0.12 0.08 .06 Age (1 = <35 years, 2 = 35 45, 3 = 46 55, 4 = > 55) 0.03 0.05 .01 Gender (1 = Female, 2 = Male) 0.03 0.08 .01 English Proficiency (1 = Native, 2 = ESL, 3 = Using Translator) 0.35* 0.09 .16* Int ernational Exp erience (1 = Extensi ve, 2 = Moderate, 3 = Minimal, 4 = None) 0.21* 0.06 .10* R2 0.22 F 7.28* p < .01. Additional Findings: Main Difficulties for Achieving Internationalizat ion Research participants were asked to identify the three to p difficulties in achieving internationalization at their institutions ( Table 70 and Figure 1 6 ) The

PAGE 165

149 eight options suggested were written based on literature review. The majority of in difficulty for internationa involvement , support Table 70 Top Difficulties for Internationalization What are the top three dif ficulties in achieving internationalization at your university? (Select three or less if applicable): Difficulty % n Lack of faculty involvement 30.2% 105 Lack of economic resources 76.4% 266 Lack of partnership with foreign universities 18.1% 63 Lac k of international regulations and quality assurance 12.6% 44 Lack of governmental support 28.2% 98 Lack of planning and coordination 29.0% 101 Lack of student involvement 10.9% 38 Lack of interest in general 20.4% 71 None 7.2% 25 Other 4.9% 17 n 34 8

PAGE 166

150 Figure 1 6 Top Difficulties for Internationalization Therefore the list of difficulties based on the number of times selected by participants is as follows: 1. Lack of economic resources 2. Lack of faculty involvement 3. Lack of planning and coo rdination 4. Lack of governmental support 5. Lack of interest in general 6. Lack of partnership with foreign universities 7. Lack of international regulations and quality assurance 8. Lack of student involvement There were no difficulties for international ization for 25 participants ( 7%).

PAGE 167

1 51 Five percent of t he participants acknowledged achieving internationalization in their institutions. The other difficulties given were these : 1. For public institutions there are few externa l regulations which limits internationalization (1. language 2. No d ual degrees etc) 2. Motivating international students to stay enrolled for longer than a one s emester study abroad experience 3. Visa and residence permits are quite bureaucratic procedu res 4. Lack of infrastructure to support international students on our campus 5. In lean budget times, it is important to let tax payers know that public institutions are addressing their needs. 6. Clear internationalization strategy 7. Lack of incentives for international engagement in salary dis cussions and time released for i nternational activities 8. Not part of the overall mission of a community college we serve the community 9. Recruiting internationally as a small school 10. Lack of communicati on and coordination between the ne w International Affairs office and the rest of Stu dent Services department. 11. The college's primary mission is serving the local service area since its strength is the associate degree. 12. Processes are too slow 13. Ti me required for training and supporting internationalization

PAGE 168

152 14. Lack of will to internationalize the curricula 15. Total focus on the local community Overall the responses were similar across demographic characteristics except for world regions and in stitutional description. When the responses were analyzed by regions some differences were found. For Australia the lack of economic resources wa s not the top difficulty; for those participants it was the For European participants the second main difficulty was not selected at all. For Latin American participants the second ities in Australia this was the least selected option. See responses in Table 71 and Figure 1 7 Table 71 Top Difficulties for Internationalization by Region What are the top three difficulties in achieving internationalization at your universit y? (Select three or less if applicable): World region: Answer Options Asia Australia Europe Latin America North America % n Lack of faculty involvement 22 5 29 24 25 30.2% 105 Lack of economic resources 31 3 78 68 86 76.4% 266 Lack of partner ship with foreign universities 11 1 11 33 7 18.1% 63 Lack of international regulations and quality assurance 2 2 9 18 13 12.6% 44 Lack of governmental support 0 2 39 26 31 28.2% 98 Lack of planning and coordination 6 6 37 8 44 29.0% 101 Lack of student involvement 3 3 7 9 16 10.9% 38 Lack of interest in general 18 2 15 20 16 20.4% 71 None 10 1 5 1 8 7.2% 25 Other 0 1 7 2 7 4.9% 17 n 348

PAGE 169

153 Figure 1 7 Top Difficulties for Internationalization by R egion When analyzed by institutional description, all participants saw the lack of economic resources as the main difficulty for internationalization. T he second difficulty for local universities was the universities universities this was the least se lected option Participants from global universities perceived the lack of planning and coordination as their second difficulty for internationalization. The top difficulties based on institutional description are presented in Table 72 and Figure 1 8 Ta ble 7 2 Top Difficulties for Internationalization by Institutional Description (This table continues on the next page) What are the top three difficulties in achieving internationalization at your university? (Select three or less if applicable): How would you describe your institution? Answer Options Global International National Local % n Lack of faculty involvement 11 61 26 6 30.0% 104

PAGE 170

154 Lack of economic resources 49 135 56 25 76.4% 265 Lack of partnership with foreign universities 4 27 15 17 18.2% 63 Lack of international regulations and quality assurance 8 18 9 9 12.7% 44 Lack of governmental support 20 51 22 5 28.2% 98 Lack of planning and coordination 25 53 17 6 29.1% 101 Lack of student involvement 4 22 9 3 11.0% 38 Lack of intere st in general 6 40 18 7 20.5% 71 None 15 9 0 1 7.2% 25 Other 6 1 5 4 4.6% 16 n 347 Figure 1 8 Top Difficulties for Internationalizatio n by Institutional Description Conclusion The descriptive statistics for the participating presidents, vice presi dents and deans are presented in this chapter. The statistical analyses of the findings from the six research questions are provided. In summary, all the participating university administrators saw most of the strategies as having medium level

PAGE 171

155 priority. three were selected as high priority, ten were considered medium priority and only one was seen as low strategies only one was high priority level and the other s were a medium priority. Finally were considered as a medium level priority Considering foreign language fluency in salary/promotion decisions was selected as a low level priority No strategy was selected as having a top level priority. There were statistically significant differences based on internatio nalization level or description, region, institutional status, number of international students, organizat ional position, and international experience. When pa rticipants were asked to select the top three difficulties for achieving internationalization the vast majority of participants economic resources

PAGE 172

156 Chapter Five Summary, Conclusions, And Recommendations This chapter presents a brief summary of the findings an interpretation of the results, and a discussion of implications for the s tudy of international leadership strategies for higher education internationalization Approximately 350 university presidents, vice presidents and deans from 33 countries and 65 universities participated in the s tudy. The research results are interpreted by the three dimensions of internationalization: planning and operation, student education, and teaching and f aculty development strategies. The last section of this chapter explores the significance of this study and offers suggestions for further research. This summary of the findings begins with a brief review of the research problem and method Then, a description of the average participating president, vice president, and dean as well as their respective ins titutions is presented. The research problem addressed the lack of research concerning international organizational strategies to support higher education internationalization Therefore, the purpose of the study was to organizational strategies to support higher education internationalization. I nternationalization is defined as the conscious effort to integrate and

PAGE 173

157 infuse international, intercultu ral, and global dimensions into the ethos and outcomes of higher education which include institutional mission, vision and values; student education and academic mobility; curriculum, instruction and research; faculty development; administrative structure, planning and operations of higher education institutions (Knight, 2003; NAFSA, 2008; Olson et al., 2006). A descriptive survey design method was used for this research It was a quantitative and cross sectional study. A web based questionnaire ( Survey Mon key, 20 10 ) was used for data gathering. The survey was sent to approximately 1,043 university senior level administrators ( presidents, vice presidents and deans ) at 149 universities in 50 countries The se universities had an active international agreement with the University of South Florida at the time of the study There was a 34% response percentage. Only two res ponses of the expected 49 from Africa were obtained. Responses from Africa were deleted to avoid sampling error. Finally a total of 349 were us ed for data analysis after deleting incomplete surveys. The main limitation of this study wa s the hierarchical structure of the unit of ana lysis as research participants we re nested within universities. This nestedness pose d a limitation because in orde anonymou s (ethical issue) participants we re not required to reveal the name of their institutions Only 36 % indicated the name of their institutions. Therefore, there was not enough data to determine universities score s which could violate the assumption of independence of observ ations for statistical analysis because administrators from the same university may have similar responses. A key

PAGE 174

158 limitation of this study wa s that the obtained data came from universities whic h currently have partnerships with the University of South Florida. Consequently generalization of the results to all higher education institutions cannot be implied. It is important to note some historical events relevant to the outcomes of the study. F irst, a global economic recession has affected the capacity for higher education institutions to develop programs related to international activities. For many institutions, pressing local needs cannot be fulfilled as budget reductions become more common Second, two natural disasters earthquakes occurred between January and February 2010 in Haiti and Chile. N umerous participants from these two countries particip ated in the pilot study in 2009; however, there was no participation in the final survey from them in June in the gathering of da ta for the actual dissertation. Third, uncertainty and fear due to the war on terrorism has also prevented universities from developing international programs. For example in the USA after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, new regulations related to visa and immigration procedures have discouraged potential students from entering the country. Overall, the research findings revealed there were differences in perception based on certain institutional and individual demographi c characteristics (Tables 73 and 74 ). For the first di mension, Planning and Operation Strategies there were statistically significant differences based on: 1) Status, 5) N umber of international undergraduate students and 6) International experience.

PAGE 175

159 For the second dimension, Student Education, there were statistically significant differences based on: 1) Institutional description, 2) Region, 3) ) Institutional Status, 5) Number of international undergraduate students, 6) English proficiency, and 7) International experience. F or the third dimension, Teaching and Faculty Development there were statistically signif icant differences based on: 1) Institutional description, 2) English proficiency, and 6 ) International experience. Table 73 Summary of Significant Difference s for Institutional Characteristics DIMENSION Institutional Characteristic : Planning and Operations Student Education Teaching and Faculty Development Description (Global, International, National And Local) Yes Yes Yes World Region (Asia, Australia, Europe, Latin America, North America) Yes Yes Yes Status (Public Private) Yes Yes Yes Type (Doctorate Masters College) No No No Number Of International Undergraduate Students Yes Yes No Number Of International Graduate /Postgraduate Students No No No Size by Total Number of Students No No No Table 74 Summary of Significant Differences for Characteristics DIMENSION Administrator Characteristic : Planning and Operations Student Education Teaching and Faculty Development Posi tion (P residential Dean ) Yes Yes Yes Faculty Membership No No No Years of Experience in Higher Education Administration No No No Age No No No Gender No No No English Language Proficiency No Yes Yes International Experience Yes Yes Yes

PAGE 176

160 Priority Level of Planning and Operation Stra tegies for Internationalization In general all planning and operation strategies as a group were perceived as having medium priority level by the participating presidents, vice presidents and deans. When analyzing indi vidual strategies that have particular implications for practice, the f ollowing planning and operation strategies surface because of their perceived high priority level: 1. Establishing institutional collaboration with foreign universities (3.64). 2. Commu nicating an institutional global vision (3.57). 3. The other planning and operation strategies had medium priority level (scores ranging from of 2.78 to 3.5) except for one that was rated as having a low priority The overall score for all strategies together (subscale) was 3.2 which indicate this strategy as a medium priority level. There were differences in responses based on the following demographic characteristics: 1) Institutional description 2) World region 4) Institutional Status 5) Number of intern ational undergraduate students 6) Internatio nal experience

PAGE 177

161 Institutional D escription T he obtained results demonstrate that participants from global universities perceived planning and operation strategies for internationalization as a high level priority P articipants in international, national and local institut ions perceived them as a medium level priority. The results imply the relationship between the mission, vision and values of the institutions and their priorities. In total there were 75 participants from global institutions. Nearly 40% of them were from Europe and 30% from North America. The main strategies for global institutions were: 1. Communicating an institutional global vision (4.2) 2. Initiating policies that enhance global thinking and action (4.1) 3. Increasing visibility of in site (4.0) 4. Establishing institutional collaboration with foreign universities (4.0) 5. Pledging a mission to serve the world through education (3.9) Setting up a branch campus abroad as having a medium priority level by global universities (2.6) while international, national and local institut ions saw it as having low level priority (1.8 2.1). These results show again the influence of the vision of the institutions regarding the need to establish connections abroad. An important consideration must be made when interpreting the results from this strategy. Institutions that classified establishing one is no t a priority at this time. Further studies about branch campuses and internationalization level are suggested.

PAGE 178

162 World R egion The present study shows that universities in Latin American gave lower ratings to planning and operation strategies for internatio nalization. The reason for this lower rating is not necessarily due to their location in Latin America ; a more likely reason is that very few global universities from this region participated in the study. Therefore, it can be implied that the responses ar e influenced by the perceived internationalization level of the institutions ( G lobal, I nternational, N ational or L ocal). These perceptions can vary depending on the individuals. For instance, the following institutions: University of Cologne in Germany, th e U niversity of Arkansas in the USA, and the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology in Saudi Arabia were perceived by some participants as global institutions while other saw them as international universities. The lowest number of participa nts in global universities was located in Latin America. Only 6.7% of the participants in global institutions were from Latin America, specifically from Ecuador and t he Bahamas. It is important to note that during the pilot study Chile had the highest numb er of participants who described their institution as global. However, a strong earthquake impeded the participation of those universities in this final study. Their participation could have changed the results. P osition Perceptions of pl anning and operation strategies were different based on the current position of the administrators. Overall participants in presidential positions (presidents and vice presidents) tended to rate these strategies higher

PAGE 179

163 than deans. Among the 242 deans who participated in this study 160 (67%) are also faculty members (Table 75 ). D eans are usually in more contact with faculty than adminis trators in presidential roles because t he nature of deanship positions is closely related to academic affairs while presi dential position s are more involved in administrative planning and operations Although deans rated planning and operation strategies lower the ultimate decisions are taken by p residents and vice presidents. Table 7 5 Faculty Membership by Position Orga nizational position: Are you also a faculty member/professor? President Vice President Dean/ Vice Dean Response Totals Yes 40% ( 10 ) 37.5% ( 30 ) 66.7% ( 160 ) 58.0% (200) No 60% ( 15 ) 62.5% ( 50 ) 33.3% ( 80 ) 42.0% (145) Total 25 80 240 345 Institutional Status Participants in public universities tended to rate planning and operation strategies higher than private institutions. It is important to note that 24% of the participants from public universities classified their institutions as global and 53% classified them as international (Table 76 ). On the other hand, 15% of the participants from private universities classified their institutions as global, 39.5% classified them as international, 31% as nati onal, and 14% as local. Table 76 Institutional Status by Internationalization Level (This table continues on the next page) Institutional status: How would you describe your institution? Public University Private University Response Totals Globa l : Extensive curriculum internationalization, study abroad programs in most disciplines, international 23.7% ( 62 ) 15.1% ( 13 ) 21.6% ( 75 )

PAGE 180

164 professors, global outreach, international components in most administrative roles. International : Moderately internat ionalized curriculum, international professors, some overseas programs, global research in select areas, and an international division reporting directly to the president. 52.7% ( 138 ) 39.5% ( 34 ) 49.4% ( 172 ) National : Minimal internationalization of curri culum, few international professors, some international research, an international office reporting to a vice president or dean. 15.5% ( 41 ) 31.4% ( 27 ) 19.5% ( 68 ) Local : Main focus on serving the local population. 8% ( 21 ) 14% ( 12 ) 9.5% ( 33 ) Total 262 86 348 Number of International Undergraduate Students Universities with larger number s of international undergraduate students rat ed planning and operation strategies higher than institutions with few er international undergraduate students. In this study the region reporting more undergraduate students was North America followed by Europe (See Table 77 ). The perceptions are again influenced by the internationalization level of the institutions. For ex ample 30% of the national universities do not have international students (see Table 78 ). Table 7 7 Number of International Undergraduate Students by Region Number of international undergraduates with a student visa: World region: None Between 1 2 99 Between 300 1000 More than 1000 know Response Totals Asia 30.8% ( 4 ) 12.1% ( 14 ) 10.5% ( 8 ) 21.8% ( 19 ) 0 13.0% ( 45 ) Australia & Oceania 0 0 2.6% ( 2 ) 12.6% ( 11 ) 0 3.8% ( 13 ) Europe 0 34.5% ( 40 ) 39.5% ( 30 0 28.7% ( 25 ) 5.7% ( 3 ) 28.4% ( 98 ) Latin Amer ica & The Caribbean (including Mexico) 38.5% ( 5 ) 29.3% ( 34 ) 10.5% ( 8 ) 4.6% ( 4 ) 47.2% ( 25 ) 22.0% ( 76 ) North America 30.8% ( 4 ) 24.1% ( 28 ) 36.8% ( 28 ) 32.2% ( 28 ) 47.2% ( 25 ) 32.8% ( 113 ) Total 13 116 76 87 53 345

PAGE 181

165 Table 78 Number of International Undergraduate Students by Internationalization Level Number of international undergraduates with a student visa: Institutional Description None Between 1 299 Between 300 1000 More than 1000 know Response Totals Globa l 15.4% ( 2 ) 14.8% ( 17 ) 13.2% ( 10 ) 41.4% ( 36 ) 18.9% ( 10 ) 21.8% ( 75 ) International 30.8% ( 4 ) 40.9% ( 47 ) 68.4% ( 52 ) 55.2% ( 48 ) 32.1% ( 17 ) 48.8% ( 168 ) National 30.8% ( 4 ) 33.9% ( 39 ) 15.8% ( 12 ) 2.3% ( 2 ) 20.8% ( 11 ) 19.8% ( 68 ) Local 23.1% ( 3 ) 10.4% ( 12 ) 2.6% ( 2 ) 1.1% ( 1 ) 28.3% ( 15 ) 9.6% ( 33 ) Total 13 115 76 87 53 344 E xperience perceptions o f planning and operation strategies. Participant s with extensive international experience rated planning and operation strategies higher than those with moderate, minimal and no experience. As shown in Table 79 participants from public universities had more international experience (75%) compare d to t he participants from private institutions (25%). It is important to note that participating deans have more international experience than participants in presidential positions. See T able 80 Table 79 International Experience by Instituti onal Status International Experience: Institutional status: Extensive Moderate Minimal None Response Totals Public University 35.5% ( 93 ) 43.5% ( 114 ) 20.2% ( 53 ) 0.8% ( 2 ) 75.3% ( 262 ) Private University 26.7% ( 23 ) 41.9% ( 36 ) 29.1% ( 25 ) 2.3% ( 2 ) 24.7% ( 8 6 ) Total 116 150 78 4 348

PAGE 182

166 Table 80 International Experience by Position International Experience: Organizational position: Extensive Moderate Minimal None Response Totals President/ Rector/ Chancell or 13.8% ( 16 ) 4% ( 6 ) 3.8% ( 3 ) 0 7.2% ( 25 ) Vice President/ Vice Chancellor/ Vice Rector 31.9% ( 37 ) 19.3% ( 29 ) 20.5% ( 16 ) 0 23.6% ( 82 ) Dean/ Vice Dean 54.3% ( 63 ) 76.5% ( 115 ) 75.6% ( 59 ) 100% ( 4 ) 69.3% ( 241 ) Other 0 0 0 0 0.0% Total 116 150 78 4 348 Impl ications of Findings for Planning And Operations Strategies a nd Recommendations for Practice The present study provide s support to previous research ( Meier & O'Toole, 2001 ; Robert son, 2006) regarding the key role effective leaders play in developing other members and cultivating trusting relationships within and outside of their e stablishing institutional collaboration with foreign universities internationalization. One p articipant from the Universidad Veracruzana in Mexico commented: Latin American universities are not enough, compared with those made between European and Latin American institutions. For instance, the Program for Student Mobility in North America have had less impact than Eramus Mundus program The results of this study also suggest being careful and c onsidering feasibility when establishing branch campuses a broad Although openin g b ranch campuses a broad is a strategy widely used nowadays (Kinser & Green, 2009 ;

PAGE 183

167 Olson et al. 2006) caution is advised This strategy was rated as having a low priority level by all participants and supported by comments such as the following remark from a dean at the Universidad San Francisco de Quit o in Ecuador : international campus (USFQF Florida). The university obtained all These find ings are in tune with recent studies about negative outcomes of branc h campuses overseas such as reduction of employment benefits, lack of academic freedom low quality assurance, and economic difficulties ( AAUP, 2009 ). Those negative outcomes are frequent ly cited as barriers for opening campuses in other countries. Nevertheless i t is important to keep in mind that for this study, maybe a third reason for the poor rating of this strategy i s revealed from an administrator at a participating American public university have a branch campus in another country, so it is no longer a priority to get one. Research results are also consistent with previous studies about the importance of creating a s hared vision and mission focused on global goals for internationalization ( Horn et al., 2007; Green, 2007; Olson et al., 2005 Robertson, 2005) Increasing strategies rat ed as having a high priority level by all participants. The mission of the institution is crucial in selecting strategies. For instance a participating administrator f ro m the Memor ial University of Newfoundland in Canada commented:

PAGE 184

168 y in the province, the focus has traditionally been on serving the needs of the students across the province particularly from rural and northern regions. Thus it has been a challenge to encourage Priority Level of Student Education Strategies for Internationalization The overall score for all strategies together (subscale) was 3.2 which indicate s this strategy as a medium priority level. One of the student education strategies was perceived as having a high level priority by all study participants 6 5. There were differences in responses based on the following demographic characteristics: 1) Institutional descriptio n 2) World region 4) Institutional status 5) Number of intern ational undergraduate students 6) 7) nternational experience Institutional D escription The research results de monstrated that global and international institutions we re statistically different. Participants f ro m global institutions rated student education strategies as a high priority with a score of 3.5 9 while participants from international universities perceiv ed these strategies as a

PAGE 185

169 medium priority with an overall score of 3.3 3 Global institutions also were different compared to national and local institutions. Global institutions rated these strategies higher than national and local institutions did. Interna tional universities rated student education strategies higher than national and local universities. National universities scored these strategies higher than local institutions. For global institutions six of the ten strategies were perceived as having a high prior ity level while only two were a high priority level for international universities. The six strategies selected as high priority for participants in global institutions were these : 1) Fostering global recruitment to attract the best students. (S core 4.0) 2) Motivating students to participate in study abroad programs. (Score 4.0) 3) Facilitating the transfer of credits from recognized foreign universities. (Score 3.7) 4) Encouraging students to participate in international research. (Score 3.7) 5 ) Requiring students to take courses with international content (Score 3.6) 6) Promoting intercultural interactions among students. (Score 3.6) For international universities only two of thes e strategies were considered a high priority level while for national and local institutions each of the strategies was rated as a medium priority level. T he two strategies considered a high priority level for international institutions were these :

PAGE 186

170 1) Motivating students to participate in study abroad programs (Scor e 3.8) 2) Fostering global recruitment to attract the best students. (Score 3.6) World R egion Based on the region where the institutions were located, participants from Europe rated Student Education strategies higher than those in North America. Also, p articipants from Latin American gave different responses than those in North America. The overall score of student education str ategies in North America is 3.01, 3.35. P osition Research re sults indicated there we re differences in perceptions about student education strategies based on position where participants in presidential positions (3.4) tended to rate higher such strategies as compared to deans (3.2). T he findings also sho w that depending on the region where the administrators are located they can ra te the priorities differently. For instance, Australian deans (3.4) rated these strategies higher than Australian presidents and VPs (3.1) while European deans (3.0) rated th ese strategies lower than European participants in presidential positions (3.5). Institutional S tatus Participants from private universities tended to rate student education strategies higher than did participants in public institutions. Number of Int ernational Undergraduate Students Participants in institutions with more than 300 international undergraduate

PAGE 187

171 students rated student education strategies higher than did those with 299 or fewer international undergraduate students. h P roficiency Participants who speak English as a second language tended to rate the student education strategies higher as compare d to those who are native speakers of English. International Experience P articipants with extensive interna tional experience perceived student education strategies as having a higher priority level compared to those participants with moderate, minimal and no international experience. Implications of Findings for Student Education Strategies and Recommendati ons for Practice These finding are consistent with current trends and events in higher education. A recent study from the International Association of Universities (October, 2010) concluded that higher education institutions are placing more emphasis on t he global student experience despite a decline in funding In that report the I A U analyzed data collected in 2009 from 745 institutions in 115 countries, exploring global trends and individual regions N ot surprisingly, in this dissertation, global institu tions selected si x of these strategies as a high level priority. globalized world. An example of this tren d is the following statement from a participating administrator from the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology located in Saudi Arabia:

PAGE 188

172 on graduate education and cutting edge r esearch on global problems. We currently have students from more than 40 different countries and collaborate with 42 top institutions aroun d the world American university administrators also see strategies related to recruitment of international students as having a high priority level. The following comment made by a participating administrator from the University of Alaska reflects that fact: Our main international focus is on the circumpolar North. We have been active in the International Polar year, we are the co lead of the Graduate Area for the University of the Arctic, and many of our research programs have an international focus or component. Our second focus is on the Pacific and Pacific Rim. We also actively recruit students (mainly engineering students) from China and India. The results of this study support the arguments made by John Bound and Sarah Turner (2010) i n the book American Universities in a Gl obal Market concerning the changing flow of foreign graduate students Bound and Turner p oint out that b etween 1970 and 2005 the number of Americans who obtained doctoral degrees declined 23% in engineering, 44% in physical sciences, and 50% in mathematics. Adding to this problem are the stagnation of U.S. college com pletion rates and the poor performance of American students on international tests (Bond & Turner, 2010) These trends are changing the global landscape for foreign students. Even in America foreign students play leading roles in

PAGE 189

173 best universitie s in the world attract the best graduate students in the world Priority Level of Teaching and Faculty Development Strategies for Internationalization The overall score of the teaching and faculty development subscale was 2.8. This score indicates a medium priority level. In general, the teaching and faculty development subscale was rated lower than the previous two dimensions of internationalization (planning and operations, and student education). Participants rated ever y single strategy for internationalization as having a medium priority level with scores ranging from 2.68 to 2.98 There were differences in responses based on the following demographic characteristics: 1) Institutional description 2) World region 3) Ad 4) Institutional status 5) 6) nternational experience Institutional D escription The options for institutional description were G lobal, I nternational, N ational or L ocal The results demonstrated that G lobal institutions rated teaching and faculty development strategies higher than I nternational N ational, and L ocal universities. Inte rnational universities rated these strategies high er than N ational universities. Global uni versities rated o ne teaching and faculty development strategy as having a high priori ty level

PAGE 190

174 On the other hand N ational and L ocal universities perceived four out of th e ten strategies as having a low priority level. For N ational universities the lowest level of priority was given to the following strategies: 1) Considering foreign language fluenc y in salary/promotion decisions (Score 2.0) 2) Considering international r esearch and teaching during salary and promotion decisions (Score 2.4) 3) Providing financial incentives for curriculum internationalization (Score 2.5) 4) Providing training in cross cultural comm unication for faculty and staff (Score 2.5) L ocal universi ties gave the lowest level of priority to the following strategies: 1) Considering foreign language fluenc y in salary/promotion decisions (Score 1.9) 2) Considering international research and teaching during salary and promotion decisions (Score 2.4) 3) Fu nding international academic travel for faculty and staff (Score 2.4) 4) Providing financial incentives for curriculum internationalization (Score 2.5) World R egion There we

PAGE 191

175 perceptio ns based on w orld region (Asia, Australia, Europe, Latin America and North America). Although p articipants from all regions scored teaching and faculty development strategies as having a medium priority level, the means obtained ranged from 2.57 in North America to 3.1 7 in Asia. The overall score of Latin America was 2.99. The results indicated there were statistically significant differences between North America and Asia. P osition Research findings show evidence that there we re differences in percept ions about teaching and faculty development strategies based on position P articipants in presidential positions (2.9) tended to rate such strategies higher as compared to deans (2.8). The results also suggest that there is an interaction effect between po sition and region. For instance, European presidents and VPs (3.2) rated these strategies higher than European deans (2.5) while Australian participants in presidential positions (2.4) rated these strategies lower than Australian deans (3.1). Therefore, t he results suggest that depending o n the region where the administrators are located they can rate the priorities differently. Institutional S tatus The results also indicate there were differences in responses based on i nstitutional status. Participant s from private universities tended to rate the teaching and faculty development strategies higher than participants in public institutions.

PAGE 192

176 L anguage P roficiency Participants who speak English as a second language tended to rate t he teaching and faculty development strategies higher as compare d to those who are native speakers of English. I nternational E xperience Finally, participants with extensive international experience perceived teaching a nd faculty developme nt strategies as having a higher priority level compared to those participants with moderate, minimal and no international experience. Implications of Findings for Teaching and Faculty Development Strategies and Recommendations for Practice The fact that teaching and faculty development strategies were rated lower than student education strategies and planni ng and operation strategies is also consistent with recent studies ( AAUP, 2009 ; Green, M. & Shoenberg, 2006 ; Siaya & Hayward, 2003 Sullivan, 2008 ). These results may imply that most universities around the world do not have the economic means, governmental support and/or strategic approach to improve the salary and employment benefits for faculty who incorporate international content within their curriculum and teaching methods. Therefore the low ratings can be related to the inability to establish financial rewards for teaching international content even though there was an interest in doing so. This is illustrated by the following comment by a p articipating administrator from a private university in Greece: (over 20 years) and with a highly international student body. Classes are

PAGE 193

177 taught in English, which is not the local lang uage and all of our professors have experience of having studied abroad and mostly in the U.S. at a high Similarly, administrators wrote comments on how successful teaching and faculty development strategies can be. For instance, a partic ipating administrator from a private university in France wrote the following statement: 80 % of our research faculty is international, meaning born abroad. 100 % of our students are studying aboard at least 6 months out of the 3 years programme 25 % of our Alumni network are living abroad. Therefore the i mplementation and follow up of teaching and faculty d evelopment strategies are highly recommended. Based on higher ratings the foll owing strategies are suggested for a successful internationalization process to take place: Recruiting international faculty and staff (3.55 lobal institutions ). Featuring global activities and research in institutional public ations (3.57 is the score given by Australia n universities ) Promoting faculty engagement in campus internationalization (3.50 is the ) Similarities To and Differences F rom Findings Comparing the results from this study with the findings from Dr. Linda

PAGE 194

178 2005) is important given the fact that her research inspired the development o f the present stu dy. Robertson pointed out how organizational capabilities and core competencies are vital for leadership in a globalized world She asked university presidents to rate the impo rtance of 44 competencies. O f the 44, 23 were rated as very important but none was considered critical. In the present study, those competencies were converted into 34 strategies for internationalization and then rated by university presidents, vice presidents and deans. The results indicated that for top university administrators ar ound the world four of the 34 strategies for internationalization had a high priority level but none was considered top priority. Although only four strategies had high priority level according to the present study, the same strategies were seen as very i Those strategies are the following : 3.65 in the Student Education Subscale) 2. Establishing institutional col laboration with foreign universities (3.64 in the Planning and Operations Subscale). 3. Communicating an institutional global vision (3.57 in the Planning and Operations Subscale) 4. (3.55). For example, i ratings by American university presidents suggested that they strongly believed in a global mission. Frequently u niversity presidents write mission statements with the support of faculty,

PAGE 195

179 administration and staff. Therefore incorporating a global focus into their mission statements to outline global efforts as strategic goals is fundamental for internationalization. Likewise the present study revealed the high priority level given to incorporating global p mission statement by university administrators in America and around the world. A n American administrator participating in the current study demonstrated that this strategy is still in practice. The administrator is from Kennes aw State University and wrote the following comment: Plan, which is a part of our accreditation through the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools The research results also high lighted the conce rns regarding quality assurance in a global ized world dissertation. Linda Robertson saw how higher education policies were dramatically changing worldwide. Changes in Europe such as the implementat ion of the SOCRATES and ERASMUS programs added to the identification of higher education as a trading commodity by the North American Free Trade Agreement raised red flags for concern. At the same time English speaking countries were facing new source s o f competition in worldwi de recruitment of students Robertson knew that American higher education presidents would be dealing with the impact of globalization in ways they were never challenged before.

PAGE 196

180 The findings in Robertson dissertation gave a snap shot in time. Presidents back the n demonstrated interest in the topic. Five years later, the present study gives testimony of those changes by allowing presidents, vice presidents and deans from universities around the world to provide their perspe ctives. The results are similar: an increased co ncern about the changes blurring boundaries and the technological ad vances redefining basic needs. An additional concern to institutions worldwide is the unexpected economic recession that is challenging even the m ost powerful nations and threatens to change the landscape of the future. Now more than ever the idea of the global village is becoming real. Countries that were under economic turmoil for centuries, like China, are lending money to countries known as eco nomi cally sustainable like the U.S. As economic and social changes occur, the perks for universities in developed countries in regions like Europe, Australia and North America can completely disappear. For instance, freedom of speech and equal rights are n ot equally dispersed around the world. Political instability in countries with economic power can trigger potentially destructive effects for well established universities. The results from this study continue to raise those concerns and supports Roberts on Effectively leading a university today requires a new style of presidential leadership. The results from this research also sustain g lobal strategic planning as a vehicle through whic h challenging goals are set and accountability measures are determined.

PAGE 197

181 Main Difficulties for Internationalization and Recommendations f or Practice Research participants were asked to identify the three top difficulties in achieving internationalization a t their institutions The majority of participants Seven percent of the participants indicated they did not hav e any difficulties for internationalization. Five percent of the participants internationalization at their institutions. A short overview of these barriers and suggestions to overcome them are as follows: 1. Lack of economic resources: Lack of economic resources was closely linked to the lack of governmental support as shown in the following comment from a participating administrator from Br oward College in the USA : Non state funded resources are used for the programs we have in place (MANY overseas affiliates) but state dollars are not used to continue these relationships. However, international/cultural immersion is key with the large numb er of foreign students we serve so we do allocate resources for student life and faculty development opportunities in this area Similarly, a participating administrator from a public university in Oklahoma stated that Resources are used to support edu cational services for economic development needed within the state and in particular indigenous T he se results are related to recent studies and current global economic

PAGE 198

182 condition s (GUNI 2006; Williamson, 2010 ). Williamson (2010) explains that he n it comes to study abroad, university officials must constantly balance their overseas aspirations with the bottom line Financial challenges are a great barrier for internationalization despite the fact that technological advances like the internet mak e it easier for foreign students to enroll overseas. International activities such as study abroad programs are controversial While some administrators see them as re venue, t he costs of keeping these programs can sometimes exceed their anticipated profit. That aspect is especially significant for public institutions. Williamson (2010) suggests that a possible solution is the use of third party providers because they can provide support staff and services to the institutions Williamson conveyed his vision as follows: Instead of asking well equipped receiving institutions to exclusively admit students who come through them (at a higher price), third party providers could collaborate with universities to create fewer, "mutually beneficial" niche programs tha t would generate a more natural flow of students. The revenue from these programs could be shared by all partners and provide ways for faculty members to get involved, as well, helping to The refore, based on th is study results it is suggested to i ncrease funding by developing fundraising activities and reviewing budgets to allocate resources for internationalization. In addition, higher education institutions have the imperative mission to ed ucate their constituent s and the general public about the importance of internationalization and globalization. Educated citizens can make the difference by providing resources that will benefit their communities if they are aware of the issues and trends. This cannot be a conversation among

PAGE 199

183 intellectuals. This has to be a collective effort that includes everyone everywhere. 2. Lack of faculty involvement: The lack of faculty involvement is frequently mentioned in the literature ( Siaya & Hayward, 2003 ; Odg ers & Giroux, 2006 ; Sullivan, 2008). This study revealed more about th e issue with the additional aid of international perspectives For example, the lack of faculty involvement is not a problem i n global universities located in Asian countries Universiti es in Saudi Arabia we re very international ized with faculty and students coming from all around the world Other countries struggle with this issue and a good point was made by one of the participating administrators from a public Australian university w ho said Implementing strategies to improve the diversity among faculty can have a great impact in the internationalization process. Furthermore p ut ting into practice strategies fo r t eaching and faculty development to intrinsically and extrinsically motivate faculty is a necessity 3 Lack of planning and coordination: University presidents, vice presidents and deans have to move beyond their job title to be come authentic leaders and visionaries who can take their institutions into the future If that function is not taken to heart the lack of planning and coordination will lead the institutions to chaos. A participating administrator from the University of South Florida stated th at Engagement is Following

PAGE 200

184 get discouraged by spending time and effort in something that does not s eem to be important enough to keep up to date. Being interested is just part of the equation. The other part is the actual immersi on of the strategies in the day to day operations of the university. A participating administrator f ro m a public American uni versity wrote the following comment: establishing international relationships, but we haven't quite gotten to the level of globalization and we have not successfully integrated inte rnational/global ideals into all aspects of our work. We are not walking Conclusions and Recommendations for Further Research In general it can be said the participants in the st ud y perceived the three dimensions of internationali zation as having a medium priority level. Nevertheless, planning and operation strategies followed by s tudent education strategies were rated higher than t eaching and faculty development strategies Four strategies of the 34 in the instrument were percei ved as having a high priority level. The four strategies are as follows: 1 Motivating students to parti cipate in study abroad programs (3.6 5 ) 2. Establishing institutional collaboration with foreign universities (3.64) 3. Communicating an institutional g lobal vision (3.57) 4. Increasing visibility of international focus o On the other hand, strategies that were perceived as having a low priority level

PAGE 201

185 can be put in to practice with caution and after a careful assessment of th e following strategies were perceived as a low level priority: 1. Creating a branch campus abroad ( 2.10) 2. Considering foreign language fluency in salary and promotion decisions (2.40) Overall, participants who pe the strategies higher compare d to those who saw the mselves as int ernational, national or local. Participants in presidential positions rate d planning and operation strategies higher compared to deans Based on the results obtained from this study the following recommendations for further research are suggested: 1) Develop a qualitative study with the same population to facilitate the understanding of the rationale behind current quantitative findings 2) Conduct a similar research using the Strategic Internationalization Priority Scale but with administrators in other countries and institutions than the ones participating in the current study. 3) Conduct a similar research using the same instrume nt and population but over time to see the differences or similarities in trends through a longitudinal study. 4) Develop a similar rese arch, using the same instrument for higher education institutions in Africa to establish differences and similariti es with the findings obtained from this study.

PAGE 202

186 Summary In the present chapter a summary of the research problem, method and main findings were presented. The implications of the findings are presented as they relate to the research and practice of h igher education administration, educational leadership and policy development. The chapter concludes with some recomme ndations for further research.

PAGE 203

187 References Adams, T. (2007). The development of international education in Austra lia: A framework for the future. Journal of Studies in International Education (11) 410 420. Adelman, C. (February, 2008). Bologna is a process, not a processed meat Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP). Inside Higher Ed audio conference Februa ry 26, 2008. Altbach, P. (2004). Globalization and the university: Myths and realities in an unequal world. Tertiary Education and Management (10) 3 25. American Council on Education. (2009). Sizing u p the c ompetition : The future of international postsec ondary student enrollment in the United States. ACE, Center for International Initiatives. Washington: DC. American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA), & National Council of Measurement in Education (NCME) ( 1999). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Association of American Universities, (January, 2006 ) National defense nd security challenges in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: Association of American Universities. Avila, J. G. (2007). The Process of Internationalization of Latin American Higher Education. Journal of Studies in International Education (11) 400 409. Bal anda K. P. & MacGillivray H. L. (1988). Kurtosis: A critical review. American Statistician ( 42 ) 111 119. Bologna Process (2010). About the Bologna Process Extracted on January, 16, 2010 from http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/about/ Bound J and Turner S. (2010) American Universities in a Global Market National Bureau of Economic Research Conference Report (Ed. C Clotfelter ). Chicago: University Of Chicago Press Bremer, D. (2006) Wanted: Global w orkers. International Educ ator (7) 20 25.

PAGE 204

188 Crocker, L. & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Dellow, D. A., & Romano R. M. (2009). Technological change, globalization, and the community college. Occupational Outlook fo r Community College Students 146, 11 19. De Witt, H. (2005). Higher education in Latin America: The international dimension. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications. Gandolfo, Giancarlo (1998). International trade theory and policy: With 12 tables New York: Springer, 233 234. Global University Network for Innovation, GUNI (2006). Higher Education in the World 2006. Paris, France: Palgrave Macmillan Green, M. F. (2007). Internationalizing community colleges: Barriers and strategies. New Directions for Community Colleges 138 15 24. Green, M. & Shoenberg (2006). Where Faculty Live: Internationalizing the Disciplines. Global Learning Series for All American Council on Education: Washington, DC. Groeneveld, R.A. & Meeden, G. (1984). Measuring skewness and kurtosis. The Statistician 33 391 399. Hill, B. A. & Green, M. F. (2008) A guide to internationalization for chief academic officers. Washington, DC: American Council on education. Hopkins, A. G. (2004). Globalization in world history. N.Y: Nort on. p. 4 Horn, A. S., Hendel. D. D., & Fry G. W. (2007). Ranking the international dimension of top research universities in the United States. Journal of Studies in International Education (11) 3/4, 330 358. Hu, L.T., & Bentler, P.M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3 424 453. Huang, F. (2007). Internationalization of higher education in the developing and emerging countries: A focus on transnational higher education in Asia. Journal of Studies in International Education 11 421 430. Hudzik, J.K., (2006). Global Engagement and Strategic Projects, Michigan State University Commentary, Assessment and Recommendations For the

PAGE 205

189 University of South Florid a Global Agenda. Hummels, D. (2007). Transportation costs and international trade in the second era of globalization. Journal of Economic Perspectives 21 (4) 91 114. Hunt, E. K. (2002). History of economic thought: A critical perspective New York: M.E. Sharpe. Hvistendahl, M. (2009). Asia rising: Countries funnel billions into universities. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved November 8, 2009 from http://cronicle.com/article/Asia Rising Countries Funn/48682 Institute of International Educat ion (2009). Higher education on the move: New developments in global mobility Institute of International Education Washington: DC. International Association of Universities IAU (October, 2010). Internationalization of Higher Education: Global Trends, Regional Perspectives. IAU 3rd Global Survey Report Paris Cedex, France: UNESCO Jang, J. (2009). Analysis of the relationship between internationalization and the quality of higher education Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota, United States. Pu blication No. AAT 3349779. ability to compete in a global economy. Change, March/April. King, R. (2009). Governing universities globally: Organizations, regulation and rank ings. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Knight, J. (2003). Updating the definition of internationalization. International Higher Education. Retrieved January 15, 2010 from www.bc.edu/bc_org/soe/cihe/newsletter/ Knight, J. (2005). Internationaliz ation in the 21st century: Evolution and revolution. Chapter in: Kishun, R. The internationalization of higher education in South Africa International Association of South Africa. Durban: South Africa. Kopriva, R. (2000). Ensuring accuracy in testi ng for English language learners Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Lederman, D (August, 2010). American universities in a global market Inside Higher Ed. Extracted on September 2, 2010 from h ttp://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010 /08/31/clotfelter

PAGE 206

190 Lederman, D. (September, 2010) Into Africa. Inside Higher Ed. Extracted on September 10, 2010 from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/09/09/africa Lefrere, P. (2007) Competing higher education futures in a globalizing world. European Journal of Education Vol. 42, No. 2. MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. W (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 7 ,130 149. Mahbubani, K. (March, 2010). 5 l essons America can learn from Asia about higher education Extracted on March 25, 2010 from http://chronicle.com/article/5 Lessons America Can Learn/64519/ Marquardt, M. J. (1999). The global advantage: How world class organizations improve performance th rough globalization Houston, TX: Gulf. Marquardt, M. J., & Berger, N. 0. (2000). Global leaders for the 21st century Albany: State University of New York Press. McCarthy, J. (2007). A roadmap for creating the global campus The chronicle of higher educ ation. The chronicle review. Volume 53, Issue 43, page B12. Meier K J. & O'Toole L. J. (2001) Managerial Strategies and Behavior in Networks: A Model with Evidence from U.S. Public Education ", Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 11, 271 295 Mooney,P. (2006). International Sharing Builds Knowledge but Leads to Brain Drain. The Chronicle of Higher Education 53 no10 1 O 27. Muthen B. & Muthen L. (2007). Mplus version 5 history. Extracted on December 1, 2010 from http://www.statmodel.co m/verhistory.shtml Navarro, M. (2004 ) Factors affecting participation of faculty in the internationalization of the undergraduate agricultural curriculum Doctoral Dissertation. Texas A&M and University of Georgia. Future: Global Education for a Global Age. Report of the Strategic Task Force on Education Abroad. Association of International Educators: Washington, DC. NAFSA: Association of International Educators. (May 2008). Internationalization of Higher Education: Internationalization Task Force Active January 2008 March 2008:

PAGE 207

191 McCarthy J., Altbach, P., Dellow, D., Drake Gobbo, L., Stevenson, S. Sutton, S & Wu, Y. Extracted on August 16, 2008 from: http://www. nafsa.org/_/Document/_/nafsas_contribution.pdf Observatory on Borderless Higher Education. (2010). Making the best of a world dominated by league tables? New developments in the international ranking of universities London: The Observatory Woburn House. Olson, C.L., Green, M.F., and Hill, B.A. (2006) A Handbook for Advancing Comprehensive Internationalization: What Institutions Can Do and What Students Should Learn. Washington: American Council on Education. Phillips, D. & Schweisfurth, M. (2008). Co mparative and international education: An introduction to theory, method and practice London: Continuum International Publishing. Prakash, M. S. & Stuchul, D. (2004). McEducation marginalized: Multiverse of learning living in grassroots commons. Educatio nal Studies 36 no1 58 73. Reilly, M. R. (2004). Competencies and Skills in the Globalized Workforce. Master's dissertation, Tampa, FL: University of South Florida Ratliff, W.E, (2003) Doing It Wrong And Doing It Right: Education In Latin America And A sia. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University, 2003. Robertson, L. B. (2005). American higher education in a global society: A study of presidential leadership Ph.D. dissertation, Kent State University Graduate S chool of Education. UMI number: 3180715. Rodenhouse, M. P. (Ed.). (2001). 2001 higher education directory Falls Church, VA: Higher Education Directory. Siaya, L. & Hayward, F. (2003). Mapping Internationalization on U. S. Campuses Washington DC: Americ an Council of Education. Stohl, M. (2007). We have met the enemy and he is us: The role of the faculty in the internationalization of higher education in the coming decade Journal of Studies in International Education, (10) 4. Sullivan, A. & Sheffrin, S. M. (2003). Economics: Principles in action Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. p. 157. Sullivan, J. (2008). internationalization at a major research university in Florida (Unpublished specialization thesis, University of South Florida).

PAGE 208

192 UNESCO. (2009). Global Education Digest Quebec, Canada: UNESCO UIS. United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (2002): Summary of the Annual Review of Development s in Globalization and Regional Integration in the Countries of the ESCWA Region. Retrieved January 20, 2010 from h ttp://www.escwa.un.org/information/publications/edit/upload/grid 02 2.pdf United Nations Educational, Scientific And Cultural Organization ( 1997). Retrieved January 15, 2010 from http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php/URL_ID=13144&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC &URL_SECTION=201.html

PAGE 209

193 Appendices

PAGE 210

194 Appendix A: Instrument Strategic Internationalization Priority Scale STR ATEGIC INTERNATIONALIZATION PRIORITY SCALE Thank you for participating in this international study. Your responses will help identify the perspectives of university pre sidents, vice presidents and deans on higher education internationalization. This rese arch is conducted in universities worldwide as part of a 7 minutes. 1. Institution's Name (O ptional): 2. Institutional status: Public Private 3. Type of institution Research doctorate degree granting university Undergraduate and post graduate degree granting university (up to Master degree) Undergraduate degree granting institution (including colleges in USA and Canada) 4. Country where the institution is located: 5. World region: Africa Asia Australia and Oceania Latin America and the Caribbean (including Mexico) North America Europe 6 Number of international undergradua tes with a student visa: None 1 299 300 1000 More than 1000 7 Number of international graduates /postgraduates with a student visa: None 1 299 300 1000 More than 1000 8 Institutional size by total number of students: Le ss than 5000 5000 20,000 More than 20,000 9 How would you describe your institution? Global : E xtensive curriculum internationalization multiple study abroad programs, numerous international professors, global outreach, and international functions in most administrative roles. International : Moderately internationalized curriculum, some international professors, some overseas programs, global research in select areas, and an international division reporting to the president. National : Minimal internati onalization of curriculum, few international professors, some international research, an international office reporting to a dean. Local : Main f ocus on serving the local population Demographic Information 10 Organizational position: P resident/ Rector/ Chancellor Vice President/ Vice Chancellor/ Vice Rector/ Provost Dean/ Vice Dean Other 1 1 Are you also a facu lty member? Yes No 12 Years of experience in higher education administration: 5 years or less 6 15 years 16 25 years 26 years or more 13. Age: Under 35 years 35 45 years 46 55 years 56 years or more 14 Gender: Female Male 15 English langu age proficiency: I am a native speaker of English I speak English as a second language I have a qualified translator helping me with the survey 16. International Experience: Extensive: Numerous experiences in studying and living abroad, extensive inter national collaborative work. Moderate: Some travel abroad and attendance at international conferences and events, some international collaborative work. Minimal: Limited travel experiences abroad, limited international collaborative experiences. None

PAGE 211

195 Ap pendix A (Continued) STRATEGIC INTERNATIONALIZATION PRIORITY SCALE Internationalization is the conscious effort to integrate and infuse international, intercultural, and global dimensions into the ethos and outcomes of postsecondary education. To be full y successful, it must involve active and responsible engagement of the Example of ethos: mission, vision and values. Example of outcomes: student education, international research and faculty development. Directions: Please read each statement and check the appropriate answer based on your opinion: I. ADMINISTRATIVE PLANNING AND OPERATIONS To what degree do you perceive the following strategies as priority for your institution? No P riority Low Priority Medium Priority High Priority Top Priority 1. Communicating an institutional global vision. O O O O O 2. Initiating policies that enhance global thinking and action. O O O O O 3. Pledging a mission to serve the world through educati on. O O O O O O O O O O 5 Increasing institutional visibility at international conferences. O O O O O O O O O O 7. Creating a balanced mix between global and local outreach. O O O O O 8. Developing the expertise to deliver quality services across cultures. O O O O O 9. Funding a high level administrative position for international activities. O O O O O 10. In itiating fundraising campaigns to support internationalization. O O O O O 11. Aligning organizational resources with university global strategies. O O O O O O O O O O 13. Establishi ng institutional collaboration with foreign universities. O O O O O 14. Setting up a branch campus abroad. O O O O O II. STUDENT EDUCATION To what degree do you perceive the following strategies as priority for your institution? No Priority Low Prio rity Medium Priority High Priority Top Priority 15. Fostering global recruitment to attract the best students. O O O O O 16. Facilitating the transfer of credits from recognized foreign universities. O O O O O 17. Motivating students to participate in s tudy abroad programs. O O O O O 18. Offering joint degree programs with foreign universities. O O O O O 19. Requiring students to take courses with international content. O O O O O 20. Encouraging students to participate in international research. O O O O O 21. Requiring foreign language credits for undergraduate students. O O O O O 22. Offering interdisciplinary global programs with STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math). O O O O O 23. Expanding the international collection at the univers O O O O O 24. Promoting intercultural interactions among students. O O O O O III. TEACHING AND FACULTY DEVELOPMENT To what degree do you perceive the following strategies as priority for your institution? No Priority Low Priority Med ium Priority High Priority Top Priority 25. Providing financial incentives for curriculum internationalization. O O O O O 26. Considering international research and teaching during salary and promotion decisions. O O O O O 27. Funding faculty participat ion in international teaching and research. O O O O O 28. Acquiring new technologies to enhance international teaching. O O O O O 29. Recruiting international faculty and staff. O O O O O 30. Promoting faculty engagement in campus internationalization. O O O O O 31. Providing training in cross cultural communication for faculty and staff. O O O O O 32. Considering foreign language fluency in salary/promotion decisions. O O O O O 33. Funding international academic travel for faculty and staff. O O O O O 34. Featuring global activities and research in institutional publications. O O O O O

PAGE 212

196 Appendix A (Continued) STRATEGIC INTERNATIONALIZATION PRIORITY SCALE Directions: Please read each statement and check the appropriate answer based on your opi nion: 33. What are the top three difficulties in achieving internationalization at your university? Select three or less if applicable : Lack of faculty involvement Lack of economic resources Lack of partnership with foreign universities Lack of internatio nal regulations and quality assurance Lack of governmental support Lack of planning and coordination Lack of student involvement Lack of interest in general None Other If other, please explain: ___________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________ ____ Comments (optional): ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________ Thank you for participating in this international research study! If you have further questions or comments p lease contact Janice Sullivan at Jnsulliv@mail.usf.edu

PAGE 213

197 Appendix B: Certificate of Completion of Human Participant Protections (IRB)

PAGE 214

198 Appendix C: IRB Exempt Certification for the Study June 22, 2010 Janice Sullivan Adult, Career and Higher Education RE: Exempt Certification for IRB#: Pro00000531 Title: Global Leadership in Higher Education Administration: Perspectives of University Presidents, Vice Presidents and Deans On Internationalizat ion Dear Janice Sullivan: On 6/22/2010 the Institutional Review Board (IRB) determined that your research meets USF requirements and Federal Exemption criteria as outlined in the federal regulations at 45CFR46.101(b): (2) Research involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures or observation of public behavior, unless: (i) information obtained is recorded in such a manner that human subjects can be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects; and (ii) any disclosure of the human subjects' responses outside the research could reasonably place the subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subjects' financial standing, employ ability, or reputation. As the principal investigator for this study, it is your responsibility to ensure that this research is conducted as outlined in your application and consistent with the ethical principles outlined in the Belmont Report and with US F IRB policies and procedures. Please note that changes to this protocol may disqualify it from exempt status. Please note that you are responsible for notifying the IRB prior to implementing any changes to the currently approved protocol. The Institut ional Review Board will maintain your exemption application for a period of five years from the date of this letter or for three years after a Final Progress Report is received, whichever is longer. If you wish to continue this protocol beyond five years,

PAGE 215

199 Appendix C (Continued) you will need to submit a continuing review application at least 60 days prior to the exemption expiration date. Should you complete this study prior to the end of the five year period, you must submit a request to close the study We appreciate your dedication to the ethical conduct of human subject research at the University of South Florida and your continued commitment to human research protections. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call 813 974 9343. S incerely, Krista Kutash, PhD, Chairperson USF Institutional Review Board Cc: Various Menzel, CCRP, USF IRB Professional Staff

PAGE 216

200 Appendix D: E mail I nvitation to Survey Participants Subject: Research on Higher Education Inter nationalization Date: June 23, 2010 To: University administrator Dear University Administrator My name is Janice Sullivan. I am a Ph.D. Candidate at the University of South Florida in Tampa, FL (USA). The purpose of my dissertation is to identify the pe rspectives of top level administrators on higher education internationalization. This research is being conducted worldwide to establish differences in perspectives by country. I would appreciate your contribution to this research by filling out a short su rvey. The approximate time to complete it is 6 minutes. Please follow this link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/HigherEducationInternationalization Your responses are anonymous and confidential. This study IRB approval number is Pro00000531. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Thank you for part icipating in this international study. Sincerely, Janice Sullivan, Ed.S. Graduate Research Associate University of South Florida College of Education David C. Anchin Center, EDU 105 4202 East Fowler Avenue Tampa, FL 33620 Phone: (813) 974 5493 (813) 974 5959 Fax: (813) 974 6126 http://anchin.coedu.usf.edu

PAGE 217

201 Appendix E: E Mail Reminder Invitation to Participate In Survey Subject: Research on Higher Education Internationalization (Reminder) Date: June 30, 2010 To: University administrator Dear University Administrator If you already participated in this study, please disregard this e m ail. My name is Janice Sullivan. I am a Ph.D. Candidate at the University of South Florida in Tampa, FL (USA). The purpose of my dissertation is to identify the perspectives of top level administrators on higher education internationalization. This resear ch is being conducted worldwide to establish differences in perspectives by country. I would appreciate your contribution to this research by filling out a short survey. The approximate time to complete it is 7 minutes. Please follow this link to the surve y: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/HigherEducationInternationalization Your re sponses are anonymous and confidential. This study IRB approval number is Pro00000531. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Thank you for participating in this international study. Sincerely, Janice Sullivan, Ed.S. Graduate Resear ch Associate University of South Florida College of Education David C. Anchin Center, EDU 105 4202 East Fowler Avenue Tampa, FL 33620 Phone: (813) 974 5493 (813) 974 5959 Fax: (813) 974 6126 http://anchin.coedu.usf.edu

PAGE 218

202 Appendix F: Permission to U se the RE: International Research D octoral Dissertation ROBERTSON, LINDA [lfrobert@kent.edu] Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 9:29 AM To: Sullivan, Janice Janice, I am pleased to have you build on my research. Of course, you can use this survey as a foundation for your research. I w ould like to keep informed of our research as well as it will continue to inform my work here at KSU. Linda F. Robertson, Director Gerald H. Read Center for International and Intercultural Organization College and Graduate School of Education, Health, and Human Services 215 white Hall Kent State University Kent OH 44242 330 672 0563 Telephone 330 672 2879 Fax lfrobert@kent.edu www.educ.kent.edu/ciie From: Sullivan, Janice [Sullivan@coedu.usf.edu] Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 7:15 PM To: ROBERTSON, LINDA Subject: International Research Doctoral Dissertation Dr. Linda Robertson My name is Janice Sullivan. I am a PhD Candidate in Curriculum & Instruction in the College of Education at the University of South Florida in Tampa. I am originally from Bogota, Colombia and I am very perceptions about internationalization during my EdS thesis. Now the focus of my doctoral dissertation research is to id leadership strategies to develop the professionals needed for sustainability in the 21st century emerging economy. While reviewing literature for my dissertation I ca me across your dissertation and found it aligned with my research purpose. I am developing my survey instrument and would like to receive your permission to on for mine. I would like to blend some of your survey items with some that I developed in my previous faculty survey. After validation, factor analyses and reliability measures are determined for the new instrument, I am going to send it to different univ ersities in at least 7 different countries to compare the your help. Sincerely, Janice Sullivan, M.A., Ed.S.

PAGE 219

203 Appendix F (Continued) Graduate Re search Associate University of South Florida College of Education David C. Anchin Center, EDU 105 4202 East Fowler Avenue Tampa, FL 33620

PAGE 220

204 Appendix G. Higher Educational Presidential Global Leadership Survey

PAGE 221

205 App endix G (Continued)

PAGE 222

206 Appendix G (Continued)

PAGE 223

207 Appendix G (Continued)

PAGE 224

208 Appendix H: Validity Evidence H.1. Exploratory Factor Analysis for Strategic Internationalization Priority Scale (SIPS) Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation Analysis N Q1 3.58 .918 332 Q2 3.49 .871 332 Q3 3.49 .947 332 Q4 3.56 .858 332 Q5 3.37 .895 332 Q6 3.27 .912 332 Q7 3.33 .872 332 Q8 3.41 .897 332 Q9 3.17 1.018 332 Q10 2.86 1.094 332 Q11 3.25 .986 332 Q12 3.37 .893 332 Q13 3.65 .974 332 Q14 2.11 1.077 332 Q15 3.51 1.018 332 Q16 3.40 .958 332 Q17 3.66 .884 332 Q18 3.13 1.065 332 Q19 3.20 .965 332 Q20 3.22 .993 332 Q21 3.00 1.181 332 Q22 3.03 1.067 332 Q23 3.09 .975 332 Q24 3.39 .979 332 Q25 2.73 .958 332 Q26 2.81 .990 332 Q27 2.98 .974 332 Q28 2.98 1.081 332 Q29 3.08 1.025 332 Q30 3.07 1.017 332 Q31 2.83 .970 332 Q32 2.40 1.107 332 Q33 2.83 .955 332 Q34 3.06 1.049 332

PAGE 225

209 Appendix H (Continued) Communalities Initial Q1 .698 Q2 .699 Q3 .600 Q4 .652 Q5 .626 Q6 .623 Q7 .6 68 Q8 .592 Q9 .633 Q10 .608 Q11 .767 Q12 .712 Q13 .617 Q14 .417 Q15 .602 Q16 .599 Q17 .622 Q18 .595 Q19 .602 Q20 .632 Q21 .473 Q22 .439 Q23 .606 Q24 .634 Q25 .640 Q26 .720 Q27 .719 Q28 .685 Q29 .624 Q30 .713 Q31 .659 Q32 .574 Q33 .667 Q34 .641 Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.

PAGE 226

210 Appendix H (Continued) Rotated Factor Matrix a Factor 1 2 3 Q1 .538 .213 .51 9 Q2 .550 .166 .529 Q3 .651 .226 .280 Q4 .591 .295 .392 Q5 .571 .454 .222 Q6 .648 .342 .197 Q7 .602 .264 .397 Q8 .479 .306 .425 Q9 .661 .245 .301 Q10 .718 .259 .041 Q11 .713 .291 .310 Q12 .617 .196 .453 Q13 .472 .347 .435 Q14 .310 .381 .193 Q 15 .525 .224 .346 Q16 .447 .340 .336 Q17 .446 .271 .500 Q18 .376 .539 .244 Q19 .282 .407 .530 Q20 .518 .470 .195 Q21 .182 .489 .208 Q22 .504 .378 .073 Q23 .508 .475 .185 Q24 .289 .317 .617 Q25 .406 .662 .142 Q26 .448 .663 .172 Q27 .292 .644 .39 3 Q28 .274 .744 .195 Q29 .239 .604 .353 Q30 .221 .569 .578 Q31 .249 .642 .349 Q32 .207 .694 .057 Q33 .164 .611 .503 Q34 .224 .643 .368

PAGE 227

211 Appendix H (Continued) Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Norma lization. a. Rotation converged in 23 iterations. Factor Transformation Matrix Factor 1 2 3 d i m e n s i o n 0 1 .636 .609 .474 2 .653 .752 .090 3 .411 .252 .876 Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Norm alization.

PAGE 228

212 Appendix H (Continued) H.2. Validity Evidence for Pilot of the Strategic Internationalization Priority Scale ( SIPS ) Exploratory Factor Analysis Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Q1 .168 .123 .095 .304 .618 .206 .099 .033 Q2 .170 .281 .143 .056 .267 .332 .236 .187 Q3 .247 .206 .230 .106 465 .023 .041 .110 Q4 .370 .267 .240 .256 .023 .492 .067 .047 Q5 .555 .273 .152 .114 .003 .219 .136 .081 Q6 .391 .343 .137 .525 .155 .183 .139 .008 Q7 .365 .337 .297 .478 .264 .235 .075 .052 Q8 .207 .222 .775 .215 .096 .262 .071 .086 Q9 .283 .256 .390 .204 .170 .075 .261 .065 Q10 .134 .116 .115 .791 .167 .064 .281 .134 Q11 .112 .320 .146 .158 .613 .273 .274 .077 Q12 .348 .099 .638 .013 .292 .020 .321 .059 Q13 .558 .045 .169 129 .248 .133 .064 .190 Q14 .054 .216 .044 .133 .047 .202 .091 .822 Q15 .509 .234 .023 .350 .168 .136 .108 .140 Q16 .468 .093 .172 .025 .264 .203 .183 .101 Q17 .718 .209 .169 .077 .030 .105 .158 .262 Q18 .119 .050 .097 .012 .181 .681 .038 .194 Q19 .482 .296 .200 .241 .182 .024 .374 .241 Q20 .524 .231 .081 .008 .257 .156 .282 .024 Q21 .468 .157 .114 .242 .034 .105 .458 .069 Q22 .184 .072 .145 .254 .240 .090 .581 .150 Q23 .317 .324 .391 .317 .162 .301 .212 .152 Q24 .469 .135 .176 .227 .068 .333 .142 .079 Q25 .343 .310 .447 .043 .376 .151 .167 .098 Q26 .217 .590 .080 .157 .166 .174 .091 .155 Q27 .316 .659 .297 .136 .057 .134 .134 .028 Q28 .097 .269 .405 .092 .148 .244 .282 .032 Q29 .315 .466 .250 .004 .396 .154 .083 .140 Q30 .396 .413 .36 1 .262 .107 .020 .071 .056 Q31 .183 .730 .188 .117 .198 .159 .042 .069 Q32 .101 .643 .063 .139 .129 .011 .148 .206 Q33 .735 .208 .252 .187 .251 .106 .072 .027 Q34 .459 .303 .268 .432 .172 .075 .194 .131

PAGE 229

213 Appendix H (Continued) Descriptive Stati stics Mean Std. Deviation Analysis N Q1 3.26 .709 92 Q2 3.01 .763 92 Q3 3.15 .864 92 Q4 2.74 .900 92 Q5 2.92 .929 92 Q6 2.64 .944 92 Q7 2.87 .928 92 Q8 2.90 .973 92 Q9 3.05 .843 92 Q10 2.61 1.027 92 Q11 2.93 .809 92 Q12 2.93 .912 92 Q13 3.20 .867 92 Q14 2.37 1.107 92 Q15 2.80 .929 92 Q16 2.99 .920 92 Q17 2.96 .948 92 Q18 2.92 .855 92 Q19 2.87 .867 92 Q20 2.88 .888 92 Q21 2.67 1.018 92 Q22 2.92 .963 92 Q23 2.88 .970 92 Q24 2.98 .877 92 Q25 3.02 .889 92 Q26 2.57 1.009 92 Q27 2.58 .917 92 Q28 2.90 .938 92 Q29 2.72 .987 92 Q30 2.83 .859 92 Q31 2.37 1.013 92 Q32 2.34 1.019 92 Q33 2.79 .989 92 Q34 2.70 .899 92

PAGE 230

214 Appendix H (Continued) Communalities Initial Q1 .594 Q2 .482 Q3 .525 Q4 .744 Q5 .687 Q6 .749 Q7 .739 Q8 .700 Q9 .570 Q10 .712 Q11 .735 Q12 .700 Q13 .646 Q14 .549 Q15 .599 Q16 .645 Q17 .712 Q18 .561 Q19 .692 Q20 .663 Q21 .632 Q22 .595 Q23 .703 Q24 .595 Q25 .699 Q26 .704 Q27 .735 Q28 .622 Q29 .624 Q30 .671 Q31 .674 Q32 .607 Q33 .738 Q34 .713 Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.

PAGE 231

215 Appendix H (Continued) Total Variance Explained Factor Initial Eigenvalues Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings Total % of Variance Cumul ative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 13.455 39.574 39.574 4.851 14.266 14.266 2 1.746 5.134 44.707 3.627 10.667 24.934 3 1.604 4.717 49.424 2.654 7.807 32.741 4 1.537 4.522 53.946 2.301 6.768 39.509 5 1.387 4.079 58.025 2.186 6.429 45.938 6 1.183 3.480 61.504 1.720 5.060 50.998 7 1.182 3.476 64.980 1.574 4.629 55.627 8 1.061 3.121 68.101 1.184 3.484 59.111 9 .947 2.786 70.887 10 .884 2.601 73.488 11 .851 2.503 75.991 12 .764 2.248 78.238 13 .698 2.053 80.291 14 .632 1.858 82.149 15 .630 1.854 84.003 16 .553 1.627 85.630 17 .524 1.541 87.171 18 .483 1.420 88.591 19 .424 1.246 89.837 20 .381 1.121 90.958 21 .359 1.056 92.014 22 .344 1.011 93.025 23 .331 .974 93.999 24 .281 .826 94.825 25 .264 .775 95.601 26 .238 .701 96.301 27 .229 .674 96.976 28 .216 .636 97.612 29 .190 .558 98.170 30 .154 .454 98.625 31 .146 .429 99.054 32 .142 .418 99.473 33 .099 .290 99.763 34 .081 .237 100.000 Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.

PAGE 232

216 Appendix H (Continued)

PAGE 233

217 Appendix H (Continued) Rotated Factor Matrix a Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Q1 .168 .123 .095 .304 .618 .206 .099 .033 Q2 .17 0 .281 .143 .056 .267 .332 .236 .187 Q3 .247 .206 .230 .106 .465 .023 .041 .110 Q4 .370 .267 .240 .256 .023 .492 .067 .047 Q5 .555 .273 .152 .114 .003 .219 .136 .081 Q6 .391 .343 .137 .525 .155 .183 .139 .008 Q7 .365 .337 .297 .478 .264 .235 .075 052 Q8 .207 .222 .775 .215 .096 .262 .071 .086 Q9 .283 .256 .390 .204 .170 .075 .261 .065 Q10 .134 .116 .115 .791 .167 .064 .281 .134 Q11 .112 .320 .146 .158 .613 .273 .274 .077 Q12 .348 .099 .638 .013 .292 .020 .321 .059 Q13 .558 .045 .169 .129 .248 .133 .064 .190 Q14 .054 .216 .044 .133 .047 .202 .091 .822 Q15 .509 .234 .023 .350 .168 .136 .108 .140 Q16 .468 .093 .172 .025 .264 .203 .183 .101 Q17 .718 .209 .169 .077 .030 .105 .158 .262 Q18 .119 .050 .097 .012 .181 .681 .038 .194 Q19 .48 2 .296 .200 .241 .182 .024 .374 .241 Q20 .524 .231 .081 .008 .257 .156 .282 .024 Q21 .468 .157 .114 .242 .034 .105 .458 .069 Q22 .184 .072 .145 .254 .240 .090 .581 .150 Q23 .317 .324 .391 .317 .162 .301 .212 .152 Q24 .469 .135 .176 .227 .068 .333 .14 2 .079 Q25 .343 .310 .447 .043 .376 .151 .167 .098 Q26 .217 .590 .080 .157 .166 .174 .091 .155 Q27 .316 .659 .297 .136 .057 .134 .134 .028 Q28 .097 .269 .405 .092 .148 .244 .282 .032 Q29 .315 .466 .250 .004 .396 .154 .083 .140 Q30 .396 .413 .361 262 .107 .020 .071 .056 Q31 .183 .730 .188 .117 .198 .159 .042 .069 Q32 .101 .643 .063 .139 .129 .011 .148 .206 Q33 .735 .208 .252 .187 .251 .106 .072 .027 Q34 .459 .303 .268 .432 .172 .075 .194 .131 Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 13 iterations.

PAGE 234

218 Appendix I: Reliability Evidence for the Strategic Internationalization Priority Scale (SIPS) I.1. Descriptive Statistics and Reliability Estimates for S trategic Internationalization Priority Scale (SIPS) Subscale 1 Administrative Planning & Operations Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error Q1 346 1 5 3.57 .912 .541 .131 .069 .261 Q2 349 1 5 3.48 .863 .491 .131 .057 .260 Q3 349 1 5 3.49 .933 .431 .131 .148 .260 Q4 349 1 5 3.55 .855 .555 .131 .298 .260 Q5 349 1 5 3.36 .889 .386 .131 .133 .260 Q6 348 1 5 3.27 .903 .306 .131 .217 .261 Q7 347 1 5 3.32 .876 .437 .131 .029 .261 Q8 348 1 5 3.41 .888 .368 .131 .126 .261 Q9 349 1 5 3.17 1.011 .216 .131 .419 .260 Q10 349 1 5 2.87 1.083 .046 .131 .630 .260 Q11 348 1 5 3.25 .977 .463 .131 .232 .261 Q12 34 8 1 5 3.36 .886 .310 .131 .065 .261 Q13 347 1 5 3.64 .959 .453 .131 .157 .261 Q14 347 1 5 2.10 1.069 .768 .131 .153 .261 Valid N (listwise) 341 Reliability for Subscale 1: Planning & Operations Case Processing Summary N % Cases Valid 3 41 97.7 Excluded a 8 2.3 Total 349 100.0 a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure. Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items .938 .939 14

PAGE 235

219 Appendix I (Continued) I nter Item Correlation Matrix Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q1 1.000 .754 .567 .593 .529 .511 .536 .473 .534 .409 .591 .539 .613 .409 Q2 .754 1.000 .633 .575 .527 .433 .583 .505 .492 .445 .637 .558 .545 .370 Q3 .567 .633 1.000 .572 .57 6 .495 .575 .488 .524 .533 .632 .530 .431 .333 Q4 .593 .575 .572 1.000 .635 .608 .552 .518 .564 .454 .577 .557 .593 .397 Q5 .529 .527 .576 .635 1.000 .622 .588 .523 .510 .490 .558 .499 .528 .385 Q6 .511 .433 .495 .608 .622 1.000 .589 .514 .576 .539 .567 .555 .531 .345 Q7 .536 .583 .575 .552 .588 .589 1.000 .642 .541 .503 .625 .574 .490 .294 Q8 .473 .505 .488 .518 .523 .514 .642 1.000 .557 .464 .519 .587 .458 .319 Q9 .534 .492 .524 .564 .510 .576 .541 .557 1.000 .603 .652 .663 .534 .369 Q10 .409 .445 .533 .454 .490 .539 .503 .464 .603 1.000 .665 .558 .431 .338 Q11 .591 .637 .632 .577 .558 .567 .625 .519 .652 .665 1.000 .743 .546 .347 Q12 .539 .558 .530 .557 .499 .555 .574 .587 .663 .558 .743 1.000 .589 .344 Q13 .613 .545 .431 .593 .528 .531 .490 .45 8 .534 .431 .546 .589 1.000 .439 Q14 .409 .370 .333 .397 .385 .345 .294 .319 .369 .338 .347 .344 .439 1.000 Summary Item Statistics Mean Minimum Maximum Range Maximum / Minimum Variance N of Items Item Means 3.277 2.109 3.642 1.534 1.727 .151 14 It em Total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item Total Correlation Squared Multiple Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted Q1 42.31 83.120 .723 .656 .932 Q2 42.40 83.765 .724 .675 .932 Q3 42.40 83.052 .705 .559 .933 Q4 42.32 83.802 .739 .586 .932 Q5 42.52 83.574 .715 .564 .933 Q6 42.61 83.514 .707 .567 .933 Q7 42.56 83.630 .727 .594 .932 Q8 42.47 84.273 .670 .521 .934 Q9 42.71 81.567 .734 .587 .932 Q10 43.02 81.888 .659 .531 .935 Q11 42.63 81.09 2 .793 .715 .930 Q12 42.51 83.062 .754 .655 .932 Q13 42.24 83.007 .689 .539 .933 Q14 43.77 85.546 .471 .262 .941 Scale Statistics Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items 45.88 96.039 9.800 14

PAGE 236

220 Appendix I (Continued) ANOVA with Friedman's Test a nd Tukey's Test for Nonadditivity Sum of Squares df Mean Square Friedman's Chi Square Sig Between People 2332.379 340 6.860 Within People Between Items 671.365 13 51.643 120.707 .000 Residual Nonadditivity .529 a 1 .529 1.237 .266 Balance 1890.53 4 4419 .428 Total 1891.064 4420 .428 Total 2562.429 4433 .578 Total 4894.808 4773 1.026 Grand Mean = 3.28 a. Tukey's estimate of power to which observations must be raised to achieve additivity = .868. Intraclass Correlation Coefficient Intraclass Correlation a 95% Confidence Interval F Test with True Value 0 Lower Bound Upper Bound Value df1 df2 Sig Single Measures .518 b .477 .560 16.034 340 4420 .000 Average Measures .938 c .927 .947 16.034 340 4420 .000 Two way mixed effects mode l where people effects are random and measures effects are fixed. a. Type C intraclass correlation coefficients using a consistency definition the between measure variance is excluded from the denominator variance. b. The estimator is the same, whether t he interaction effect is present or not. c. This estimate is computed assuming the interaction effect is absent, because it is not estimable otherwise. Subscale 2 Student Education Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Skewnes s Kurtosis Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error Q15 348 1 5 3.50 1.014 .308 .131 .431 .261 Q16 349 1 5 3.38 .951 .269 .131 .410 .260 Q17 349 1 5 3.65 .877 .467 .131 .029 .260 Q18 348 1 5 3.1 2 1.059 .243 .131 .506 .261 Q19 347 1 5 3.19 .954 .141 .131 .370 .261 Q20 349 1 5 3.21 .980 .270 .131 .334 .260 Q21 346 1 5 2.98 1.177 .031 .131 .856 .261 Q22 347 1 5 3.02 1.059 .237 .131 .499 .261 Q23 348 1 5 3.09 .974 .211 .131 .356 .261 Q24 348 1 5 3.37 .982 .480 .131 .198 .261 Valid N (listwise) 340 Reliability for Subscale 2: Student Education Case Processing Summary N % Cases Valid 340 97.4 Excluded a 9 2.6 Total 349 100.0 a. Listwise deletion based on all variabl es in the procedure.

PAGE 237

221 Appendix I (Continued) Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items .883 .886 10 Item Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Q15 3.50 1.015 340 Q16 3.39 .955 340 Q17 3.66 .883 3 40 Q18 3.12 1.067 340 Q19 3.20 .955 340 Q20 3.22 .984 340 Q21 2.99 1.182 340 Q22 3.03 1.060 340 Q23 3.09 .977 340 Q24 3.38 .983 340 Inter Item Correlation Matrix Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20 Q21 Q22 Q23 Q24 Q15 1.000 .578 .466 .495 .358 .424 .224 358 .346 .400 Q16 .578 1.000 .589 .515 .469 .464 .239 .367 .504 .411 Q17 .466 .589 1.000 .507 .586 .514 .304 .340 .442 .515 Q18 .495 .515 .507 1.000 .430 .508 .487 .411 .494 .409 Q19 .358 .469 .586 .430 1.000 .527 .441 .314 .433 .569 Q20 .424 .464 .51 4 .508 .527 1.000 .301 .499 .535 .441 Q21 .224 .239 .304 .487 .441 .301 1.000 .351 .433 .420 Q22 .358 .367 .340 .411 .314 .499 .351 1.000 .465 .297 Q23 .346 .504 .442 .494 .433 .535 .433 .465 1.000 .478 Q24 .400 .411 .515 .409 .569 .441 .420 .297 .478 1.000 Summary Item Statistics Mean Minimum Maximum Range Maximum / Minimum Variance N of Items Item Means 3.258 2.988 3.659 .671 1.224 .047 10 Item Total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item Total Cor relation Squared Multiple Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted Q15 29.08 41.153 .565 .424 .875 Q16 29.19 40.747 .647 .531 .869 Q17 28.92 41.167 .670 .523 .868 Q18 29.46 39.334 .678 .500 .866 Q19 29.37 40.718 .649 .514 .869 Q20 29.36 40.277 .6 64 .499 .868 Q21 29.59 40.650 .497 .387 .882 Q22 29.54 41.205 .530 .344 .878 Q23 29.49 40.457 .655 .475 .868 Q24 29.20 40.815 .618 .446 .871

PAGE 238

222 Appendix I (Continued) Scale Statistics Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items 32.58 49.543 7.039 10 Int raclass Correlation Coefficient Intraclass Correlation a 95% Confidence Interval F Test with True Value 0 Lower Bound Upper Bound Value df1 df2 Sig Single Measures .430 b .387 .475 8.529 339 3051 .000 Average Measures .883 c .863 .900 8.529 339 3051 .0 00 Two way mixed effects model where people effects are random and measures effects are fixed. a. Type C intraclass correlation coefficients using a consistency definition the between measure variance is excluded from the denominator variance. b. The es timator is the same, whether the interaction effect is present or not. c. This estimate is computed assuming the interaction effect is absent, because it is not estimable otherwise. Subscale 3 Teaching and Faculty Development Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error Q25 349 1 5 2.73 .961 .156 .131 .738 .260 Q26 348 1 5 2.82 .986 .083 .131 .392 .261 Q27 349 1 5 2. 97 .982 .224 .131 .349 .260 Q28 349 1 5 2.98 1.072 .036 .131 .683 .260 Q29 348 1 5 3.07 1.019 .014 .131 .313 .261 Q30 349 1 5 3.05 1.002 .173 .131 .455 .260 Q31 348 1 5 2.82 .975 .175 .131 .584 .261 Q32 349 1 5 2.40 1.101 .408 .131 .585 .260 Q33 348 1 5 2.83 .943 .035 .131 .191 .261 Q34 348 1 5 3.06 1.042 .330 .131 .599 .261 Valid N (listwise) 344 Reliability for Subscale 3: Teaching & Faculty Development Case Processing Summary N % Cases Valid 344 98.6 Excluded a 5 1.4 Total 349 100.0 a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure. Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items .934 .935 10

PAGE 239

223 Appendix I (Continued) Summary Item Statistics Mean Minimu m Maximum Range Maximum / Minimum Variance N of Items Item Means 2.877 2.401 3.078 .677 1.282 .043 10 Item Total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item Total Correlation Squared Multiple Correlation Cronba ch's Alpha if Item Deleted Q25 26.04 52.660 .743 .582 .927 Q26 25.95 52.062 .766 .649 .926 Q27 25.79 51.898 .793 .686 .925 Q28 25.78 51.082 .767 .601 .926 Q29 25.69 52.483 .706 .538 .929 Q30 25.71 51.934 .763 .646 .926 Q31 25.95 52.545 .744 .574 .92 7 Q32 26.37 52.571 .638 .464 .933 Q33 25.93 52.831 .747 .622 .927 Q34 25.70 52.023 .726 .574 .928 Scale Statistics Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items 28.77 63.987 7.999 10 Intraclass Correlation Coefficient Intraclass Correlation a 95% Co nfidence Interval F Test with True Value 0 Lower Bound Upper Bound Value df1 df2 Sig Single Measures .586 b .546 .628 15.162 343 3087 .000 Average Measures .934 c .923 .944 15.162 343 3087 .000 Two way mixed effects model where people effects are rando m and measures effects are fixed. a. Type C intraclass correlation coefficients using a consistency definition the between measure variance is excluded from the denominator variance. b. The estimator is the same, whether the interaction effect is present or not. c. This estimate is computed assuming the interaction effect is absent, because it is not estimable otherwise.

PAGE 240

224 Appendix I (Continued) I.2. Reliability Evidence for Pilot of the Strategic Internationalization Priority Scale (SIP S) Subscale 1 Administrative Planning & Operations Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance Skewness Kurtosis Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error Q1 92 2 4 3.26 .709 .503 .423 .251 .922 .498 Q2 92 1 4 3.01 .763 .582 .322 .251 .418 .498 Q3 92 1 4 3.15 .864 .746 .511 .251 .941 .498 Q4 92 1 4 2.74 .900 .810 .380 .251 .532 .498 Q5 92 1 4 2.92 .929 .862 .436 .251 .720 .498 Q6 92 1 4 2.64 .944 .892 .179 .251 .835 .498 Q7 92 1 4 2.87 .928 .862 .324 .251 .828 .498 Q8 92 1 4 2.90 .973 .946 .459 .251 .804 .498 Q9 92 1 4 3.05 .843 .711 .666 .251 .049 .498 Q10 92 1 4 2.61 1.027 1.054 .082 .251 1.122 .498 Q11 92 1 4 2.93 .809 .655 .261 .251 .605 .498 Q12 92 1 4 2.93 .912 .831 .581 .251 .384 .498 Q13 92 1 4 3.20 .867 .753 .807 .251 .182 .498 Q14 92 1 4 2.37 1.107 1.225 .164 .251 1.304 .498 Valid N (listwise) 92 Reliability Estimates: Subscale 1 Administrative Planning & O perations Case Processing Summary N % Cases Valid 92 100.0 Excluded a 0 .0 Total 92 100.0 a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure. Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items .883 .886 14 Item Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Q1 3.26 .709 92 Q2 3.01 .763 92 Q3 3.15 .864 92 Q4 2.74 .900 92 Q5 2.92 .929 92 Q6 2.64 .944 92 Q7 2.87 .928 92 Q8 2.90 .973 92 Q9 3.05 .843 92 Q10 2.61 1.027 92 Q11 2.93 .809 92 Q12 2.93 .912 92 Q13 3.20 .867 92 Q14 2.37 1.107 92

PAGE 241

225 Appendix I (Continued) Item Total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item Total Correlation Squared Multiple Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted Q1 37.34 56.863 .565 .472 .875 Q2 37.59 58.267 .391 .357 .882 Q3 37.45 56.162 .502 .356 .877 Q4 37.86 54.606 .601 .518 .873 Q5 37.67 54.838 .560 .540 .875 Q6 37.96 53.185 .677 .625 .869 Q7 37.73 52.596 .739 .658 .866 Q8 37.70 53.665 .617 .565 .872 Q9 37.54 55.174 .600 .494 .873 Q10 37.99 54.428 .523 .510 .877 Q11 37.66 55.369 .613 .530 .872 Q12 37.66 54.402 .608 .512 .872 Q13 37.40 55.672 .539 .377 .876 Q14 38.23 57.101 .304 .207 .890 Scale Statistics Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items 40.60 6 3.408 7.963 14 Intraclass Correlation Coefficient Intraclass Correlation a 95% Confidence Interval F Test with True Value 0 Lower Bound Upper Bound Value df1 df2 Sig Single Measures .350 b .279 .435 8.530 91 1183 .000 Average Measures .883 c .844 .91 5 8.530 91 1183 .000 Two way mixed effects model where people effects are random and measures effects are fixed. a. Type C intraclass correlation coefficients using a consistency definition the between measure variance is excluded from the denominator va riance. b. The estimator is the same, whether the interaction effect is present or not. c. This estimate is computed assuming the interaction effect is absent, because it is not estimable otherwise. Subscale 2 Student Education Descriptive Statistics N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance Skewness Kurtosis Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error Q15 92 3 1 4 2.80 .929 .862 .354 .251 .701 .498 Q16 92 3 1 4 2.99 .920 .846 .584 .251 .491 .498 Q17 92 3 1 4 2.96 .948 .899 .544 .251 .635 .498 Q18 92 3 1 4 2.92 .855 .730 .392 .251 .504 .498 Q19 92 3 1 4 2.87 .867 .752 .155 .251 .896 .498 Q20 92 3 1 4 2.88 .888 .788 .243 .251 .839 .498 Q21 92 3 1 4 2.67 1.018 1.035 .199 .251 1.059 .498 Q22 92 3 1 4 2.92 .963 .928 .524 .251 .685 .498 Q23 92 3 1 4 2.88 .970 .942 .419 .251 .833 .498 Q24 92 3 1 4 2.98 .877 .769 .457 .251 .571 .498 Valid N (listwise) 92

PAGE 242

226 Appendix I (Continued) Reliabili ty Estimates for Subscale 2 Student Education Case Processing Summary N % Cases Valid 92 100.0 Excluded a 0 .0 Total 92 100.0 a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure. Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha B ased on Standardized Items N of Items .865 .864 10 Item Total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item Total Correlation Squared Multiple Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted Q15 26.08 31.653 .583 .375 .852 Q16 25.89 31 .856 .569 .361 .853 Q17 25.92 31.214 .613 .522 .849 Q18 25.96 34.635 .323 .269 .871 Q19 26.01 31.637 .638 .521 .848 Q20 26.00 31.692 .614 .470 .849 Q21 26.21 30.451 .634 .468 .847 Q22 25.96 32.020 .519 .398 .857 Q23 26.00 30.725 .646 .460 .846 Q24 25.90 31.562 .638 .503 .848 Scale Statistics Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items 28.88 38.612 6.214 10 Item Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Q15 2.80 .929 92 Q16 2.99 .920 92 Q17 2.96 .948 92 Q18 2.92 .855 92 Q19 2.87 .867 92 Q20 2.88 .888 92 Q21 2.67 1.018 92 Q22 2.92 .963 92 Q23 2.88 .970 92 Q24 2.98 .877 92

PAGE 243

227 Appendix I (Continued) Intraclass Correlation Coefficient Intraclass Correlation a 95% Confidence Interval F Test with True Value 0 Lower Bound Upper Bound Value df1 df2 Sig Single Measures .391 b .313 .481 7.409 91 819 .000 Average Measures .865 c .820 .903 7.409 91 819 .000 Two way mixed effects model where people effects are random and measures effects are fixed. a. Type C intracl ass correlation coefficients using a consistency definition the between measure variance is excluded from the denominator variance. b. The estimator is the same, whether the interaction effect is present or not. c. This estimate is computed assuming the interaction effect is absent, because it is not estimable otherwise. Subscale 3 Teaching & Faculty Development Descriptive Statistics N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance Skewness Kurtosis Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Stat istic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error Q25 92 3 1 4 3.02 .889 .791 .426 .251 .809 .498 Q26 92 3 1 4 2.57 1.009 1.018 .084 .251 1.057 .498 Q27 92 3 1 4 2.58 .917 .840 .186 .251 .741 .498 Q28 92 3 1 4 2.90 .938 .880 .6 17 .251 .397 .498 Q29 92 3 1 4 2.72 .987 .974 .313 .251 .892 .498 Q30 92 3 1 4 2.83 .859 .739 .291 .251 .557 .498 Q31 92 3 1 4 2.37 1.013 1.027 .105 .251 1.083 .498 Q32 92 3 1 4 2.34 1.019 1.039 .169 .251 1.080 .498 Q33 92 3 1 4 2.79 .989 .979 .336 .251 .920 .498 Q34 92 3 1 4 2.70 .899 .807 .191 .251 .700 .498 Valid N (listwise) 92 Reliability Estimates For Subscale 3 Teaching & Faculty Development Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardiz ed Items N of Items .885 .886 10 Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Q25 3.02 .889 92 Q26 2.57 1.009 92 Q27 2.58 .917 92 Q28 2.90 .938 92 Q29 2.72 .987 92 Q30 2.83 .859 92 Q31 2.37 1.013 92 Q32 2.34 1.019 92 Q33 2.79 .989 92 Q34 2.70 .899 92

PAGE 244

228 Appendix I (Continued) Item Total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Correcte d Item Total Correlation Squared Multiple Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted Q25 23.78 37.073 .632 .479 .873 Q26 24.24 36.228 .615 .435 .874 Q27 24.23 35.585 .757 .620 .864 Q28 23.90 38.617 .447 .349 .886 Q29 24.09 36.256 .629 .449 .873 Q30 23.98 36.967 .670 .541 .871 Q31 24.43 35.281 .698 .533 .868 Q32 24.47 36.911 .546 .419 .879 Q33 24.01 36.648 .591 .527 .876 Q34 24.11 37.197 .612 .440 .874 Scale Statistics Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items 26.80 44.709 6.686 10 Intraclass Correlation Coefficient Intraclass Correlation a 95% Confidence Interval F Test with True Value 0 Lower Bound Upper Bound Value df1 df2 Sig Single Measures .435 b .356 .525 8.703 91 819 .000 Average Measures .885 c .847 .917 8.703 91 819 .000 Two way mixed effects model where people effects are random and measures effects are fixed. a. Type C intraclass correlation coefficients using a consistency definition the between measure variance is excluded from the denominator variance. b. The estimator is the same, whether the interaction effect is present or not. c. This estimate is computed assuming the interaction effect is absent, because it is not estimable otherwise. Inter Item Correlation Matrix Q25 Q26 Q27 Q28 Q29 Q30 Q31 Q32 Q33 Q34 Q25 1.000 .329 .483 .464 .508 .508 .479 .319 .492 .448 Q26 .329 1.000 .535 .338 .427 .470 .567 .475 .349 .410 Q27 .483 .535 1.000 .488 .498 .603 .6 44 .531 .484 .455 Q28 .464 .338 .488 1.000 .314 .306 .385 .184 .215 .238 Q29 .508 .427 .498 .314 1.000 .369 .490 .478 .457 .447 Q30 .508 .470 .603 .306 .369 1.000 .504 .381 .603 .500 Q31 .479 .567 .644 .385 .490 .504 1.000 .495 .384 .439 Q32 .319 .475 .531 .184 .478 .381 .495 1.000 .255 .377 Q33 .492 .349 .484 .215 .457 .603 .384 .255 1.000 .584 Q34 .448 .410 .455 .238 .447 .500 .439 .377 .584 1.000

PAGE 245

229 Appendix J: Descriptive Statistics and Frequencies for Subs cale 1 Plannin g and Operation Strategies Statistics Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 N Valid 346 349 349 349 349 348 347 348 349 349 348 348 347 347 Missing 3 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 1 2 2 Mean 3.57 3.48 3.49 3.55 3.36 3.27 3.32 3.41 3.17 2.87 3.25 3.36 3.64 2.10 Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 2.00 Std. Deviation .912 .863 .933 .855 .889 .903 .876 .888 1.011 1.083 .977 .886 .959 1.069 Skewness .541 .491 .431 .555 .386 .306 .437 .368 .216 .046 .463 .3 10 .453 .768 Std. Error of Skewness .131 .131 .131 .131 .131 .131 .131 .131 .131 .131 .131 .131 .131 .131 Kurtosis .069 .057 .148 .298 .133 .217 .029 .126 .419 .630 .232 .065 .157 .153 Std. Error of Kurtosis .261 .260 .260 .260 .260 .261 .261 .261 .260 .260 .261 .261 .261 .261 Minimum 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Maximum 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

PAGE 246

230 Appendix J (Continued)

PAGE 247

231 Appendix J (Continued)

PAGE 248

232 Appendix J (Continued)

PAGE 249

233 Appendix J (Continued)

PAGE 250

234 Appendix J (Continued)

PAGE 251

235 Appendix J (Continued)

PAGE 252

236 Appendix J (Continued)

PAGE 253

237 Appendix K: Descriptive Statistics and Frequencies for Subscale 2 Student Education Strategies Statistics Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20 Q21 Q22 Q23 Q24 N Valid 348 349 349 348 347 349 346 347 348 348 Missing 1 0 0 1 2 0 3 2 1 1 Mean 3.50 3.38 3.65 3.12 3.19 3.21 2.98 3.02 3.09 3.37 Median 4.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 Std. Deviation 1.014 .951 .877 1.059 .954 .980 1.177 1.059 .974 .982 Skewness .3 08 .269 .467 .243 .141 .270 .031 .237 .211 .480 Std. Error of Skewness .131 .131 .131 .131 .131 .131 .131 .131 .131 .131 Kurtosis .431 .410 .029 .506 .370 .334 .856 .499 .356 .198 Std. Error of Kurtosis .261 .260 .260 .261 .261 .260 .2 61 .261 .261 .261 Minimum 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Maximum 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

PAGE 254

238 Appendix K (Continued)

PAGE 255

239 Appendix K (Continued)

PAGE 256

240 Appendix K (Continued)

PAGE 257

241 Appendix K (Continued)

PAGE 258

242 Appendix K (Continued)

PAGE 259

243 Appendix L: Descriptive Statistics and Frequencies for Subscale 3 Teaching and Faculty Development Strategies Statistics Q25 Q26 Q27 Q28 Q29 Q30 Q31 Q32 Q33 Q34 N Valid 349 348 349 349 348 349 348 349 348 348 Missing 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 Mean 2.7 3 2.82 2.97 2.98 3.07 3.05 2.82 2.40 2.83 3.06 Median 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 Std. Deviation .961 .986 .982 1.072 1.019 1.002 .975 1.101 .943 1.042 Skewness .156 .083 .224 .036 .014 .173 .175 .408 .035 .330 Std. Error of Skewness .131 .131 .131 .131 .131 .131 .131 .131 .131 .131 Kurtosis .738 .392 .349 .683 .313 .455 .584 .585 .191 .599 Std. Error of Kurtosis .260 .261 .260 .260 .261 .260 .261 .260 .261 .261 Minimum 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Maximum 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

PAGE 260

244 Appendix L (Continued)

PAGE 261

245 Appendix L (Continued)

PAGE 262

246 Appendix L (Continued)

PAGE 263

247 Appendix L (Continued)

PAGE 264

248 Appendix L (Continued)

PAGE 265

249 Appendix M Statistical Analysis from SAS for Research Question 1 M. 1 Planning and Operation Strategies by Institutional Description 0 1 2 3 4 5 Global International National Local Strategy 1 Communicating an institutional vision. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Global International National Local Strategy 2 Initiating policies that enhance global thinking and action. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Global International National Local Strategy 3 Pledging a mission to serve the world through education.

PAGE 266

250 Appendix M (Continued) 0 1 2 3 4 5 Global International National Local Strategy 4 Increasing visibility of international focus on institution's website. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Global International National Local Strategy 5 Increasing institutional visibility at international conferences. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Global International National Local Strategy 6 Marketing university's academic programs through global media.

PAGE 267

251 Appendix M (Continued) 0 1 2 3 4 5 Global International National Local Strategy 7 Creating a balanced mix between global and local outreach. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Global International National Local Strategy 8 Developing the expertise to deliver quality services. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Global International National Local Strategy 9 Funding a high level administrative position for international activities.

PAGE 268

252 Appendix M (Continued) 0 1 2 3 4 5 Global International National Local Strategy 10 Initiating fundraising campaigns to support internationalization. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Global International National Local Strategy 11 Aligning organizational resources with university global strategies. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Global International National Local Strategy 12 Monitoring the institution's international activities and programs.

PAGE 269

253 Appendix M (Continued) M.2 One way ANOVA: Planning and Op eration Strategies by Institutional Description (Global, International, National and Local) The ANOVA Procedure Class Level Information Class Levels Values L evel 4 GL IN LO NA Number of Observations Read 348 Number of Observations Used 348 The ANOVA Procedure Dependent Variable: Planning 0 1 2 3 4 5 Global International National Local Strategy 13 Establishing institutional collaboration with foreign universities. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Global International National Local Strategy 14 Setting up a branch campus abroad.

PAGE 270

254 Appendix M (Continued) Sum of Source DF Squares Mean Square F Value Model 3 27.9249029 9.3083010 22.61 Error 344 141.6011890 0.4116314 Corrected Total 347 169.5260920 Source Pr > F Model <.0001 Error Corrected Total The ANOVA Procedure Dependent Var iable: Planning R Square Coeff Var Root MSE Planning Mean 0.164723 19.60242 0.641585 3.272989 Source DF Anova SS Mean Square F Value Level 3 27.92490 295 9.30830098 22.61 Source Pr > F Level <.0001

PAGE 271

255 Appendix M (Continued) The ANOVA Procedure Level of ----------Planning --------Level N Mean Std Dev GL 75 3.69600000 0.58804302 IN 172 3.30930233 0.60332954 LO 33 2.89090909 0.76213665 NA 68 2.90000000 0.72462033 -----------------------------Level=GL -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Planning Moments N 75 Sum Weights 75 Mean 3.696 Sum Observations 277.2 Std Deviation 0.58804302 Variance 0.34579459 Skewness 1.0267564 Kurtosis 5.46402972 Uncorrected SS 1050.12 Corrected SS 25.5888 Coeff Variation 15.9102549 Std Error Mean 0.06790136 Basic Statistical Measures Location Variabili ty Mean 3.696000 Std Deviation 0.58804 Median 3.700000 Variance 0.34579 Mode 3.600000 Range 4.00000 Interquartile Range 0.60000 -----------------------------Level=GL -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Planning Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 54.4319 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 37.5 Pr >= |M| <.0001 Signed Rank S 1425 Pr >= |S| <.0001 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic ------p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.903388 Pr < W <0.0001 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.160687 Pr > D <0.0100 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.300865 Pr > W Sq <0.0050 Anderson Darling A Sq 1.709209 Pr > A Sq <0.0050

PAGE 272

256 Appendix M (Continued) -----------------------------Level=GL -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Planning Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 1.0 39 4.6 67 2.4 60 4.9 15 2.8 50 4.9 56 2.8 38 4.9 69 2.8 12 5.0 35 -----------------------------Level=GL -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Planning Normal Probability Plot 5.25+ +*+ | **+ **+*++ | +******* | ************* 3.25+ ********+++ | ++**+**++ |+++++* | 1.25+ + ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ 2 1 0 +1 +2 -----------------------------Level=IN -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Planning Moments N 172 Sum Weights 172 Mean 3.30930233 Sum Observations 569.2 Std Deviation 0.60332954 Variance 0.36400653 Sk ewness 0.2096365 Kurtosis 0.28027323 Uncorrected SS 1945.9 Corrected SS 62.2451163 Coeff Variation 18.2313212 Std Error Mean 0.04600345 Basic Statistical Measures Location Variability Mean 3.309302 Std Deviation 0.60333 Median 3.400000 Variance 0.36401 Mode 3.600000 Range 3.40000 Interquartile Range 0.80000

PAGE 273

257 Appendix M (Continued) -----------------------------Level=IN -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Planning T ests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 71.93597 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 86 Pr >= |M| <.0001 Signed Rank S 7439 Pr >= |S | <.0001 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic ------p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.988085 Pr < W 0.1551 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.074569 Pr > D 0.0199 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.145924 Pr > W Sq 0.0269 Anderson Darling A Sq 0.84291 Pr > A Sq 0.0304 -----------------------------Level=IN -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Planning Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 1.5 156 4.5 229 1.7 181 4.6 186 1.9 97 4.6 190 2.0 137 4.7 245 2.1 192 4.9 86 -----------------------------Level=IN ----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Planning Normal Probability Plot 4.75+ ***+**+* | *******+ | *********** 3.25+ *********+ | +******* | +******** 1.75+*+** + ---+ ---+ ---+ --+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ 2 1 0 +1 +2 -----------------------------Level=LO -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Plann ing Moments N 33 Sum Weights 33 Mean 2.89090909 Sum Observations 95.4 Std Deviation 0.76213665 Variance 0.58085227

PAGE 274

258 Appendix M (Continued) Skewness 0.6095851 Kurtosis 0.3669107 Uncorrected SS 294.38 Corrected SS 18.5872727 Coeff Variation 26.3632174 Std Error Mean 0.13267096 Basic Statistica l Measures Location Variability Mean 2.890909 Std Deviation 0.76214 Median 3.100000 Variance 0.58085 Mode 3.600000 Range 3.00000 Interquartile Range 1.20000 -----------------------------Level=LO -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Planning Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 21.79007 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 16.5 Pr >= |M| <.0001 Signed Rank S 280.5 Pr >= |S| <.0001 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic ------p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.939189 Pr < W 0.0643 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.141866 Pr > D 0.0898 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.119096 Pr > W Sq 0.0616 Anderson Darling A Sq 0.724932 Pr > A Sq 0.0538 -----------------------------Level=LO -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Planning Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 1.0 251 3.6 277 1.5 253 3.7 270 1.7 266 3.7 275 1.8 248 3.9 262 2.0 280 4.0 254 -----------------------------Level=LO ----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Planning Normal Probability Plot 4.25+ ++++++* | ****+***+* | *****+++

PAGE 275

259 Appendix M (Continued) 2.75+ *****++ | **+*** | +*++*+* 1.25+ +++*++ + ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ 2 1 0 +1 +2 -----------------------------Level=NA -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Var iable: Planning Moments N 68 Sum Weights 68 Mean 2.9 Sum Observations 197.2 Std Deviation 0.72462033 Variance 0.525074 63 Skewness 0.5153103 Kurtosis 0.08937049 Uncorrected SS 607.06 Corrected SS 35.18 Coeff Variation 24.986908 Std Error Mean 0.08787312 Basic Statistical Measures Location Variability Mean 2.900000 Std Deviation 0.72462 Median 2.900000 Variance 0.52507 Mode 3.600000 Range 3.40000 Interquartile Range 1.00000 -----------------------------Level=NA -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Planning Tests for Location : Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 33.00213 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 34 Pr >= |M| <.0001 Signed Rank S 1173 Pr >= |S| <.0001 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic ------p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.971009 Pr < W 0.1139 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.102941 Pr > D 0.0740 Cramer von M ises W Sq 0.089351 Pr > W Sq 0.1558 Anderson Darling A Sq 0.604048 Pr > A Sq 0.1143 -----------------------------Level=NA -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Planning Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 1.0 298 3.8 346 1.1 299 3.9 323 1.2 318 4.1 339

PAGE 276

260 Appendix M (Continued) 1.8 315 4.1 348 1.8 306 4.4 336 -----------------------------Level =NA -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Planning Normal Probability Plot 4.25+ ++*+*++ | ********** | ******++ 2.75+ ********+ | ******+ | +++**** 1.25++*+++* + ---+ ---+ ---+ --+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ 2 1 0 +1 +2 The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Planning Schematic Plots | 5 + 0 | | | | | | | | | | | | 4 + + ----+ | | | | -+ -* + ----+ | | | + ----+ ----* + ----+ + ----+ | | | + | | | | | 3 + | + ----+ -+ -* -+ -* | | | | | | | | 0 | + ----+ + ----+ | | | | 2 + | | | | | | | | 0 | | | | | 1 + | | -----------+ ----------+ ----------+ ----------+ ----------Level GL IN LO NA Note: Null Hypothesis: H o : U GL = U IN = U NA =U L O Obtained F= 22.61 Alpha=0.05 Df=3 Critical F=2.63 Decision: Reject null hypothesis.

PAGE 277

261 Appendix M (Con tinued) M.3 Student Education Strategies by Institutional Description 0 1 2 3 4 5 Global International National Local Strategy 15 Fostering global recruitment to attract the best students. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Global International National Local Strategy 16 Facilitating the transfer of credits from recognized foreign universities.

PAGE 278

262 Appendix M (Continued) 0 1 2 3 4 5 Global International National Local Strategy 17 Motivating students to participate in study abroad programs. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Global International National Local Strategy 18 Offering joint degree programs with foreign universities. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Global International National Local Strategy 19 Requiring students to take courses with international content.

PAGE 279

263 Appendix M (Continued) 0 1 2 3 4 5 Global International National Local Strategy 20 Encouraging students to participate in international research. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Global International National Local Strategy 21 Requiring foreign language credits for undergraduate students.

PAGE 280

264 Appendix M (Continued) 0 1 2 3 4 5 Global International National Local Strategy 22 Offering interdisciplinary global programs with STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Global International National Local Strategy 23 Expanding the international collection at the university's library. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Global International National Local Strategy 24 Promoting intercultural interactions among students.

PAGE 281

265 Appendix M (Continued) M.4 One Way ANOVA : Student Education Strategies by Institutional Description (Global, International, National and Local) The ANOVA Procedure Class Level Information Class Levels Values Level 4 GL IN LO NA Number of Observations Read 348 Number of Observations Used 348 The ANOVA Procedure Dependent Variable: Student Sum of Source DF Squares Mean Square F Value Model 3 21.2654221 7.0884740 16.32 Error 344 149.4438595 0.4344298 Corrected Total 347 170.7092816 Source Pr > F Model <.0001 Error Corrected Total The ANOVA Procedure Dependent Variable: Student R Square Coeff Va r Root MSE Student Mean 0.124571 20.27144 0.659113 3.251437 Source DF Anova SS Mean Square F Value Level 3 21.26542209 7.08847403 16.32 Source Pr > F Level <.0001 The ANOVA Procedure Level of ----------Student ----------Level N Mean Std Dev GL 75 3.58133333 0.72813968 IN 172 3.31337209 0.59214766

PAGE 282

266 Appendix M (Continued) LO 33 2.87272727 0.73453758 NA 68 2.91470588 0.70165363 -----------------------------Level=GL -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Student Moments N 75 Sum Weights 75 Mean 3.58133333 Sum Observations 268.6 Std Deviation 0.72813968 Variance 0.53018739 Skewness 0.3817321 Kurtosis 0.86996988 Uncorrected SS 1001.18 Corrected SS 39.2338667 Coeff Variation 20.3315248 Std Error Mean 0.08407833 Basic Statistical Measures Location Variability Mean 3.581333 Std Deviat ion 0.72814 Median 3.500000 Variance 0.53019 Mode 3.500000 Range 4.00000 Interquartile Range 1.10000 -----------------------------Level=GL ----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Student Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 42.5952 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 37.5 Pr >= |M| <.0001 Signed Rank S 1425 Pr >= |S| <.0001 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic -----p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.97343 Pr < W 0.1157 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.064469 Pr > D >0.1500 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.036899 Pr > W Sq >0.2500 Anderson Darling A Sq 0.314163 Pr > A Sq >0.2500 -----------------------------Level=GL -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Student Extreme Observations ---L owest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 1.0 39 4.8 8 2.3 50 4.8 9

PAGE 283

267 Appendix M (Continued) 2.4 38 4.8 56 2.5 60 4.9 44 2.6 24 5.0 35 -----------------------------Level=GL -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Student Normal Probability Plot 5.25+ ++++*+ | *****+**+* | ******++ | *******+ 3.25+ ******* | ******** | +*+*+++ |++++ 1.25+ + ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ --+ 2 1 0 +1 +2 -----------------------------Level=IN -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Student Moments N 172 Sum Weights 172 Mean 3.31337209 Sum Observations 569.9 Std Deviation 0.59214766 Variance 0.35063885 Skewness 0.0337045 Ku rtosis 0.30755633 Uncorrected SS 1948.25 Corrected SS 59.9592442 Coeff Variation 17.8714508 Std Error Mean 0.04515084 Basic Statistical Measures Location V ariability Mean 3.313372 Std Deviation 0.59215 Median 3.300000 Variance 0.35064 Mode 3.100000 Range 3.40000 Interquartile Range 0.85000 -----------------------------Level=IN -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Student Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Stati stic ----p Value -----Student's t t 73.38451 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 86 Pr >= |M| <.0001 Signed Rank S 7439 Pr >= |S| <.0001 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic ------p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.989191 Pr < W 0.2141

PAGE 284

268 Appendix M (Continued) Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.062865 Pr > D 0.0941 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.107467 Pr > W Sq 0.0914 Anderson Darling A Sq 0.668355 Pr > A Sq 0.0833 -----------------------------Level=IN -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Stu dent Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 1.6 137 4.5 213 1.7 181 4.6 186 2.0 97 4.7 245 2.1 201 5.0 86 2.2 156 5.0 112 -----------------------------Level=IN -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Student Normal Probability Plot 5.1+ * | | *+++ | *++ | +*** | **** | ***** | *****+ | ***+ | **** | ***** | ****+ | ****+ | ***+ | **** | *+*+ |+++ 1.7+* + ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ -----------------------------Level=LO -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Student Moments N 33 Sum Weights 33 Mean 2.87272727 Sum Observations 94. 8 Std Deviation 0.73453758 Variance 0.53954545 Skewness 0.2689134 Kurtosis 1.2572845 Uncorrected SS 289.6 Corrected SS 17.2654545 Coeff Variation 25.5693461 Std Error Mean 0.12786658

PAGE 285

269 Appendix M (Continued) Basic Statistical Measures Location Variability Mean 2.872727 Std Deviation 0.73454 Median 3.000000 Variance 0.53955 Mode 2.600000 Range 2.40000 Interquartile Range 1.30000 Note: The mode displayed is the smallest of 2 modes with a count of 3. -----------------------------Level=LO ----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Student Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 22.4666 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 16.5 Pr >= |M| <.0001 Signed Rank S 280.5 Pr >= |S| <.0001 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic -----p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.934594 Pr < W 0.0474 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.143854 Pr > D 0.0821 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.116342 Pr > W Sq 0.0679 Anderson Darling A Sq 0.718562 Pr > A Sq 0.0565 -----------------------------Level=LO -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Student Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 1.6 278 3.7 268 1.7 266 3.7 275 1.7 253 3.8 277 1.8 251 3.9 254 1.9 252 4.0 262 -----------------------------Level=LO -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Varia ble: Student Normal Probability Plot 4.1+ +++ | +*+ | *** | ****++ | ** +++ | **+++

PAGE 286

270 Appendix M (Continued) 2.9+ *++ | ***+ | **+ | +++* | +* ** | ++** 1.7+ *++* + ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ 2 1 0 + 1 +2 -----------------------------Level=NA -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Student Moments N 68 S um Weights 68 Mean 2.91470588 Sum Observations 198.2 Std Deviation 0.70165363 Variance 0.49231782 Skewness 0.5323048 Kurtosis 0.20494542 Uncorrected SS 610.68 Corrected SS 32.9852941 Coeff Variation 24.0728795 Std Error Mean 0.085088 Basic Statistical Measures Location Variability Mean 2.914706 Std De viation 0.70165 Median 3.000000 Variance 0.49232 Mode 3.200000 Range 3.40000 Interquartile Range 0.85000 -----------------------------Level=NA -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Student Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student' s t t 34.25519 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 34 Pr >= |M| <.0001 Signed Rank S 1173 Pr >= |S| <.0001 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic -----p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.970585 Pr < W 0.1079 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.085685 Pr > D >0.1500 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.092209 Pr > W Sq 0.1427 Anderson Darling A Sq 0.610556 Pr > A Sq 0.1096 -----------------------------Level=NA -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure

PAGE 287

271 Appendix M (Continued) Variable: Student Extreme Observat ions ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 1.1 300 3.9 305 1.2 298 3.9 323 1.4 344 3.9 338 1.4 318 3.9 340 1.7 299 4.5 336 -----------------------------Level=NA -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Pr ocedure Variable: Student Normal Probability Plot 4.5+ ++* | +++ | +++ | ***** * | +*+ | ***** | ****+ | ****++ | ****++ | ***++ | *++ | *** | **** | ++ | +++* | +++* | +++ 1.1++* + ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Student Schematic Plots | 5 + | | | | | | | | | | | | | 4 + + ----+ | | | | | | + ----+ | |

PAGE 288

272 Appendix M (Continued) | -+ -* | | + ----+ + ----+ | | | -+ -* | | | | 3 + + ----+ + ----+ ----* -+ -* | | | | + | | | | | | | | + ----+ | | | + ----+ | 2 + | | | | | | | | 0 | | | 0 1 + 0 0 -----------+ ----------+ ----------+ ----------+ ----------Level GL IN LO NA Note: Null Hypothesis: H o : U GL = U IN = U NA =U LO Obtained F= 16.32 Alpha=0.05 Df=3 Crit ical F=2.63 Decision: Reject null hypothesis. M.5 Teaching and Faculty Development Strategies by Institutional Description 0 1 2 3 4 5 Global International National Local Strategy 25 Providing financial incentives for curriculum internationalization.

PAGE 289

273 Appendix M (Continued) 0 1 2 3 4 5 Global International National Local Strategy 26 Considering international research and teaching during salary and promotion decisions. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Global International National Local Strategy 27 Funding faculty participation in international teaching and research. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Global International National Local Strategy 28 Aquiring new technologies to enhance international teaching.

PAGE 290

274 Appendix M (Continued) 0 1 2 3 4 5 Global International National Local Strategy 29 Recruiting international faculty and staff. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Global International National Local Strategy 30 Promoting faculty engagement in campus internationalozation. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Global International National Local Strategy 31 Providing training in cross cultural communication for faculty and staff.

PAGE 291

275 Appendix M (Continued) 0 1 2 3 4 5 Global International National Local Strategy 32 Considering foreign language fluency in salary/promotion decisions. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Global International National Local Strategy 33 Funding international academic travel for faculty and staff. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Global International National Local Strategy 34 Featuring global activities and research in institutional publications.

PAGE 292

276 Appe ndix M (Continued) M.6 One W ay ANOVA: Teaching and Faculty Development Strategies by Institutional Description (Global, International, National and Local) The ANOVA Procedure Class Level Information Class Levels Values Level 4 GL IN LO NA Number of Observations Read 347 Number of Observations Used 347 The ANOVA Proced ure Dependent Variable: Teaching Sum of Source DF Squares Mean Square F Value Model 3 17.8281836 5.9427279 10.03 Error 343 2 03.2919893 0.5926880 Corrected Total 346 221.1201729 Source Pr > F Model <.0001 Error Corrected Total The ANOVA Procedure Dependent Variable: Teaching R Square Coeff Var Root MSE Teaching Mean 0.080627 26.81882 0.769862 2.870605 Source DF Anova SS Mean Square F Value Level 3 17.82818361 5.94272787 10.03 Source Pr > F Level <.0001 The ANOVA Procedure Level of ---------Teaching ---------Level N Mean Std Dev GL 74 3.17027027 0.84118796

PAGE 293

277 Appendix M (Continued) IN 172 2.93139535 0.73695464 LO 33 2.55757576 0.85184737 NA 68 2.54264706 0.72838324 -----------------------------Level=GL -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variab le: Teaching Moments N 74 Sum Weights 74 Mean 3.17027027 Sum Observations 234.6 Std Deviation 0.84118796 Variance 0.70759719 Skewness 0.4343516 Kurtosis 0.5954747 Uncorrected SS 795.4 Corrected SS 51.6545946 Coeff Variation 26.5336356 Std Error Mean 0.09778611 Basic Statistical Measures Location Variability Mean 3.170270 Std Deviation 0.84119 Median 3.300000 Variance 0.70760 Mode 3.000000 Range 3.60000 Interquartile Range 1.30000 -----------------------------Level=GL -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Teaching Tests for Location: M u0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 32.42045 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 37 Pr >= |M| <.0001 Signed Rank S 1387.5 Pr >= |S| <.0001 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic ------p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.956713 Pr < W 0.0127 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.108985 Pr > D 0.0282 Cramer von Mise s W Sq 0.171129 Pr > W Sq 0.0129 Anderson Darling A Sq 1.100269 Pr > A Sq 0.0069 -----------------------------Level=GL -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Teaching Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 1.0 39 4.2 27

PAGE 294

278 Appendix M (Continued ) 1.7 38 4.5 44 1.8 60 4.6 8 1.8 54 4.6 9 1.8 20 4.6 15 -----------------------------Level =GL -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Teaching Normal Probability Plot 4.75+ +**+*+ | ******* | *******+ | ********+ | ****++ | ++**** | *+**+***** 1.25+ +*++++ + ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ 2 1 0 +1 +2 -----------------------------Level=IN -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Teaching Moments N 172 Sum Weights 172 Mean 2.93139535 Sum Observations 504.2 Std Deviation 0.73695464 V ariance 0.54310214 Skewness 0.0074739 Kurtosis 0.2371069 Uncorrected SS 1570.88 Corrected SS 92.8704651 Coeff Variation 25.1400629 Std Error Mean 0.05619226 B asic Statistical Measures Location Variability Mean 2.931395 Std Deviation 0.73695 Median 3.000000 Variance 0.54310 Mode 3.000000 Range 3.70000 Interquartile Range 0.85000 -----------------------------Level=IN -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Teaching Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 52.16724 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 86 Pr >= |M| <.0001 Signed Rank S 7439 Pr >= |S| <.0001 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic ------p Value -----

PAGE 295

2 79 Appendix M (Continued) Shapiro Wilk W 0.987067 Pr < W 0.1147 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.095224 Pr > D <0.0100 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.200294 Pr > W Sq 0.0050 Anderson Darling A Sq 0.981824 Pr > A Sq 0.0145 -----------------------------Level=IN -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Teaching Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 1.2 224 4.4 85 1.3 180 4.4 111 1.3 95 4.5 212 1.4 155 4.6 244 1.6 246 4.9 189 ----------------------------Level=IN -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Teaching Normal Probability Plot 4.75+ **+* | ********+ | ******+ | ********** | ******++ | ** *****+ | ******* 1.25+*+**+* + ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ 2 1 0 +1 +2 -----------------------------Level=LO -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Teaching Moments N 33 Sum Weights 33 Mean 2.55757576 Sum Observations 84.4 Std Deviation 0.85184737 Variance 0.72564394 Skewness 0.1492945 Kurtosis 1.2941041 Uncorrected SS 239.08 Corrected SS 23.2206061 Coeff Variation 33.3068284 Std Err or Mean 0.14828759 Basic Statistical Measures Location Variability Mean 2.557576 Std Deviation 0.85185 Median 2.600000 Variance 0.72564 Mode 1.400000 Range 2.80000

PAGE 296

280 Appendix M (Continued) Interquartile Range 1.40000 Note: The mode displayed is the smallest of 4 modes with a count of 3. ----------------------------Level=LO -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Teaching Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 17.2474 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 16.5 Pr >= |M| <.0001 Signed Rank S 280.5 Pr >= |S| <.0001 Tests for Normality Test -Statis tic ------p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.932213 Pr < W 0.0405 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.138258 Pr > D 0.1065 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.120789 Pr > W Sq 0.0577 Anderson Darling A S q 0.758618 Pr > A Sq 0.0447 -----------------------------Level=LO -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Teaching Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 1.0 250 3.6 261 1.2 251 3.6 276 1.4 277 3.7 270 1.4 265 3.7 273 1.4 252 3.8 253 -----------------------------Level=LO -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Teaching Normal Probability Plot 3.9+ ++ | **+* | *** *++ | *** ++ | ++ | *+++ | ****

PAGE 297

281 Appendix M (Continued) 2.5+ ++ | ++* | ***** | ** | +++ | *+*** | ++ 1.1+ +++ + ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ 2 1 0 +1 +2 -----------------------------Level=NA -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Te aching Moments N 68 Sum Weights 68 Mean 2.54264706 Sum Observations 172.9 Std Deviation 0.72838324 Variance 0.53054214 Skew ness 0.3617259 Kurtosis 0.6141052 Uncorrected SS 475.17 Corrected SS 35.5463235 Coeff Variation 28.6466514 Std Error Mean 0.08832944 Basic Statistical Measures Location Variability Mean 2.542647 Std Deviation 0.72838 Median 2.650000 Variance 0.53054 Mode 2.000000 Range 2.80000 Interquartile Range 1.10000 -----------------------------Level=NA -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Teaching Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 28.78595 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 34 Pr >= |M| <.0001 Signed Rank S 1173 Pr >= |S| <.0001 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic ------p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.965653 Pr < W 0.0577 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.117319 Pr > D 0.0206 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.104707 Pr > W Sq 0.0966 Anderson Darling A Sq 0.643924 Pr > A Sq 0.0916 -----------------------------Level=NA -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Teaching Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs

PAGE 298

282 Appendix M (Continued) 1.0 305 3.6 322 1.0 299 3.6 340 1.0 297 3.6 342 1.1 298 3.8 335 1.3 317 3.8 347 -----------------------------Level=NA ----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Teaching Normal Probability Plot 3.9+ ++* | **+* | **** | *** | ******+ | ***+++ | ***++ 2.5+ **+ | ***+ | ***** | *++ | ** | +** | +++* 1.1+ +*+* + ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ 2 1 0 +1 +2 The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Teaching Schematic Plots | 5 + 0 | | | 0 | | | 4 + | | | + ----+ | | | | | | | + ----+ | | -+ -* + ----+ | | | 3 + | | -+ -* | | + ----+ | | | | | | | ----* | + ----+ + ----+ -+ -* | + | | | | | | | | 2 + | | + ----+ + ----+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1 + | | | -----------+ ----------+ ----------+ ----------+ ----------Level GL IN LO NA Note: Null Hypothesis: Ho: U GL = U IN = U NA =U LO Obtained F= 10.03 Alpha=0.05 DF= 3 Critical F=2.63 Decision: Reject null hypothesis

PAGE 299

283 Appendix N. Statistical Analysis from SAS for Research Ques tion 2 N.1. Planning and O peration Strategies by Region 0 1 2 3 4 5 Asia Australia Europe Latin America North America Strategy 1 Communicating an institutional global vision. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Asia Australia Europe Latin America North America Strategy 2 Initiating policies that enhance global thinking and action. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Asia Australia Europe Latin America North America Question 3 Pledging a mission to serve the world through education.

PAGE 300

284 Appendix N (Continued) 0 1 2 3 4 5 Asia Australia Europe Latin America North America Strategy 4 Increasing visibility of international focus on institutions website. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Asia Australia Europe Latin America North America Strategy 5 Increasing institutional visibility at international conferences. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Asia Australia Europe Latin America North America Strategy 6 Marketing university's academic programs through global media.

PAGE 301

285 Appendix N (Continued) 0 1 2 3 4 5 Asia Australia Europe Latin America North America Strategy 7 Creating a balanced mix between global and local outreach. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Asia Australia Europe Latin America North America Strategy 8 Developing the expertise to deliver quality services across cultures. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Asia Australia Europe Latin America North America Strategy 9 Funding a high level administrative position for international activities.

PAGE 302

286 Appendix N (Continued) 1 2 3 4 5 Asia Australia Europe Latin America North America Strategy 10 Initiating fundraising campaigns to support internationalization. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Asia Australia Europe Latin America North America Strategy 11 Aligning organizational resources with university global strategies. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Asia Australia Europe Latin America North America Strategy 12 Monitoring the institution's international activities and programs.

PAGE 303

287 Appendix N (Continued) N. 2 One Way ANOVA : Planning and Operatio n Strategies b y Region (Asia, Australia, Europe, Latin America, and North America) The ANOVA Procedure Class Level Information Class Levels Values Region 5 AS AU EU LA NA Number of Observations Read 349 Number of Observations Used 349 The ANOVA Procedure Dependent Variable: Planning Sum o f Source DF Squares Mean Square F Value Model 4 6.8376752 1.7094188 3.58 Error 344 164.1728119 0.4772465 0 1 2 3 4 5 Asia Australia Europe Latin America North America Strategy 13 Establishing institutional collaboration with foreign universities. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Asia Australia Europe Latin America North America Strategy 14 Setting up a branch campus abroad.

PAGE 304

288 Appendix N (Continued) Corrected Total 34 8 171.0104871 Source Pr > F Model 0.0071 Error Corrected Total The ANOVA Procedure Dependent Variable: Plan ning R Square Coeff Var Root MSE Planning Mean 0.039984 21.15653 0.690830 3.265330 Source DF Anova SS Mean Square F Value Region 4 6.83767519 1.7 0941880 3.58 Source Pr > F Region 0.0071 The ANOVA Procedure Level of ----------Planning ---------Region N Mean Std Dev AS 45 3.38666667 0.67000678 AU 14 3.67142857 0.26436738 EU 98 3.29591837 0.61709635 LA 78 3.33589744 0.76242511 NA 114 3.09298246 0.73961474 ----------------------------Region=AS -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Planni ng Moments N 45 Sum Weights 45 Mean 3.38666667 Sum Observations 152.4 Std Deviation 0.67000678 Variance 0.44890909 Skewness 0.3711758 Kurtosis 0.32719777 Uncorrected SS 535.88 Corrected SS 19.752 Coeff Variation 19.7836649 Std Error Mean 0.09987871 Basic Statistical Measures

PAGE 305

289 Appendix N (Co ntinued) Location Variability Mean 3.386667 Std Deviation 0.67001 Median 3.400000 Variance 0.44891 Mode 2.900000 Range 3.10000 Interquartile Range 1.00000 Note: The mode displayed is the smallest of 3 modes with a count of 5. ----------------------------Region=AS -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Planning Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 33.90779 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 22.5 Pr >= |M| <.0001 Signed Rank S 517.5 Pr >= |S| <.0001 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic ------p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.969549 Pr < W 0.2789 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.115206 Pr > D 0.1372 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.06871 Pr > W Sq >0.2500 Anderson Darling A Sq 0.485042 Pr > A Sq 0.2240 ----------------------------Region=AS ----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Planning Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Va lue Obs 1.8 1 4.1 30 1.9 5 4.1 40 1.9 4 4.2 38 2.5 44 4.6 41 2.6 31 4.9 43 ----------------------------Region=AS -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Planning Normal Probability Plot 4.9+ *++ | *+++ | +++

PAGE 306

290 Appendix N (Continued) 4.3+ ++ +* | ****** | ****+ 3.7+ ***+ | *****+ | ***++ 3.1+ *++ | ****** | **+++ 2.5+ *++ | +++ | +++ 1.9+ +*+ * + ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ 2 1 0 +1 +2 ----------------------------Region=AU -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Planning Moments N 14 Sum Weights 14 Mean 3.67142857 Sum Observations 51.4 Std Deviation 0.26436738 Variance 0.06989011 Skewness 1.43870214 Kurto sis 4.01070693 Uncorrected SS 189.62 Corrected SS 0.90857143 Coeff Variation 7.20066785 Std Error Mean 0.07065515 Basic Statistical Measures Location Vari ability Mean 3.671429 Std Deviation 0.26437 Median 3.700000 Variance 0.06989 Mode 3.700000 Range 1.10000 Interquartile Range 0.3 0000 ----------------------------Region=AU -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Planning Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Stati stic ----p Value -----Student's t t 51.96264 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 7 Pr >= |M| 0.0001 Signed Rank S 52.5 Pr >= |S| 0.0001 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic ------p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.856873 Pr < W 0.0276 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.241936 Pr > D 0.0245 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.110431 Pr > W Sq 0 .0764 Anderson Darling A Sq 0.72123 Pr > A Sq 0.0467

PAGE 307

291 Appendix N (Continued) ----------------------------Region=AU -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Pla nning Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 3.3 54 3.7 58 3.4 51 3.8 48 3.4 49 3.8 50 3.5 56 3.8 55 3.6 59 4.4 52 ----------------------------Region=AU -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Planning Normal Probability Plot 4.5+ | ++++++ | +++++++ 3.9+ ++*+*++* | *+*+*+*+* | +*+*++++ 3.3+ *++++++ + ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ 2 1 0 +1 +2 ----------------------------Region=EU -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Planning Moments N 98 Sum Weights 98 Mean 3.29591837 Sum Observations 323 Std Deviation 0.61709635 Variance 0.38080791 Skewness 0.19903471 Kurtosis 0.0919171 Uncorrected SS 1101.52 Corrected SS 36.9383673 Coeff Variation 18.7230473 Std Error Mean 0.06233615 Basic Statistic al Measures Location Variability Mean 3.295918 Std Deviation 0.61710

PAGE 308

292 Appendix N (Continued) Median 3.350000 Variance 0.38081 Mode 3.600000 Range 2.90000 Interquartile Range 0.70000 ----------------------------Region=EU -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Planning Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 52.87331 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 49 Pr >= |M| <.0001 Signed Rank S 2425.5 Pr >= |S| <.0001 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic ------p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.98485 Pr < W 0.3233 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.086601 Pr > D 0.0705 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.092162 Pr > W Sq 0.1437 Anderson Darling A Sq 0.502971 Pr > A Sq 0.2094 ----------------------------Region=EU -----------------------------The UNIVA RIATE Procedure Variable: Planning Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 2.0 134 4.4 142 2.0 99 4.4 148 2.1 100 4.5 116 2.2 81 4.9 60 2.3 122 4.9 106 ---------------------------Region=EU -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Planning Normal Probability Plot 4.9+ * | +++ | ****++ | **++ | **** | **** | ****** 3.5+ ****+ | **+ | **** | ***** **

PAGE 309

293 Appendix N (Continued) | ***+ | ***+ | ***+ 2.1+* *+*+ + ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ 2 1 0 +1 +2 ----------------------------Region=LA -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Planning Moments N 78 Sum Weights 78 Mean 3.33589744 Sum Observations 260.2 Std Deviation 0.76242511 Variance 0.58129204 Skewness 1.0838214 Kurtosis 1.90714194 Uncorrected SS 91 2.76 Corrected SS 44.7594872 Coeff Variation 22.8551723 Std Error Mean 0.08632764 Basic Statistical Measures Location Variability Mean 3.335897 Std Deviation 0.76243 Median 3.500000 Variance 0.58129 Mode 3.600000 Range 3.90000 Interquartile Range 0.80000 ----------------------------Region=LA ----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Planning Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 38.64229 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 39 Pr >= |M| <.0001 Signed Rank S 1540.5 Pr >= |S| <.0001 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic -----p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.917501 Pr < W <0.0001 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.136491 Pr > D <0.0100 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.366705 Pr > W Sq <0.0050 Anderson Darling A Sq 2.078502 Pr > A Sq <0.0050 ----------------------------Region=LA -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Planning

PAGE 310

294 Appendix N (Continued) Extreme Observatio ns ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 1.0 172 4.5 222 1.0 169 4.5 229 1.1 170 4.6 190 1.7 206 4.6 191 1.9 227 4.9 204 ----------------------------Region=LA -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Planning Normal Probability Plot 4.75+ ***+*+ | ++***** | ****** ****** | ********+++ | ****+++ | ++****+ | +++++++** 1.25++* * + ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ 2 1 0 +1 +2 ----------------------------Region=NA -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Planning Moments N 114 Sum Weights 114 Mean 3.09298246 Sum Observations 352.6 Std Deviation 0.73961474 Variance 0.54702996 Skewness 0.3902465 Kurtosis 0.13562024 Uncorrected SS 1152.4 Corrected SS 61.814386 Coeff Variation 23.9126717 Std Error Mean 0.06927127 Basic Statistical Measures Location Variability Mean 3. 092982 Std Deviation 0.73961 Median 3.200000 Variance 0.54703 Mode 3.600000 Range 4.00000 Interquartile Range 1.00000 ---------------------------Region=NA -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Planning Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 44.65029 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 57 Pr >= |M| <.0001

PAGE 311

295 Appendix N (Continued) Signed Rank S 3277.5 Pr >= |S| <.0001 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic ------p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.975765 Pr < W 0.0363 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.108336 Pr > D <0.0100 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.220991 Pr > W Sq <0.005 0 Anderson Darling A Sq 1.210887 Pr > A Sq <0.0050 ----------------------------Region=NA -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Planning Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 1.0 316 4.1 346 1.2 314 4.3 331 1.5 271 4.6 241 1.5 264 4.7 344 1.7 322 5.0 293 ----------------------------Region=NA -----------------------------The UNIVAR IATE Procedure Variable: Planning Normal Probability Plot 5.25+ | *+*+++ | ++***+* | *********** 3.25+ ********+ | ******+ | ******** | +**+**+ 1.25+*++* + ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ 2 1 0 +1 +2 The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Planning Schematic Plots | 5 + | 0 | | | |

PAGE 312

296 Appendix N (Continued) | | 0 | | | | | | 4 + + ----+ | | | | | -+ -* | + ----+ | -+ -* + ----+ + ----+ ----* | | | | -+ -* | + | 3 + + ----+ + ----+ + ----+ | | | | | | | | | | | | 2 + | | | | | 0 | | 1 + 0 -----------+ ----------+ ----------+ ----------+ ----------Region AS AU EU LA The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Planning Schematic Plots | 5 + | | | | | | | 4 + | | | | + ----+ | ----* 3 + | + | | | | | + ----+ | | 2 + | | | | | | | 1 + 0 -----------+ ----------Region NA Note: Null Hypothes is: H o : U AS = U AU = U EU =U LA = U NA Obtained F= 3.58 Alpha=0.05 Df=4 Critical F=2.40 Decision: Reject null hypothesis.

PAGE 313

297 Appendix O. Statistical Analysis from SAS for Research Question 3 O.1. Student Education Strategies by Region 0 1 2 3 4 5 Asia Australia Europe Latin America North America Strategy 15 Fostering global recruitment to attract the best students. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Asia Australia Europe Latin America North America Strategy 16 Facilitating the transfer of credits from recognized foreign universities. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Asia Australia Europe Latin America North America Strategy 17 Motivating students to participate in study abroad programs.

PAGE 314

298 Appendix O (Continued) 0 1 2 3 4 5 Asia Australia Europe Latin America North America Strategy 18 Offering joint degree programs with foreign universities. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Asia Australia Europe Latin America North America Strategy 19 Requiring students to take courses with international content. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Asia Australia Europe Latin America North America Strategy 20 Encouraging students to participate in international research.

PAGE 315

299 Appendix O (Continued) 0 1 2 3 4 5 Asia Australia Europe Latin America North America Strategy 21 Requiring foreign language credits for undergraduate students. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Asia Australia Europe Latin America North America Strategy 22 Offering interdisciplinary global programs with STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math). 0 1 2 3 4 5 Asia Australia Europe Latin America North America Strategy 23 Expanding the international collection at the university's library.

PAGE 316

300 Appendix O (Continued) O. 2 One W ay ANOVA: Student Education Strategies by Region (Asia, Australia, Europe, Latin America, and North America) The ANOVA Procedure Class Level Information Class Levels Values Region 5 AS AU EU LA NA Number of Observations Read 349 Number of Ob servations Used 349 The ANOVA Procedure Dependent Variable: Student Sum of Source DF Squares Mean Square F Value Model 4 9 .2028427 2.3007107 4.83 Error 344 164.0247218 0.4768161 Corrected Total 348 173.2275645 Source Pr > F Model 0.0008 Error Corrected Total The ANOVA Procedure Dependent Variable: Student R Square Coeff Var Root MSE Student Mean 0.053126 21.30213 0.690519 3.241547 0 1 2 3 4 5 Asia Australia Europe Latin America North America Strategy 24 Promoting intercultural interactions amoung students.

PAGE 317

301 A ppendix O (Continued) Source DF Anova SS Mean Square F Value Region 4 9.20284269 2.30071067 4.83 Source Pr > F Region 0.0008 The ANOVA Procedure Level of ----------Student ----------Region N Mean Std Dev AS 45 3.28000000 0.70051929 A U 14 3.46428571 0.44653735 EU 98 3.36938776 0.70028097 LA 78 3.35128205 0.72769759 NA 114 3.01403509 0.67507813 ---------------------------Region=AS -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Student Moments N 45 Sum Weights 45 M ean 3.28 Sum Observations 147.6 Std Deviation 0.70051929 Variance 0.49072727 Skewness 0.1741546 Kurtosis 0.7123328 Uncorrected SS 505.72 Corrected SS 21.592 Coeff Variation 21.3572954 Std Error Mean 0.10442725 Basic Statistical Measures Location Variability Mean 3.280000 Std Deviation 0.70052 Media n 3.300000 Variance 0.49073 Mode 3.000000 Range 2.60000 Interquartile Range 0.90000 ----------------------------Region=AS -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Student Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 31.40943 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 22.5 Pr >= |M| <.0001 Signed Rank S 517.5 Pr >= |S| <.0001 Tests for Normality

PAGE 318

302 Appendix O (Continued) Test -Statistic ------p Value ----Shapiro Wilk W 0.964648 Pr < W 0.1834 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.122465 Pr > D 0.0889 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.067442 Pr > W Sq >0.2500 Anderson Darling A Sq 0.454144 Pr > A Sq >0.2500 ----------------------------Region=AS -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Student Extreme Observations ---Low est ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 2.0 10 4.2 21 2.0 5 4.3 16 2.0 1 4.3 30 2.1 31 4.4 41 2.2 11 4.6 43 ----------------------------Region=AS -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable : Student Normal Probability Plot 4.7+ +++* | ++* | ***+* | **++ | *****+ | *++ | **** | *** | ******* | +++ | **+ | +** | ++** 2.1+ *+* + ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ 2 1 0 +1 +2 ----------------------------Region=AU -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Student Moments N 14 Sum Weights 14

PAGE 319

303 Appendix O (Continued) Mean 3.46428571 Sum Observations 48.5 Std Deviation 0.44653735 Variance 0.1993956 Skewness 1.0428366 Kur tosis 2.99239298 Uncorrected SS 170.61 Corrected SS 2.59214286 Coeff Variation 12.8897379 Std Error Mean 0.11934213 Basic Statistical Measures Location Va riability Mean 3.464286 Std Deviation 0.44654 Median 3.450000 Variance 0.19940 Mode 3.200000 Range 1.90000 Interquartile Range 0 .40000 Note: The mode displayed is the smallest of 6 modes with a count of 2. ----------------------------Region=AU -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Student Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 29.02819 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 7 Pr >= |M| 0.0001 Signed Rank S 5 2.5 Pr >= |S| 0.0001 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic ------p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.90699 Pr < W 0.1425 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.205545 Pr > D 0.1060 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.073231 Pr > W Sq 0.2391 Anderson Darling A Sq 0.51019 Pr > A Sq 0.1694 ----------------------------Region=AU -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE P rocedure Variable: Student Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 2.3 51 3.7 48 3.2 59 3.7 54 3.2 47 3.9 46 3.3 57 3.9 52 3.3 49 4.2 55 Normal Probability Plot 4.25+ +++++*++++++ | *+*+*+*+*++* 3.25+ +*+*+*+*+*+ | +++++++++++

PAGE 320

304 Appendix O (Continued) 2.25+++++ + ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ 2 1 0 +1 +2 ----------------------------Region=EU -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Student Moments N 98 Sum Weights 98 Mean 3.36938776 Sum Observations 330.2 Std Deviation 0.70028097 Var iance 0.49039344 Skewness 0.34817275 Kurtosis 0.0455895 Uncorrected SS 1160.14 Corrected SS 47.5681633 Coeff Variation 20.7836266 Std Error Mean 0.07073906 Basic Statistical Measures Location Variability Mean 3.369388 Std Deviation 0.70028 Median 3.300000 Variance 0.49039 Mode 2.900000 Range 3.40000 Interquartile Range 0.90000 ----------------------------Region=EU -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Student Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 47.63122 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 49 Pr >= |M| <.0001 Signed Rank S 2425. 5 Pr >= |S| <.0001 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic ------p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.974799 Pr < W 0.0563 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.110893 Pr > D <0.0100 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.172441 Pr > W Sq 0.0123 Anderson Darling A Sq 0.964912 Pr > A Sq 0.0158 ----------------------------Region=EU -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Pro cedure Variable: Student Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs

PAGE 321

305 Appendix O (Continued) 1.6 99 4.8 77 2.1 136 4.8 78 2.2 134 4.9 118 2.2 122 5.0 60 2.2 87 5.0 73 ----------------------------Region=EU -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Student Normal Probability Plot 5.1+ +* | *** +++ | +++ | ****++ | **++ | *** | ****+ | **+ | +*** | *** ** | **** | ****** | ***++ | *+++ | *****+ | +++ | +++ 1.7+*++ + ---+ ---+ --+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ----------------------------Region=LA -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Student Moments N 78 Sum Weights 78 Mean 3.35128205 Sum Observations 261.4 Std Deviation 0.72769759 Variance 0.52954379 Skewness 1.2474015 Kurtosis 1.732993 81 Uncorrected SS 916.8 Corrected SS 40.7748718 Coeff Variation 21.7140063 Std Error Mean 0.08239553

PAGE 322

306 Appendix O (Continued) Basic Statistical Measures Location Va riability Mean 3.351282 Std Deviation 0.72770 Median 3.500000 Variance 0.52954 Mode 3.800000 Range 3.70000 Interquartile Range 0 .70000 ----------------------------Region=LA -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Student Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Stati stic ----p Value -----Student's t t 40.67311 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 39 Pr >= |M| <.0001 Signed Rank S 1540.5 Pr >= |S| <.0001 Tests for Normal ity Test -Statistic ------p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.892649 Pr < W <0.0001 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.164217 Pr > D <0.0100 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.477771 Pr > W Sq <0.0050 Anderson Darling A Sq 2.834127 Pr > A Sq <0.0050 ----------------------------Region=LA -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Student Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 1.1 171 4.1 198 1.2 169 4.1 229 1.4 227 4.2 191 1.7 206 4.6 190 1.7 170 4.8 204 ----------------------------Region=LA -----------------------------T he UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Student Normal Probability Plot 4.75+ ++++*++ | +********* | *********** | ********+++

PAGE 323

307 Appendix O (Continued) | *****++++ | ++++*++ |+++++++ *** 1.25+ * + ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ 2 1 0 +1 +2 ----------------------------Region=NA -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Stude nt Moments N 114 Sum Weights 114 Mean 3.01403509 Sum Observations 343.6 Std Deviation 0.67507813 Variance 0.45573048 Skewness 0.0456342 Kurtosis 0.59042937 Uncorrected SS 1087.12 Corrected SS 51.4975439 Coeff Variation 22.3978191 Std Error Mean 0.06322686 Basic Statistical Measures Lo cation Variability Mean 3.014035 Std Deviation 0.67508 Median 3.000000 Variance 0.45573 Mode 2.900000 Range 4.00000 Interquartile Range 0.90000 ----------------------------Region=NA -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Student Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 47.67017 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 57 Pr >= |M| <.0001 Signed Rank S 3277.5 Pr >= |S| <.0001 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic ------p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.991063 Pr < W 0.6678 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.058299 Pr > D >0.1500 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.059534 Pr > W Sq >0.2500 Anderson Darling A Sq 0.376879 Pr > A Sq >0.2500 ----------------------------Region=NA -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Student Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs

PAGE 324

308 Appendix O (Continued) 1.0 316 4.1 250 1.4 314 4.2 331 1.6 343 4.5 241 1.7 322 4.7 344 1.7 271 5.0 293 ----------------------------Region=NA ----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Student Normal Probability Plot 5.25+ | *+++ | ++*+*+++ | *********** 3.25+ *******+ | ********** | ******++ | ++**+** 1.25+*++* + ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ 2 1 0 +1 +2 The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Student Schematic Plots | 5 + | | | | | | | | | | | | | 4 + + ----+ | | | | | | + ----+ + ----+ + ----+ | | | -+ -* | | ----* | -+ -* + ----+ -+ -* | + | 3 + + ----+ + ----+ + ----+ | | | | | | | | | | 0 | | 2 + | | | | 0 | | 0 | 0 1 + 0 -----------+ ----------+ ----------+ ----------+ ----------Region AS AU EU LA The UNIVARIATE Procedur e Variable: Student

PAGE 325

309 Appendix O (Continued) Schematic Plots | 5 + 0 | | | | | | 4 + | | | | + ----+ | | | 3 + -+ -* | | | | + ----+ | | 2 + | | | | | | 1 + 0 -----------+ ----------Region NA Note: Null Hypothesis: H o : U AS = U AU = U EU =U LA = U NA Obtained F= 4.83 Alpha=0.05 DF =4 Critical F=2.40 Decision: Reject null hypothesis.

PAGE 326

310 Appendix P Statistical Analysis from SAS for Research Question 4 P.1 Teaching and Faculty Development Strategies by Region 0 1 2 3 4 5 Asia Australia Europe Latin America North America Strategy 25 Providing financial incentives for curriculum internationalization. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Asia Australia Europe Latin America North America Strategy 26 Considering international research and teaching during salary and promotion decisions. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Asia Australia Europe Latin America North America Strategy 27 Funding faculty participation in international teaching and research.

PAGE 327

311 Appendix P (Continued) 0 1 2 3 4 5 Asia Australia Europe Latin America North America Strategy 28 Acquiring new technologies to enhance international teaching. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Asia Australia Europe Latin America North America Strategy 29 Recruiting international faculty and staff. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Asia Australia Europe Latin America North America Strategy 30 Promoting faculty engagement in campus internationalization.

PAGE 328

312 Appendix P (Continued) 0 1 2 3 4 5 Asia Australia Europe Latin America North America Strategy 31 Providing training in cross sultural communication for faculty and staff. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Asia Australia Europe Latin America North America Strategy 32 Considering foreign language fluency in salary/promotion decisions. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Asia Australia Europe Latin America North America Strategy 33 Funding international academic travel for faculty and staff.

PAGE 329

313 Appendix P (Continued) P.2 One W ay ANOVA: Teaching and Faculty Development Strategies by Region (Asia, Australia, Europe, Latin America, and North America) The ANOVA Procedure Class Level Information Class Levels Values Region 5 AS AU EU LA NA Number of Observations Read 349 Number of Observations Used 349 The ANOVA Procedure D ependent Variable: Faculty Sum of Source DF Squares Mean Square F Value Model 4 15.3040086 3.8260021 5.38 Error 344 244.8236 132 0.7116966 Corrected Total 348 260.1276218 Source Pr > F Model 0.0003 Error Corrected Total The ANOVA Procedure Dependent Variable: Faculty R Square Coeff Var Root MSE Faculty Mean 0.058833 29.78189 0.843621 2.832665 0 1 2 3 4 5 Asia Australia Europe Latin America North America Strategy 34 Featuring global activities and research in institutional publications.

PAGE 330

314 Appendix P (Continued) Source DF Anova SS Mean Square F Value Region 4 15.30400857 3.82600214 5.38 Source Pr > F Region 0.0003 The ANOVA Procedure Level of ----------Faculty ----------Region N Mean Std Dev AS 45 3.17333333 0.72532125 AU 14 2.99285714 0.56631642 EU 98 2.82244898 1.03471004 LA 78 2.99743590 0.80096928 NA 114 2.57456140 0.75408168 ----------------------------Region=AS -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Faculty Moments N 45 Sum Weights 45 Mean 3.17333333 Sum Observations 142.8 Std Deviati on 0.72532125 Variance 0.52609091 Skewness 0.2308287 Kurtosis 0.6153581 Uncorrected SS 476.3 Corrected SS 23.148 Coeff Variation 22.8567619 Std Error Mean 0.10812451 Basic Statistical Measures Location Variability Mean 3.173333 Std Deviation 0.72532 Median 3.000000 Variance 0.52609 Mode 3.000000 Range 2.70000 Interquartile Range 1.00000 ----------------------------Region=AS -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Faculty Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 29.34888 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 22.5 Pr >= |M| <.0001 Signe d Rank S 517.5 Pr >= |S| <.0001 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic ------p Value -----

PAGE 331

315 Appendix P (Continued) Shapiro Wilk W 0.952158 Pr < W 0.0613 Kol mogorov Smirnov D 0.127771 Pr > D 0.0651 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.117271 Pr > W Sq 0.0669 Anderson Darling A Sq 0.708199 Pr > A Sq 0.0629 ----------------------------Region=AS ----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Faculty Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 1.6 10 4.2 16 1.8 2 4.2 21 1.9 5 4.2 30 2.0 4 4.3 19 2.0 1 4.3 28 ----------------------------Region=AS -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Faculty Normal Probability Plot 4.3+ **+* * | *****++ | +++ | **++ | *** | *** | ******* | **+++ | *++ | ***+ | +*+ | ++** | *+* 1.7+ *+++ + ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ 2 1 0 +1 +2 ----------------------------Region=AU -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Faculty Moments N 14 Sum Weights 14 Mean 2.99285714 Sum Observations 41.9 Std De viation 0.56631642 Variance 0.32071429 Skewness 0.1164392 Kurtosis 1.456489

PAGE 332

316 Appendix P (Continued) Uncorrected SS 129.57 Corrected SS 4.16928571 Coeff Variation 18.922267 Std Error Mean 0.15135443 Basic Statistical Measures Location Variability Mean 2.992857 Std Deviation 0.56632 Median 3.150000 Variance 0.320 71 Mode 2.500000 Range 1.70000 Interquartile Range 1.00000 Note: The mode displayed is the smallest of 2 modes with a count of 2. ----------------------------Region=AU ----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Faculty Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 19 .77383 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 7 Pr >= |M| 0.0001 Signed Rank S 52.5 Pr >= |S| 0.0001 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic ------p Value ----Shapiro Wilk W 0.931331 Pr < W 0.3185 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.165071 Pr > D >0.1500 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.068642 Pr > W Sq >0.2500 Anderson Darling A Sq 0.399661 Pr > A S q >0.2500 ----------------------------Region=AU -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Faculty Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 2.1 55 3.3 53 2.3 47 3.5 50 2.4 51 3.6 46 2.5 57 3.7 56 2.5 49 3.8 59 ----------------------------Region=AU -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Facul ty Normal Probability Plot 3.9+ ++* | +*++

PAGE 333

317 Appendix P (Continued) | *+++ 3 .3+ *+*++ | +++ | ++++ 2.7+ +++* | +*+* | ++*+ 2.1+ *++ + ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ 2 1 0 +1 +2 ----------------------------Region=EU -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Faculty Moments N 98 Sum Weights 98 Mean 2.82244898 Sum Observations 276.6 Std Deviation 1.03471004 Variance 1.07062487 Skewness 0.6381309 Kurtosis 0.61030726 Uncorrected SS 884.54 Corrected SS 103.850612 Coeff Variation 36.6600087 Std Error Mean 0.1045215 Basic Statis tical Measures Location Variability Mean 2.822449 Std Deviation 1.03471 Median 3.000000 Variance 1.07062 Mode 3.000000 Range 4.6000 0 Interquartile Range 1.30000 ----------------------------Region=EU -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Faculty Te sts for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 27.00353 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 48 Pr >= |M| <.0001 Signed Rank S 2328 Pr >= |S| <.0001 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic ------p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.954683 Pr < W 0.0019 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.108938 Pr > D <0.0100 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.126523 Pr > W Sq 0.0487 Anderson Darling A Sq 0.971044 Pr > A Sq 0.0152 ----------------------------Region=EU -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Faculty Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --

PAGE 334

318 Appendix P (Continued) Value Obs Value Obs 0.0 98 4.5 118 0.0 87 4.5 148 0.2 88 4.6 77 0.2 86 4.6 78 0.3 84 4.6 106 ---------------------------Region=EU -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Faculty Normal Probability Plot 4.75+ ***+* | ******* | ****+ 3.25+ ******** | *****++ | *****+ 1.75+ ******+ | ++*++ | +++++ 0.25+*++ *** + ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ 2 1 0 +1 +2 ---------------------------Region=LA -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Faculty Moments N 78 Sum Weights 78 Mean 2.9974359 Sum Observations 233.8 Std Deviation 0.80096928 Variance 0.64155178 Skewness 0.8391583 Kurtosis 0.55970253 Uncorrected SS 750.2 Corrected SS 49.399487 2 Coeff Variation 26.721815 Std Error Mean 0.09069191 Basic Statistical Measures Location Variability Mean 2.997436 Std Deviation 0.80097 Median 3. 100000 Variance 0.64155 Mode 3.000000 Range 3.90000 Interquartile Range 0.90000 Note: The mode displayed is the smallest of 2 modes with a count of 8. ---------------------------Region=LA -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Faculty Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value ----

PAGE 335

319 Appendix P (Continued) Student's t t 33.05075 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 39 Pr >= |M| <.0001 Signed Rank S 1540.5 Pr >= |S| <.0001 Tests for Normalit y Test -Statistic ------p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.924215 Pr < W 0.0002 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.167944 Pr > D <0.0100 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.35529 Pr > W Sq <0.0050 Anderson Darling A Sq 2.125231 Pr > A Sq <0.0050 ----------------------------Region=LA -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Faculty Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 1.0 172 3.9 222 1.0 171 4.0 163 1.0 169 4.0 200 1.1 170 4.0 204 1.4 206 4.9 191 ----------------------------Region=LA -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Faculty Normal Probability Plot 4.75+ +++++*+ | ++++** | ************ | *********++ | *****++++ | ****++ | +++**** 1.25+ *+++*+*** + ---+ ---+ ---+ --+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ 2 1 0 +1 +2 ----------------------------Region=NA -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Fac ulty Moments N 114 Sum Weights 114 Mean 2.5745614 Sum Observations 293.5 Std Deviation 0.75408168 Variance 0.56863919 Skewne ss 0.0159784 Kurtosis 0.5918065 Uncorrected SS 819.89 Corrected SS 64.2562281 Coeff Variation 29.2897145 Std Error Mean 0.07062622 Basic Statistical Measures

PAGE 336

320 Appendix P ( Continued) Location Variability Mean 2.574561 Std Deviation 0.75408 Median 2.600000 Variance 0.56864 Mode 2.000000 Range 3.60000 Interquartile Range 1.10000 Note: The mode displayed is the smallest of 2 modes with a count of ----------------------------Region=NA -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedu re Variable: Faculty 10. Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 36.45334 Pr > |t| <.000 1 Sign M 57 Pr >= |M| <.0001 Signed Rank S 3277.5 Pr >= |S| <.0001 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic ------p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.98082 Pr < W 0.1016 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.103852 Pr > D <0.0100 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.160014 Pr > W Sq 0.0186 Anderson Darling A Sq 0.852047 Pr > A Sq 0.0281 ---------------------------Region=NA -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Faculty Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 1.0 316 3.8 275 1.0 260 3.8 346 1.2 340 3.9 305 1.2 267 4.0 342 1.3 322 4.6 344 ----------------------------Region=NA -----------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Faculty Normal Probability Plot

PAGE 337

321 Appendix P (Continued) 4.75+ | +++*+++ | *****+** | ********* | *****++ | *******+ | +*****+ 1.25+* **+**** + ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ ---+ 2 1 0 +1 +2 The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Faculty Schematic Plots | 6 + | | | | | | | 4 + + ----+ | | | | | | + ----+ + ----+ + ----+ | -+ -* -+ -* -+ -* -+ -* | | + ----+ | | + ----+ 2 + | | + ----+ | | | | | | | 0 | | 0 + 0 -----------+ ----------+ ----------+ ----------+ ----------Region AS AU EU LA The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Faculty Schematic Plots | 6 + | | | | 4 + | | | | + ----+ | -+ -* 2 + + ----+ | | | | | 0 + -----------+ ----------Region NA Note: Null Hypothesis: H o : U AS = U AU = U EU =U LA = U NA Obtained F= 5.38 Alpha=0.05 Df=4 Critical F=2.40 Decision: Reject null hypothesis.

PAGE 338

322 Appendix Q. Statistical Analysis from SAS for Research Question 5 Statistical Factorial Analysis of Variance by Position and Region Q.1. MANOVA 1: Planning and Operation Strategies by Position and Region The ANOVA Procedure Class Level Information Class Levels Values position 2 1 2 region 5 1 2 3 4 5 Number of Observations Read 349 Number of Observations Used 349 The ANOVA Procedure Dependent Variable: planning Sum of Source DF Squares Mean Square F Value Model 9 11.1214274 1.2357142 2.64 Error 339 158.4345038 0.4673584 Corrected Total 348 169.5 559312 Source Pr > F Model 0.0057 Error Corrected Total The ANOVA Procedure Dependent Variable: planning R Square Coeff Var Root MSE planning Mean 0.065591 20.89038 0.683636 3.272493 Source DF Anova SS Mean Square F Value position 1 2.47214039 2.47214039 5.29 region 4 6.66326019 1.66581505 3.56 position*region 4 1.98602685 0.49650671 1.06 Source Pr > F position 0.0221 region 0.0073 position*region 0.3751 The ANOVA Procedure Level of ----------planning ---------

PAGE 339

323 Appendix Q (Continued) position N Mean Std Dev 1 107 3.39906542 0.59565967 2 242 3.21652893 0.73296387 Level of ----------planning ---------region N Mean Std Dev 1 45 3.38666667 0.67000678 2 14 3.67142857 0.26436738 3 98 3.30816327 0.61855726 4 78 3.34102564 0.76216300 5 114 3.10087719 0.73104309 Level of Level of ----------planning ---------position region N Mean Std Dev 1 1 10 3.670000 00 0.62547760 1 2 5 3.56000000 0.23021729 1 3 31 3.41290323 0.50115994 The ANOVA Procedure Level of Level of ----------planni ng ---------position region N Mean Std Dev 1 4 16 3.61250000 0.50973850 1 5 45 3.23555556 0.66815742 2 1 35 3. 30571429 0.66859944 2 2 9 3.73333333 0.27386128 2 3 67 3.25970149 0.66379526 2 4 62 3.27096774 0.80314690 2 5 69 3.01304348 0.76117422 -----------------------position=1 region=1 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: planning Moments N 10 Sum Weights 10 Mean 3.67 Sum Observations 36.7 Std Deviation 0.6254776 Variance 0.39122222 Skewness 0.3086764 Kurtosis 1.31018 2 Uncorrected SS 138.21 Corrected SS 3.521 Coeff Variation 17.0429862 Std Error Mean 0.19779338 Basic Statistical Measures Location Variability Mean 3.670000 Std Deviation 0.62548 Median 3.950000 Variance 0.39122 Mode 2.900000 Range 1.80000 Interquartile Range 1.20000 Note: The mode dis played is the smallest of 3 modes with a count of 2.

PAGE 340

324 Appendix Q (Continued) -----------------------position=1 region=1 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: planning Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 18.55472 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 5 Pr >= |M| 0.0020 Signed Rank S 27 .5 Pr >= |S| 0.0020 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic ------p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.882104 Pr < W 0.1379 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.243459 Pr > D 0.0909 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.10359 Pr > W Sq 0.0892 Anderson Darling A Sq 0.594902 Pr > A Sq 0.0909 -----------------------position=1 region=1 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Pr ocedure Variable: planning Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 2.8 5 4.0 7 2.9 4 4.0 10 2.9 1 4.1 3 3.4 2 4.1 8 3.9 6 4.6 9 -----------------------posi tion=1 region=2 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: planning Moments N 5 Sum Weights 5 Mean 3.56 Sum Observations 17.8 Std Deviation 0.23021729 Variance 0.053 Skewness 0.19669686 Kurtosis 2.7162691 Uncorrected SS 63.58 Corrected SS 0.212 Coeff Variation 6.46677777 Std Error Mean 0.1029563 Basic Statistical Measures Location Variability Mean 3.560000 Std Deviation 0.23022 Median 3.50 0000 Variance 0.05300 Mode 3.800000 Range 0.50000 Interquartile Range 0.40000

PAGE 341

325 Appendix Q (Continued) -----------------------position=1 region=2 -----------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: planning Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 34.57778 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 2.5 Pr >= |M| 0.0625 Signed Rank S 7.5 Pr >= |S| 0.0625 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic ------p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.867566 Pr < W 0.2567 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.251409 Pr > D >0.1500 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.056574 Pr > W Sq >0.2500 Anderson Darling A Sq 0.366123 Pr > A Sq >0.2500 -----------------------position=1 region=2 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: planning Extreme Observations ---Lowest -----Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 3.3 13 3.3 13 3.4 12 3.4 12 3.5 15 3.5 15 3.8 14 3.8 11 3.8 11 3.8 14 -----------------------position=1 region=3 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: planning Moments N 31 Sum Weights 31 Mean 3.41290323 Sum Observations 105.8 Std Deviation 0.50115994 Variance 0.25116129 Skewness 0.58605549 Kurtosis 1.13421066 Uncorrected SS 368.62 Corrected SS 7.53483871 Coeff Variation 14.6842706 Std Error Mean 0.09001098 Basic Statistical Measures Location Variability Mean 3.412903 Std Deviation 0.50116 Median 3.400000 Variance 0.25116 Mode 3.600000 Range 2.30000 Interqua rtile Range 0.70000

PAGE 342

326 Appendix Q (Continued) -----------------------position=1 region=3 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: planning Tests for Locat ion: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 37.91652 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 15.5 Pr >= |M| <.0001 Signed Rank S 248 Pr >= |S| <.0001 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic ------p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.951938 Pr < W 0.1765 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.097161 Pr > D >0.1500 Cramer vo n Mises W Sq 0.051365 Pr > W Sq >0.2500 Anderson Darling A Sq 0.386297 Pr > A Sq >0.2500 -----------------------position=1 region=3 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: planning Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 2.6 38 3.9 17 2.6 24 3.9 45 2.8 46 4.0 30 2.8 41 4.1 35 2.8 33 4.9 21 -----------------------position=1 region=4 -----------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: planning Moments N 16 Sum Weights 16 Mean 3.6125 Sum Observations 57.8 Std Deviation 0.5097385 Variance 0.25983333 Skewness 0.11034059 Kurtosis 0.1685614 Uncorrected SS 212.7 Corrected SS 3.8975 Coeff Variation 14.110 4082 Std Error Mean 0.12743462 Basic Statistical Measures Location Variability Mean 3.612500 Std Deviation 0.50974 Median 3.600000 Variance 0.25983 Mode 3.600000 Range 1.90000 Interquartile Range 0.60000

PAGE 343

327 Appendix Q (Continued) -----------------------position=1 region=4 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: planning Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 28.34787 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 8 Pr >= |M| <.0001 Signed Rank S 68 Pr >= |S| <.0001 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic ------p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.960184 Pr < W 0.6651 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.134782 Pr > D >0.1500 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.055289 Pr > W Sq >0.2500 Anderson Darling A Sq 0.324876 Pr > A Sq >0.2500 -----------------------p osition=1 region=4 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: planning Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 2.6 49 3.8 58 3.0 53 3.9 55 3.2 60 4.2 62 3.2 56 4.5 51 3.3 50 4.5 52 -----------------------position=1 region=5 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: planning Mom ents N 45 Sum Weights 45 Mean 3.23555556 Sum Observations 145.6 Std Deviation 0.66815742 Variance 0.44643434 Skewness 0.2506335 Kurtosis 0.07266205 Uncorrected SS 490.74 Corrected SS 19.6431111 Coeff Variation 20.6504698 Std Error Mean 0.09960303 Basic Statistical Measures Location Variability Mean 3.235556 Std Deviation 0.66816 Median 3.400000 Variance 0.44643 Mode 3.600000 Range 3.20000 Interquartile Range 0.80000

PAGE 344

328 Appendix Q (Continued) -----------------------position=1 region=5 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: planning Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 32.48451 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 22.5 Pr >= |M| <.0001 Signed Rank S 517.5 Pr >= |S| <.0001 Test s for Normality Test -Statistic ------p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.976304 Pr < W 0.4782 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.130537 Pr > D 0.0527 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.097781 Pr > W Sq 0.1197 Anderson Darling A Sq 0.51863 Pr > A Sq 0.1864 -----------------------position=1 region=5 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: planning Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 1.5 65 4.0 83 2.1 74 4.0 86 2.2 94 4.1 68 2.3 92 4.6 69 2.4 100 4.7 107 -----------------------position=2 region=1 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: planning Moments N 35 Sum Weights 35 Mean 3.30571429 Sum Observations 115.7 Std Deviation 0.66859944 Variance 0.44702521 Skewness 0.3820538 Kurtosis 0.64216854 Uncorrected SS 397.67 Corrected SS 15.1988571 Coeff Variation 20.2255664 Std Error Mean 0 .11301393 Basic Statistical Measures Location Variability Mean 3.305714 Std Deviation 0.66860 Median 3.400000 Variance 0.44703 Mode 3.300000 Range 3.10000 Interquartile Range 0.80000 Note: The mode displayed is the smallest of 3 modes with a count of 4.

PAGE 345

329 Appendix Q (Continued) -----------------------position=2 region=1 -----------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: planning Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 29.2505 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 17.5 Pr >= |M| <.0001 Signed Rank S 315 Pr >= |S| <.0001 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic ------p Va lue -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.960567 Pr < W 0.2378 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.153733 Pr > D 0.0354 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.085259 Pr > W Sq 0.1766 Anderson Darling A Sq 0.546452 Pr > A Sq 0.1520 -----------------------position=2 region=1 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: planning Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 1.8 108 3.9 131 1.9 112 4.1 128 1.9 111 4.1 139 2.5 141 4.2 137 2.6 130 4.9 140 -----------------------position=2 region=2 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: pl anning Moments N 9 Sum Weights 9 Mean 3.73333333 Sum Observations 33.6 Std Deviation 0.27386128 Variance 0.075 Skew ness 1.99266683 Kurtosis 5.45396825 Uncorrected SS 126.04 Corrected SS 0.6 Coeff Variation 7.33556997 Std Error Mean 0.09128709 Basic Statistical Measures Location Variability Mean 3.733333 Std Deviation 0.27386 Median 3.700000 Variance 0.07500 Mode 3.700000 Range 1.00000 Interquartile Range 0.10000

PAGE 346

330 Appendix Q (Continued) -----------------------position=2 region=2 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: planning T ests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 40.89662 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 4.5 Pr >= |M| 0.0039 Signed Rank S 22.5 Pr >= |S | 0.0039 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic ------p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.755638 Pr < W 0.0063 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.326216 Pr > D <0.0100 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.198687 Pr > W Sq <0.0050 Anderson Darling A Sq 1.060108 Pr > A Sq <0.0050 -----------------------position=2 region=2 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: planning Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 3.4 146 3.7 144 3.6 151 3.7 148 3.6 149 3.7 150 3.7 150 3.8 145 3.7 148 4.4 147 -----------------------position=2 region= 3 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: planning Moments N 67 Sum Weights 67 Mean 3.25 970149 Sum Observations 218.4 Std Deviation 0.66379526 Variance 0.44062415 Skewness 0.17146618 Kurtosis 0.4468785 Uncorrected SS 741 Corrected SS 29.081194 Coeff Varia tion 20.3636825 Std Error Mean 0.0810955 Basic Statistical Measures Location Variability Mean 3.259701 Std Deviation 0.66380 Median 3.200000 Varia nce 0.44062 Mode 3.600000 Range 2.90000 Interquartile Range 0.70000

PAGE 347

331 Appendix Q (Continued) -----------------------position=2 region=3 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: planning Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 40.19584 Pr > |t| <. 0001 Sign M 33.5 Pr >= |M| <.0001 Signed Rank S 1139 Pr >= |S| <.0001 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic ------p Value -----Shapiro Wil k W 0.981731 Pr < W 0.4296 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.0876 Pr > D >0.1500 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.068232 Pr > W Sq >0.2500 Anderson Darling A Sq 0.395028 Pr > A Sq >0.2500 ----------------------position=2 region=3 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: planning Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 2.0 202 4.4 163 2.0 178 4.4 206 2.1 179 4.4 210 2.2 167 4.5 190 2.3 196 4.9 152 -----------------------position=2 region=4 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: planning Moments N 62 Sum Weights 62 Mean 3.27096774 Sum Observations 202.8 Std Deviation 0.8031469 Variance 0.64504495 Skewness 1.0485513 Kurtosis 1.49599975 Uncorrected SS 702.7 Corrected SS 39.3477419 Coeff Variation 24.5538008 Std Error Mean 0.10199976 Basic Statistical Measures Location Variability Mean 3.270968 Std Deviation 0.80315 Median 3.500000 Variance 0.64504 Mode 3.600000 Range 3.90000 Interquartile Range 0.80000

PAGE 348

332 Appendix Q (Continued) -----------------------position=2 region=4 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: planning Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 32.06839 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 31 Pr >= |M| <.0001 Signed Rank S 976.5 Pr >= |S| <.0001 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic ------p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.913869 Pr < W 0.0003 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.144501 Pr > D <0.0100 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.332661 Pr > W Sq <0.0050 Anderson Darling A Sq 1.892152 Pr > A Sq <0.0050 -----------------------position=2 region=4 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable : planning Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 1.0 229 4.1 251 1.0 226 4.2 268 1.1 227 4.6 242 1.7 255 4.6 243 1.9 274 4.9 254 -----------------------position=2 region=5 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: planning Moments N 69 Sum Weights 69 Mean 3.01304348 Sum Observations 207.9 Std Deviation 0.76117422 Variance 0.57938619 Skewness 0.4027111 Kurtosis 0.224206 Uncorrected SS 665.81 Corrected SS 39.3982609 Coeff Variation 25.2626364 Std Er ror Mean 0.09163461 Basic Statistical Measures Location Variability Mean 3.013043 Std Deviation 0.76117 Median 3.100000 Variance 0.57939 Mode 3.600000 Range 4.00000 Interquartile Range 1.10000

PAGE 349

333 Appendix Q (Continued) -----------------------position=2 region=5 ------------------------The UNIV ARIATE Procedure Variable: planning Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 32.88106 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 34.5 Pr >= |M| <.0001 Signed Rank S 1207.5 Pr >= |S| <.0001 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic ------p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.974439 Pr < W 0.1687 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.096201 Pr > D 0.1125 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.123206 Pr > W Sq 0.0543 Anderson Darling A Sq 0.723217 Pr > A Sq 0.0585 -----------------------position=2 regi on=5 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: planning Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 1.0 326 3.9 329 1.2 324 3.9 334 1.5 297 4.1 346 1.7 330 4.3 335 1.8 319 5.0 310 Q.2. MANOVA 2: Student Education Strategies by Position and Region The ANOVA Procedure Class Level Information Class Levels Values position 2 1 2 region 5 1 2 3 4 5 Number of Observations Read 349 Number of Observations Used 349 The ANOVA Procedu re Dependent Variable: student Sum of Source DF Squares Mean Square F Value

PAGE 350

334 Appendix Q (Continued) Model 9 7.7557416 0.8617491 1.79 Error 339 162.9561781 0.4806967 Corrected Total 348 170.7119198 Source Pr > F Model 0.0685 Error Corrected T otal The ANOVA Procedure Dependent Variable: student R Square Coeff Var Root MSE student Mean 0.045432 21.32455 0.693323 3.251289 Source DF Anova SS Mean Square F Value position 1 2.68414229 2.68414229 5.58 region 4 2.03969811 0.50992453 1.06 position*region 4 3.03190125 0.75797531 1.58 S ource Pr > F position 0.0187 region 0.3759 position*region 0.1800 The ANOVA Procedure Level of ----------student ----------position N Mean Std Dev 1 107 3.38317757 0.64814481 2 242 3.19297521 0.71584920 Level of ---------student ----------region N Mean Std Dev 1 45 3.30222222 0.67604763 2 14 3.31428571 0.85021006 3 98 3.16734694 0.74885142 4 78 3.18846154 0.73466677 5 114 3.33859649 0.61837766 Level of Level of ----------student ----------position region N Mean Std Dev 1 1 10 3.56000000 0.57965507 1 2 5 3.08000000 0.94180677 1 3 31 3.47096774 0.74930792

PAGE 351

335 Appendix Q (Continued) The ANOVA Procedure Level of Level of ----------student ----------position region N Mean Std Dev 1 4 16 3.16250000 0.56435804 1 5 45 3.39555556 0.57483419 2 1 35 3.22857143 0.69093774 2 2 9 3.44444444 0.82327260 2 3 67 3.02686567 0.71107731 2 4 62 3.19516129 0.77637819 2 5 69 3.30144928 0.64659578 -----------------------position=1 region=1 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: student Moments N 10 Sum Weights 10 Mean 3.56 Sum Observations 35.6 Std Deviation 0.57965507 Varian ce 0.336 Skewness 0.1458174 Kurtosis 0.5164635 Uncorrected SS 129.76 Corrected SS 3.024 Coeff Variation 16.2824458 Std Error Mean 0.18330303 Basic Statistical Measures Location Variability Mean 3.560000 Std Deviation 0.57966 Median 3.600000 Variance 0.33600 Mode 3.900000 Range 1.90000 Interquartile Range 0.80000 -----------------------position=1 region=1 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: student Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 19.42139 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 5 Pr >= |M| 0.0020 Signed Rank S 27.5 Pr >= |S| 0.0020 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic ------p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.984818 Pr < W 0.9857 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.121249 Pr > D >0. 1500 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.020577 Pr > W Sq >0.2500 Anderson Darling A Sq 0.137766 Pr > A Sq >0.2500

PAGE 352

336 Appendix Q (Continued) -----------------------position=1 region=1 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: student Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 2.6 3 3.7 8 2.9 1 3.9 4 3.1 10 3.9 6 3.4 2 4.1 9 3.5 7 4.5 5 ----------------------position=1 region=2 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: student Moments N 5 Sum Weights 5 Mean 3.08 Sum Observations 15.4 Std Deviation 0.94180677 Variance 0.887 Skewness 0.2474315 Kurtosis 2.7352755 Uncorrected SS 50.98 Corrected S S 3.548 Coeff Variation 30.578142 Std Error Mean 0.42118879 Basic Statistical Measures Location Variability Mean 3.080000 Std Deviation 0.94181 Median 3.300000 Variance 0.88700 Mode Range 2.10000 Interquartile Range 1.60000 -----------------------position=1 region=2 -----------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: student Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 7.312635 Pr > |t| 0.0019 Sign M 2.5 Pr >= |M| 0.0625 Signed Rank S 7.5 Pr >= |S| 0.0625 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic ------p Value -----Sh apiro Wilk W 0.894936 Pr < W 0.3825 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.224945 Pr > D >0.1500 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.049061 Pr > W Sq >0.2500 Anderson Darling A Sq 0.311134 Pr > A Sq >0.2500

PAGE 353

337 A ppendix Q (Continued) -----------------------position=1 region=2 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: student Extreme Observations --Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 2.0 15 2.0 15 2.2 14 2.2 14 3.3 11 3.3 11 3.8 13 3.8 13 4.1 12 4.1 12 -----------------------position=1 region=3 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Varia ble: student Moments N 31 Sum Weights 31 Mean 3.47096774 Sum Observations 107.6 Std Deviation 0.74930792 Variance 0.56146237 Skewness 0.0959767 Kurtosis 0.1141512 Uncorrected SS 390.32 Corrected SS 16.843871 Coeff Variation 21.5878677 Std Error Mean 0.13457968 Basic Statistical Measures Location Variability Mean 3.470968 Std Deviation 0.74931 Median 3.500000 Variance 0.56146 Mode 3.100000 Range 3.10000 Interquartile Range 1.00000 -----------------------position=1 region=3 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: student Tests for Location: M u0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 25.79117 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 15.5 Pr >= |M| <.0001 Signed Rank S 248 Pr >= |S| <.0001 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic ------p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.980472 Pr < W 0.8257 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.092796 Pr > D >0.1500 Cramer von Mise s W Sq 0.028355 Pr > W Sq >0.2500 Anderson Darling A Sq 0.199315 Pr > A Sq >0.2500

PAGE 354

338 Appendix Q (Continued) -----------------------position=1 region=3 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: student Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 1.7 25 4.2 3 5 2.2 27 4.5 38 2.6 46 4.7 22 2.6 24 4.8 17 2.7 26 4.8 18 -----------------------position=1 region=4 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: student Moments N 16 Sum Weights 16 Mean 3.1625 Sum Observations 50.6 Std Deviation 0.56435804 Variance 0.3185 Skewness 0.4432395 Kurtosis 0.03053759 Uncorrected SS 164.8 Corrected SS 4.7775 Coef f Variation 17.8453136 Std Error Mean 0.14108951 Basic Statistical Measures Location Variability Mean 3.162500 Std Deviation 0.56436 Median 3.050000 Variance 0.31850 Mode 3.900000 Range 2.00000 Interquartile Range 0.75000 -----------------------position=1 region=4 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: student Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 22.41485 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sig n M 8 Pr >= |M| <.0001 Signed Rank S 68 Pr >= |S| <.0001 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic ------p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0. 942229 Pr < W 0.3772 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.113303 Pr > D >0.1500 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.045109 Pr > W Sq >0.2500 Anderson Darling A Sq 0.326058 Pr > A Sq >0.2500

PAGE 355

339 Appendix Q (Continued) ----------------------position=1 region=4 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: student Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highe st --Value Obs Value Obs 1.9 56 3.5 50 2.5 55 3.7 53 2.7 49 3.9 47 2.8 54 3.9 60 2.9 61 3.9 62 -----------------------position=1 region=5 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: student Moments N 45 Sum Weights 45 Mean 3.39555556 Sum Observations 152.8 Std Deviation 0.57483419 Variance 0.33043434 Skewness 0.039 0854 Kurtosis 0.5198947 Uncorrected SS 533.38 Corrected SS 14.5391111 Coeff Variation 16.9290173 Std Error Mean 0.08569122 Basic Statistical Measures Location Variability Mean 3.395556 Std Deviation 0.57483 Median 3.500000 Variance 0.33043 Mode 3.200000 Range 2.40000 Interquartile R ange 0.90000 Note: The mode displayed is the smallest of 5 modes with a count of 4. -----------------------position=1 region=5 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: student Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 39.62548 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 22.5 Pr >= |M| <.0001 Signed Rank S 517.5 Pr >= |S| <.0001 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic ------p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.982328 Pr < W 0.7146 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.0832 Pr > D >0.1500 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.041555 Pr > W Sq >0.2500 Anderson Darling A Sq 0.262805 Pr > A Sq >0.2500

PAGE 356

340 Appendix Q (Continued) -----------------------position=1 region=5 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: student Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 2.3 90 4.1 67 2.4 74 4.2 103 2.4 71 4.3 64 2.5 75 4.4 100 2.6 96 4.7 107 -----------------------position=2 region=1 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: student Moments N 35 Sum Weigh ts 35 Mean 3.22857143 Sum Observations 113 Std Deviation 0.69093774 Variance 0.47739496 Skewness 0.36068646 Kurtosis 0.0190409 Uncorrected SS 381.06 Corrected SS 16.2314286 Coeff Variation 21.4007264 Std Error Mean 0.11678979 Basic Statistical Measures Location Variability Mean 3.228571 Std Deviation 0.69094 Median 3.000000 Variance 0.47739 Mode 3.000000 Range 3.00000 Interquartile Range 1.10000 -----------------------position=2 region=1 -----------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: student Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 27.6 4429 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 17.5 Pr >= |M| <.0001 Signed Rank S 315 Pr >= |S| <.0001 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic ------p Value ----Shapiro Wilk W 0.953304 Pr < W 0.1431 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.145064 Pr > D 0.0614 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.154192 Pr > W Sq 0.0208 Anderson Darling A Sq 0.771214 Pr > A Sq 0.0423

PAGE 357

341 Appendix Q (Continued) -----------------------position=2 region=1 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: student Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 2.0 132 4.0 139 2.0 128 4.0 142 2.2 117 4.2 125 2.3 130 4.3 126 2.4 131 5.0 119 -----------------------position=2 region=2 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: student Moments N 9 Sum Weights 9 Mean 3.44444444 Sum Observations 31 Std Deviation 0.8232726 Variance 0.67777778 Skewness 0.55134247 Kurtosis 0.18592064 Uncorrected SS 112.2 Corrected SS 5.42222222 Coeff Variation 23.9014626 Std Error Mean 0.2744242 Basic Statistical Measures Location Variability Mean 3.444444 Std Deviation 0.82327 Median 3.400000 Variance 0.67778 Mode Range 2.70000 Interquartile Range 1.00000 -----------------------position=2 region=2 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: student Tests f or Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 12.55153 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 4.5 Pr >= |M| 0.0039 Signed Rank S 22.5 Pr >= |S| 0. 0039 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic ------p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.963111 Pr < W 0.8303 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.149795 Pr > D >0.1500 C ramer von Mises W Sq 0.03103 Pr > W Sq >0.2500 Anderson Darling A Sq 0.214722 Pr > A Sq >0.2500

PAGE 358

342 Appendix Q (Continued) -----------------------position=2 region=2 ------------------------The UNIVAR IATE Procedure Variable: student Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 2.3 148 3.4 147 2.7 150 3.8 143 2.9 149 3.9 151 3.0 146 4.0 145 3.4 147 5.0 144 ----------------------position=2 region=3 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: student Moments N 67 Sum Weights 67 Mea n 3.02686567 Sum Observations 202.8 Std Deviation 0.71107731 Variance 0.50563094 Skewness 0.247984 Kurtosis 1.05837716 Uncorrected SS 647.22 Corrected SS 33.37 16418 Coeff Variation 23.492199 Std Error Mean 0.08687192 Basic Statistical Measures Location Variability Mean 3.026866 Std Deviation 0.71108 Median 3.100000 Variance 0.50563 Mode 3.100000 Range 3.90000 Interquartile Range 0.80000 -----------------------position=2 region=3 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: student Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 34.84285 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 33.5 Pr >= |M| <.0001 Signed Rank S 1139 Pr >= |S| <.0001 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic ------p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.973707 Pr < W 0.1667 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.109971 Pr > D 0.0436 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.13596 Pr > W Sq 0.0375 Anderson Darling A Sq 0.741213 Pr > A Sq 0.0509 ----------------------position=2 region=3 ------------------------

PAGE 359

343 Appendix Q (Continued) The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: student Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 1.1 180 4.0 177 1.2 178 4.0 213 1.6 169 4.3 158 1 .7 179 4.5 201 1.8 181 5.0 215 -----------------------position=2 region=4 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: student Moments N 62 Sum Weights 62 Mean 3.19516129 Sum Observations 198.1 Std Deviation 0.77637819 Variance 0.60276309 Skewness 0.3841116 Kurtosis 0.35531485 Uncorrected SS 669.73 Corrected SS 36.7685484 Coeff Variation 24.2985601 Std Error Mean 0.09860013 Basic Statistical Measures Locatio n Variability Mean 3.195161 Std Deviation 0.77638 Median 3.300000 Variance 0.60276 Mode 3.500000 Range 3.90000 Int erquartile Range 0.90000 -----------------------position=2 region=4 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: student Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 32.40524 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 31 Pr >= |M| <.0001 Signed Rank S 976.5 Pr >= |S| <.0001 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic ------p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.985878 Pr < W 0.6965 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.079577 Pr > D >0.1500 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.0 51234 Pr > W Sq >0.2500 Anderson Darling A Sq 0.306823 Pr > A Sq >0.2500

PAGE 360

344 Appendix Q (Continued) -----------------------position=2 region=4 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: student Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 1.0 232 4.2 249 1.4 230 4.5 256 1.7 238 4.5 273 2.0 239 4.6 242 2.1 268 4.9 247 -----------------------position=2 region=5 -----------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: student Moments N 69 Sum Weights 69 Mean 3.30144928 Sum Observations 227.8 Std Deviation 0.64659578 Variance 0.4180861 Skewness 0.7003222 Kurtosis 1.12346708 Uncorrected SS 780.5 Corrected SS 28.4298551 Coeff Variation 19.5852102 Std Error Mean 0.07784098 Basic Statistical Measures Location Variability Mean 3.301449 Std Deviation 0.64660 Median 3.400000 Variance 0.41809 Mode 3.300000 Range 3.40000 Interquartile Range 0.70000 Note: The mode displayed is the smallest of 2 modes with a count of 9. -----------------------position=2 region=5 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: student Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Stud ent's t t 42.41274 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 34.5 Pr >= |M| <.0001 Signed Rank S 1207.5 Pr >= |S| <.0001 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic ------p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.948378 Pr < W 0.0064 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.136787 Pr > D <0.0100 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.220065 Pr > W Sq <0.0050

PAGE 361

345 Appendix Q (Continued) Anderso n Darling A Sq 1.29429 Pr > A Sq <0.0050 -----------------------position=2 region=5 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: student Extreme Obs ervations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 1.4 315 4.0 286 1.6 344 4.0 325 1.7 292 4.5 287 2.1 347 4.6 330 2.1 288 4.8 289 Q.3. MANOVA 3: Teaching and Faculty Development Strategies by Position and Region The ANOVA Procedure Class Level Information Class Levels Values position 2 1 2 region 5 1 2 3 4 5 Number of Observations Read 349 Number of Observations Used 349 The ANOVA Procedure Dependent Variable: teaching Sum of Source DF Squares Mean Square F Value Model 9 17.5293048 1.9477005 3.23 Error 339 204.1375147 0.6021756 Corrected Total 348 221.6668195 Source Pr > F Model 0.0009 Error Corrected Total The ANOVA Procedure Dependent Variable: teaching R Square Coeff Var Root MSE teaching Mean 0.079080 27.00 946 0.776000 2.873066

PAGE 362

346 Appendix Q (Continued) Source DF Anova SS Mean Square F Value position 1 2.94502949 2.94502949 4.89 region 4 4.79395468 1.19848867 1.99 position *region 4 9.79032060 2.44758015 4.06 Source Pr > F position 0.0277 region 0.0956 position*region 0.0031 The ANOVA Procedure Level of ----------teaching ---------position N Mean Std Dev 1 107 3.01121495 0.76223691 2 242 2.81198347 0.80747351 Level of ----------teaching ---------region N Mean Std Dev 1 45 2.91111111 0.70974458 2 1 4 2.87857143 0.87369998 3 98 2.71734694 0.85434312 4 78 2.83974359 0.82844554 5 114 3.01403509 0.73555436 Level of Level of ----------teaching ---------position region N Mean Std Dev 1 1 10 3.24000000 0.41952354 1 2 5 2.44000000 0.91815031 1 3 31 3.18064516 0.81298600

PAGE 363

347 Appendix Q (Continued) The ANOVA Procedure Level of Level of ----------teaching ---------position region N Mean Std Dev 1 4 16 2.78125000 0.75030549 1 5 45 2.98888889 0.74535599 2 1 35 2.81714286 0.75126784 2 2 9 3.12222222 0.7 9494933 2 3 67 2.50298507 0.79046786 2 4 62 2.85483871 0.85251363 2 5 69 3.03043478 0.73410697 -----------------------position=1 region=1 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: teaching Moments N 10 Sum Weights 10 Mean 3.24 Sum Observations 32.4 Std Deviation 0.41952354 Variance 0.176 Skewness 1.0848346 Kurtosis 2.2263934 Uncorrected SS 106.56 Corrected SS 1.584 Coeff Variati on 12.9482574 Std Error Mean 0.13266499 Basic Statistical Measures Location Variability Mean 3.240000 Std Deviation 0.41952 Median 3.300000 Varianc e 0.17600 Mode 3.000000 Range 1.50000 Interquartile Range 0.40000 Note: The mode displayed is the smallest of 3 modes with a count of 2. -----------------------posit ion=1 region=1 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: teaching Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 24.42242 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 5 Pr >= |M| 0.0020 Signed Rank S 27.5 Pr >= |S| 0.0020 Tests for Normality Test -Statisti c ------p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.910832 Pr < W 0.2868 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.183635 Pr > D >0.1500 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.0649 Pr > W Sq >0.2500 Anderson Darling A Sq 0.417605 Pr > A Sq >0.2500

PAGE 364

348 Appendix Q (Continued) -----------------------position=1 region=1 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: teaching Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 2.3 1 3.3 8 3.0 10 3.4 2 3.0 3 3.4 6 3.2 5 3.7 4 3.3 8 3.8 9 -----------------------position=1 region=2 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Proced ure Variable: teaching Moments N 5 Sum Weights 5 Mean 2.44 Sum Observations 12.2 Std Deviation 0.91815031 Variance 0.843 Skewness 0.5851416 Kurtosis 2.8453287 Uncorrected SS 33.14 Corrected SS 3.372 Coeff Variation 37.6291112 Std Error Mean 0.4106093 Basic Statistical Measures Location Variability Mean 2.440000 Std Deviation 0.91815 Median 3.000000 Variance 0.84300 Mode 3.000000 Range 2.00000 Interquartile Range 1.40000 -----------------------position=1 region=2 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: teaching Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 5.942388 Pr > |t| 0.0040 Sign M 2.5 Pr >= |M| 0.0625 Signed Rank S 7.5 Pr >= |S| 0.0625 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic ------p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.824288 Pr < W 0.1260 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.329043 Pr > D 0.0746 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.089937 Pr > W Sq 0.1195 Anderson Darling A Sq 0.499257 Pr > A Sq 0.1085

PAGE 365

349 Appendix Q (Continued) -----------------------position=1 region=2 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: teaching Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 1.3 14 1.3 14 1.6 15 1.6 15 3.0 13 3.0 11 3.0 11 3.0 13 3.3 12 3.3 12 ----------------------position=1 region=3 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: teaching Moments N 31 Sum Weights 31 Mean 3.18064516 Sum Observations 98.6 Std Deviation 0.812986 Variance 0.66094624 Skewness 0.01429362 Kurtosis 0.2651218 Uncorrected SS 333.44 Correc ted SS 19.8283871 Coeff Variation 25.5604118 Std Error Mean 0.1460166 Basic Statistical Measures Location Variability Mean 3.180645 Std Deviation 0.81 299 Median 3.100000 Variance 0.66095 Mode 3.000000 Range 3.20000 Interquartile Range 1.10000 -----------------------position=1 region=3 -----------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: teaching Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 21.78276 P r > |t| <.0001 Sign M 15.5 Pr >= |M| <.0001 Signed Rank S 248 Pr >= |S| <.0001 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic ------p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.962528 Pr < W 0.3398 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.135665 Pr > D >0.1500 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.092456 Pr > W Sq 0.1387 Anderson Darling A Sq 0.485603 Pr > A Sq 0.2187

PAGE 366

350 Appendix Q (Continued) -----------------------position=1 region=3 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: teaching Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 1.4 25 4.2 35 1.9 45 4.2 38 2.0 24 4.6 17 2.1 46 4.6 18 2.3 26 4.6 22 -----------------------position=1 region=4 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Var iable: teaching Moments N 16 Sum Weights 16 Mean 2.78125 Sum Observations 44.5 Std Deviation 0.75030549 Variance 0.562958 33 Skewness 0.4700497 Kurtosis 0.474319 Uncorrected SS 132.21 Corrected SS 8.444375 Coeff Variation 26.9772762 Std Error Mean 0.18757637 Basic Statistical Measures Location Variability Mean 2.781250 Std Deviation 0.75031 Median 2.850000 Variance 0.56296 Mode 2.700000 Range 2.60000 Interquartile Range 1.20000 Note: The mode displayed is the smallest of 3 modes with a count of 2. -----------------------position=1 region=4 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: teaching Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 14.82729 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 8 Pr >= |M| < .0001 Signed Rank S 68 Pr >= |S| <.0001 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic ------p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.954619 Pr < W 0.5662 Kolmo gorov Smirnov D 0.130338 Pr > D >0.1500 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.040814 Pr > W Sq >0.2500 Anderson Darling A Sq 0.271202 Pr > A Sq >0.2500

PAGE 367

351 Appendix Q (Continued) -----------------------position=1 region=4 -----------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: teaching Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 1.2 56 3.3 54 1.9 57 3.4 47 2.0 55 3.5 48 2.1 61 3.8 60 2.2 49 3.8 62 -----------------------position=1 region=5 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: teaching Moments N 45 Sum Weights 45 Mean 2.98888889 Sum Observations 134.5 Std Deviation 0.74535599 Variance 0.55555556 Skewness 0.04100372 Kurtosis 0.521772 Uncorrected SS 426.45 Corrected SS 24.4444444 Coeff Variation 24.9375611 Std Error Mean 0.11111111 Basic Statistical Measures Location Variability Mean 2. 988889 Std Deviation 0.74536 Median 3.000000 Variance 0.55556 Mode 2.600000 Range 3.20000 Interquartile Range 1.00000 Note: The mode display ed is the smallest of 6 modes with a count of 3. -----------------------position=1 region=5 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: teaching Tests for Location : Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 26.9 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 22.5 Pr >= |M| <.0001 Signed Rank S 517.5 Pr >= |S| <.0001 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic ------p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.984898 Pr < W 0.8160 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.073061 Pr > D >0.1500 Cramer von Mi ses W Sq 0.037809 Pr > W Sq >0.2500 Anderson Darling A Sq 0.250181 Pr > A Sq >0.2500

PAGE 368

352 Appendix Q (Continued) -----------------------position=1 region=5 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: teaching Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 1.4 87 4.0 9 1 1.5 74 4.0 106 1.9 75 4.1 101 2.0 71 4.2 64 2.1 103 4.6 107 -----------------------position=2 r egion=1 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: teaching Moments N 35 Sum Weights 35 Mean 2.81714286 Sum Observations 98.6 Std Deviation 0.75126784 Variance 0.56440336 Skewness 0.29198705 Kurtosis 0.7931875 Uncorrected SS 296.96 Corrected SS 19.1897143 Coeff Variation 26.6677224 Std Error Mean 0.12698744 Basic Statistical Measures Location Variability Mean 2.817143 Std Deviation 0.75127 Median 2.900000 Variance 0.56440 Mode 3.000000 Range 2.70000 Interquartile Range 1.00000 -----------------------position=2 region=1 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: teaching Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 22.18442 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 17.5 Pr >= |M| <.0001 Signed Rank S 315 Pr >= |S| <.0001 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic ------p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.9 35279 Pr < W 0.0403 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.146706 Pr > D 0.0549 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.134578 Pr > W Sq 0.0381 Anderson Darling A Sq 0.83265 Pr > A Sq 0.0293

PAGE 369

353 Appendix Q (Continued) ----------------------position=2 region=1 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: teaching Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 1.7 122 3.9 126 1.7 117 4.0 123 1.8 129 4.0 137 1.9 132 4.0 139 2.0 131 4.4 119 -----------------------position=2 region=2 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: teaching Moments N 9 Sum Weights 9 Mean 3.12222222 Sum Observations 28.1 Std Deviation 0.79494933 Variance 0.63194444 Skewness 0.639468 89 Kurtosis 1.0826171 Uncorrected SS 92.79 Corrected SS 5.05555556 Coeff Variation 25.4610107 Std Error Mean 0.26498311 Basic Statistical Measures Location Variability Mean 3.122222 Std Deviation 0.79495 Median 2.700000 Variance 0.63194 Mode 2.700000 Range 2.20000 Interquartile Ran ge 1.00000 -----------------------position=2 region=2 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: teaching Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 11.78272 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 4.5 Pr >= |M| 0.0039 Signed Rank S 22.5 Pr >= |S| 0.0039 Tests for N ormality Test -Statistic ------p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.900784 Pr < W 0.2566 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.257892 Pr > D 0.0834 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.070574 Pr > W Sq 0.2471 Anderson Darling A Sq 0.421211 Pr > A Sq >0.2500

PAGE 370

354 Appendix Q (Continued) -----------------------position=2 region=2 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Varia ble: teaching Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 2.2 146 2.7 150 2.4 1 48 3.3 151 2.6 149 3.6 143 2.7 150 4.2 145 2.7 147 4.4 144 -----------------------position=2 region=3 -----------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: teaching Moments N 67 Sum Weights 67 Mean 2.50298507 Sum Observation s 167.7 Std Deviation 0.79046786 Variance 0.62483944 Skewness 0.0051639 Kurtosis 0.4625226 Uncorrected SS 460.99 Corrected SS 41.239403 Coeff Variation 31.5810058 Std Error Mean 0.09657102 Basic Statistical Measures Location Variability Mean 2.502985 Std Deviation 0.79047 Median 2.600000 Variance 0.624 84 Mode 3.000000 Range 3.30000 Interquartile Range 1.20000 -----------------------position=2 region=3 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: teaching Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 25.91859 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 33.5 Pr >= |M| <.0001 Signed Rank S 1139 Pr >= |S| <.0001 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic ------p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.955643 Pr < W 0.0178 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.153157 Pr > D <0.0100 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.219635 Pr > W Sq <0.0050 Anderson Darling A Sq 1.201148 Pr > A Sq <0.0050

PAGE 371

355 Appendix Q (Continued) -----------------------position=2 region=3 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: teaching Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 1.0 196 3.4 174 1.0 181 3.6 177 1.0 180 4.2 158 1.0 178 4.2 201 1.1 179 4.3 161 -----------------------position=2 region=4 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: teaching Moments N 62 Sum Weights 62 Mean 2.85483871 Sum Observations 177 Std Deviation 0.85251363 Variance 0.72677948 Skewness 0.0342251 Kurtosis 0 .575265 Uncorrected SS 549.64 Corrected SS 44.3335484 Coeff Variation 29.8620592 Std Error Mean 0.10826934 Basic Statistical Measures Location Variability M ean 2.854839 Std Deviation 0.85251 Median 2.950000 Variance 0.72678 Mode 2.000000 Range 3.90000 Interquartile Range 1.60000 ----------------------position=2 region=4 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: teaching Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 26.36793 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 31 Pr >= |M| <.0001 Signed Rank S 976.5 Pr >= |S| <.0001 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic ------p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.978779 Pr < W 0.3575 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.102359 Pr > D 0.1034 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.092295 Pr > W Sq 0.1422 Anderson Darling A Sq 0.568126 Pr > A Sq 0.1398

PAGE 372

356 Appendix Q (Continued) -----------------------position=2 region=4 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: teaching Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 1.0 232 3.9 224 1.3 238 3.9 278 1.3 230 4.3 276 1.6 221 4.5 247 1.7 261 4.9 249 -----------------------position=2 region=5 ------------------------Th e UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: teaching Moments N 69 Sum Weights 69 Mean 3.03043478 Sum Observations 209.1 Std Deviat ion 0.73410697 Variance 0.53891304 Skewness 0.6315234 Kurtosis 0.0853597 Uncorrected SS 670.31 Corrected SS 36.646087 Coeff Variation 24.2244768 Std Error Mean 0.08837609 Basic Statistical Measures Location Variability Mean 3.030435 Std Deviation 0.73411 Median 3.100000 Variance 0.53891 Mode 3.100000 Range 3.30000 Interquartile Range 1.00000 -----------------------position=2 region=5 ------------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: teaching Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test Statistic ----p Value -----Student's t t 34.29021 Pr > |t| <.0001 Sign M 34.5 Pr >= |M| <.0001 Sign ed Rank S 1207.5 Pr >= |S| <.0001 Tests for Normality Test -Statistic ------p Value -----Shapiro Wilk W 0.956737 Pr < W 0.0177 Kolmogorov Smirnov D 0.106654 Pr > D 0.0497 Cramer von Mises W Sq 0.139351 Pr > W Sq 0.0337 Anderson Darling A Sq 0.926081 Pr > A Sq 0.0191

PAGE 373

357 Appendix Q (Continued) -----------------------position=2 region=5 -----------------------The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: teaching Extreme Observations ---Lowest ------Highest --Value Obs Value Obs 1.2 311 4.0 289 1.4 344 4.0 324 1.4 292 4.0 328 1.5 315 4.0 330 1.6 349 4.5 287

PAGE 374

358 Appendix R. Statistical Analysis from SAS for Research Question 6 R.1. Multiple Regression 1 Backward Elimination Procedure: Analysis of Variance by Demographic Characteristics for Planning and Operatio n Strategies The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV1Admin DV1Admin Number of Observations Read 349 Number of Observations Used 316 Number of Observations with Missing Values 33 Backward Elimination: Step 0 All Variables Entered: R Square = 0.2465 and C(p) = 13.0000 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV1Admin DV1Admin Backward Elimination: Step 0 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 12 37.19910 3.09993 8.26 <.0001 Error 303 113.70157 0.37525 Corrected Total 315 150.90067 Parameter Standard Variable Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F Intercept 3.11899 0.35702 28.64035 76.32 <.0001 InstStat 0.39420 0.10523 5.26561 14.03 0.0002 InstType 0.11723 0.07 130 1.01444 2.70 0.1012 IntUndergrad 0.08060 0.05472 0.81401 2.17 0.1418 IntGradPost 0.00991 0.04971 0.01492 0.04 0.8421 InstSize 0.06007 0.06796 0.29310 0.78 0.3775 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV1Admin DV1Admin Backward Elimination: Step 0 Parameter Standard Variable Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F InstDesc 0.20296 0.04959 6.28643 16.75 <.0001 Faculty 0.10860 0.07079 0.88301 2.35 0.1261 Experience 0.04917 0.04660 0.41785 1.11 0.2922 Age 0.05508 0.04905 0.47334 1.26 0.2623 Gender 0.06301 0.07625 0.25620 0.68 0.4093 EngProfi 0.11032 0.07644 0.78160 2.08 0.1500 IntlExp 0.18097 0.05172 4.59481 12.24 0.0005 Bounds on condition number: 3.4003, 259.98 ---------------------------------------------------------------------Backward Elimination: Step 1

PAGE 375

359 Appendix R (Continued) The REG Pro cedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV1Admin DV1Admin Backward Elimination: Step 1 Variable IntGradPost Removed: R Square = 0.2464 and C(p) = 11.0398 Analy sis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 11 37.18418 3.38038 9.04 <.0001 Error 304 113.71649 0.37407 Corrected Total 315 150.90067 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV1Admin DV1Admin Backward Elimination : Step 1 Parameter Standard Variable Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F Intercept 3.10903 0.35294 29.02650 77.60 <.0001 InstStat 0.39258 0.10475 5.25381 14.05 0. 0002 InstType 0.11523 0.07048 0.99992 2.67 0.1031 IntUndergrad 0.07204 0.03393 1.68648 4.51 0.0345 InstSize 0.06199 0.06717 0.31866 0.85 0.3568 InstDesc 0.20308 0.04950 6.29515 16.83 <.0001 Faculty 0.10843 0.07068 0.88043 2.35 0.1260 Experience 0.04896 0.04651 0.41450 1.11 0.2933 Age 0.05432 0.04882 0.46312 1.24 0.2667 Gender 0.06176 0.07587 0.24783 0.66 0.4163 EngProfi 0.11246 0.07557 0.82842 2.21 0.1377 IntlExp 0.18145 0.05158 4.62905 12.37 0.0005 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV1Admin DV1Admin Backward Elimination: Step 1 Bounds on condition number: 1.9917, 180.27 --------------------------------------------------------------------Backward Elimination: Step 2 Variable Gender Removed: R Square = 0.2448 and C(p) = 9.7002

PAGE 376

360 Appendix R (Continued) The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Depe ndent Variable: DV1Admin DV1Admin Backward Elimination: Step 2 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 10 36.93636 3.69364 9.89 <.0001 Error 305 113.96432 0.37365 Corrected Total 315 150.90067 Parameter Standard Variable Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F Intercept 3.02437 0.33708 30.07956 80.50 <.0001 InstStat 0.38854 0.10458 5.15786 13.80 0.0002 InstType 0.11228 0.07035 0.95199 2.55 0.1115 IntUndergrad 0.0725 8 0.03390 1.71222 4.58 0.0331 InstSize 0.06143 0.06713 0.31291 0.84 0.3609 InstDesc 0.20276 0.04948 6.27575 16.80 <.0001 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV1Admin DV1Admin Backward Elimination: Step 2 Parameter Standard Variable Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F Faculty 0.1 0757 0.07063 0.86676 2.32 0.1288 Experience 0.05016 0.04646 0.43558 1.17 0.2811 Age 0.05294 0.04876 0.44037 1.18 0.2785 EngProfi 0.10269 0.07457 0.70863 1.90 0.169 5 IntlExp 0.17934 0.05149 4.53349 12.13 0.0006 Bounds on condition number: 1.9915, 152.93 ---------------------------------------------------------------------Backward Elimination: Step 3 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV1Admin DV1Admin Backward Elimination: Step 3 Variable InstSize Removed: R Square = 0.2427 and C(p) = 8.5340 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 9 36.62345 4.06927 10.90 <.0001 Error 306 114.27723 0.37345 Corrected Total 315 150.90067

PAGE 377

361 Appendix R (Continued) The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV1Admin DV1Admin Backward Elimination: Step 3 Parameter Standard Variable Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F Intercept 3.18176 0.28982 45.01147 120.53 <.0001 InstStat 0.33935 0.08968 5.34714 14.32 0.0002 InstType 0.11799 0.07005 1.05958 2.84 0.0931 IntUndergrad 0.08546 0.03083 2.86891 7.68 0.0059 InstDesc 0.21053 0.04873 6.97074 18.67 <.0001 Faculty 0.10606 0.07059 0.84302 2.26 0.1340 Experience 0.04622 0.04625 0.37300 1.00 0.3184 Age 0.05458 0.04872 0.46878 1.26 0.2634 EngProfi 0.11064 0.07404 0.83389 2.23 0.1361 IntlExp 0.17472 0.05123 4.34479 11.63 0.0007 Bounds on condition number: 1.7927, 112.57 ---------------------------------------------------------------------Backward Eliminatio n: Step 4 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV1Admin DV1Admin Backward Elimination: Step 4 Variable Experience Removed: R Square = 0.2402 an d C(p) = 7.5280 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 8 36.25045 4.53131 12.13 <.00 01 Error 307 114.65022 0.37345 Corrected Total 315 150.90067 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV1Admin DV1Admin Backward Elimination: Step 4 Parameter Standard Variable Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F Intercept 3.12496 0.28419 45.15541 120.91 <.0001 InstStat 0.34809 0.08926 5.67986 15.21 0.0001 InstType 0.12194 0.06994 1.13531 3.04 0.0822 IntUndergrad 0.09011 0.03048 3.26380 8.74 0.0034 InstDesc 0.20696 0.04860 6.77261 18.14 <.0001 Faculty 0.09981 0.07031 0.75249 2.01 0.1568 Age 0.02778 0.04067 0.17421 0.47 0.4951 EngProfi 0.11647 0.07381 0.92996 2.49 0.1156 IntlExp 0.17709 0.05117 4.47307 11.98 0.0006 Bounds on condition number: 1.5699, 81.994 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

PAGE 378

362 Appendix R (Continued) Backward Elimination: Step 5 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV1Admin DV1Admin Backward Elimination: Step 5 Variable Age Removed: R Square = 0.2391 and C(p) = 5.9923 Analysis of Varian ce Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 7 36.07624 5.15375 13.82 <.0001 Error 308 114.82443 0.37281 Corr ected Total 315 150.90067 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV1Admin DV1Admin Backward Elimination: Step 5 Parameter Standard Variable Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F Intercept 3.23963 0.22910 74.54910 199.97 <.0001 InstStat 0.34291 0.08886 5.55213 14.89 0.0001 InstType 0.11968 0.06980 1.09601 2.94 0.0874 IntUndergrad 0.09132 0.03040 3.36285 9.02 0.0029 InstDesc 0.20722 0.04855 6.79027 18.21 <.0001 Faculty 0.10512 0.06982 0.84507 2.27 0.1332 EngProf i 0.10142 0.07038 0.77413 2.08 0.1506 IntlExp 0.18694 0.04906 5.41397 14.52 0.0002 Bounds on condition number: 1.5663, 61.306 --------------------------------------------------------------------Backward Elimination: Step 6 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV1Admin DV1Admin Backward Elimination: Step 6 Va riable EngProfi Removed: R Square = 0.2339 and C(p) = 6.0552 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 6 35.30211 5.88369 15.73 <.0001 Error 309 115.59856 0.37411 Corrected Total 315 150.90067

PAGE 379

363 Appendix R (Continued) The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV1Admin DV1Admin Backward Elimination: Step 6 Parameter Standard Variable Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F Intercept 3.39054 0.2041 1 103.22891 275.94 <.0001 InstStat 0.36885 0.08716 6.69918 17.91 <.0001 InstType 0.12041 0.06992 1.10949 2.97 0.0860 IntUndergrad 0.08686 0.03030 3.07463 8.22 0.0044 InstDesc 0.19975 0.04836 6.38212 17.06 <.0001 Faculty 0.10317 0.06993 0.81422 2.18 0.1412 IntlExp 0.19603 0.04873 6.05380 16.18 <.0001 Bounds on condition number: 1.5663, 45.351 --------------------------------------------------------------------Backward Elimination: Step 7 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV1Admin DV1 Admin Backward Elimination: Step 7 Variable Faculty Removed: R Square = 0.2285 and C(p) = 6.2250 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 5 34.48789 6.89758 18.37 <.0001 Error 310 116.41278 0.37553 Corrected Total 315 150.90067 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV1Admin DV1Admin Backward Elimination: Step 7 Parameter Standard Variable Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F In tercept 3.54126 0.17704 150.25206 400.11 <.0001 InstStat 0.36057 0.08715 6.42835 17.12 <.0001 InstType 0.11188 0.06981 0.96442 2.57 0.1101 IntUndergrad 0.08966 0.03030 3.28 863 8.76 0.0033 InstDesc 0.20399 0.04837 6.67937 17.79 <.0001 IntlExp 0.19816 0.04880 6.19130 16.49 <.0001 Bounds on condition number: 1.5555, 32.581 --------------------------------------------------------------------Backward Elimination: Step 8

PAGE 380

364 Appendix R (Continued) The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV1Admin DV1Admin Backward Elimination: Step 8 Variable InstType Removed: R Square = 0.2222 and C(p) = 6.7951 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 4 33.52348 8.38087 22.21 <.0001 Error 311 117.37720 0.37742 Corrected Total 315 150.90067 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV1Admin DV1Admin Backward Elimination: Step 8 Parameter Standard Variable Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F Intercept 3.52322 0.17712 149.32881 395.66 <.0001 InstStat 0.31217 0.08195 5.47609 14.51 0.0002 IntUndergrad 0.09014 0.03037 3.32454 8.81 0.0032 InstDesc 0.23829 0.04348 11.33611 30 .04 <.0001 IntlExp 0.20327 0.04882 6.54282 17.34 <.0001 Bounds on condition number: 1.2127, 18.059 ---------------------------------------------------------------------All variables left in the model are signif icant at the 0.1000 level. The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV1Admin DV1Admin Summary of Backward Elimination Variable Number Partial Model Step Removed Label Vars In R Square R Square C(p) 1 IntGradPost IntGradPost 11 0.0001 0.2464 11.0398 2 Gender Gender 10 0.0016 0.2448 9.7002 3 InstSize InstSize 9 0.0021 0.2427 8.5340 4 Experience Experience 8 0.0025 0.2402 7.5280 5 Age Age 7 0.0012 0.2391 5.9923 6 EngProfi EngProfi 6 0.0051 0.2339 6.0552 7 Faculty Faculty 5 0.0054 0.2285 6.2250 8 InstType InstType 4 0.0064 0.2222 6.7951

PAGE 381

365 Appendix R (Continued) The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV1Admin DV1Admin Summary of Backward Elimination Step F Value Pr > F 1 0.04 0.8421 2 0.66 0.4163 3 0.84 0.3609 4 1.00 0.3184 5 0.47 0.4951 6 2.08 0.1506 7 2.18 0.1412 8 2.57 0.1101 R.2. Multiple Regression 2 Backward Elimination Procedure: Analysis of Variance by Demographic Characteristics f or Student Education Strategies. The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV2Student DV2Student Number of Observations Read 349 Number of Observations Used 316 Number of Observations with Missing Values 33 Backward Elimination: Step 0 All Variables Entered: R Square = 0.2297 and C(p) = 13.0000 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV2Student DV2Student Backward Elimination: Step 0 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 12 34.79045 2.89920 7.53 <.0001 Error 303 116.65653 0.38501 Corrected Total 315 151.44697 Parameter Standard Variable Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F I ntercept 3.09429 0.36162 28.18847 73.22 <.0001 InstStat 0.31331 0.10659 3.32623 8.64 0.0035 InstType 0.02467 0.07222 0.04494 0.12 0.7328 IntUndergrad 0.03937 0.05543 0.1 9420 0.50 0.4781 IntGradPost 0.00362 0.05036 0.00199 0.01 0.9428 InstSize 0.03415 0.06884 0.09473 0.25 0.6202

PAGE 382

366 Appendix R (Continued) The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV2Student DV2Student Backward Elimination: Step 0 Parameter Standard Variable Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F InstDesc 0.24066 0.05023 8.83909 22.96 <.0001 Faculty 0.05917 0.07171 0.26213 0.68 0.4099 Experience 0.06646 0.04720 0.76336 1.98 0.1601 Age 0.08830 0.04968 1.21635 3.16 0. 0765 Gender 0.12361 0.07724 0.98615 2.56 0.1105 EngProfi 0.27039 0.07743 4.69485 12.19 0.0006 IntlExp 0.13959 0.05239 2.73387 7.10 0.0081 Bounds on condition number : 3.4003, 259.98 ---------------------------------------------------------------------Backward Elimination: Step 1 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variab le: DV2Student DV2Student Backward Elimination: Step 1 Variable IntGradPost Removed: R Square = 0.2297 and C(p) = 11.0052 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 11 34.78846 3.16259 8.24 <.0001 Error 304 116.65851 0.38375 Corrected Total 315 151.44697 T he REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV2Student DV2Student Backward Elimination: Step 1 Parameter Standard Variable Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F Intercept 3.09065 0.35748 28.68445 74.75 <.0001 InstStat 0.31272 0.10610 3.33366 8.69 0.0035 InstType 0.02394 0.07138 0.04318 0.11 0.7375 IntUndergrad 0.036 25 0.03437 0.42688 1.11 0.2924 InstSize 0.03485 0.06803 0.10071 0.26 0.6088 InstDesc 0.24071 0.05014 8.84383 23.05 <.0001 Faculty 0.05911 0.07159 0.26163 0.68 0.4096 Experience 0.06638 0.04711 0.76199 1.99 0.1598 Age 0.08802 0.04945 1.21611 3.17 0.0760 Gender 0.12316 0.07685 0.98554 2.57 0.1101 EngProfi 0.27117 0.07654 4 .81653 12.55 0.0005 IntlExp 0.13977 0.05224 2.74660 7.16 0.0079

PAGE 383

367 Appendix R (Continued) The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV2Student DV2 Student Backward Elimination: Step 1 Bounds on condition number: 1.9917, 180.27 ---------------------------------------------------------------------Backward Elimination: Step 2 Variable In stType Removed: R Square = 0.2294 and C(p) = 9.1173 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV2Student DV2Student Backward Elimination: Step 2 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 10 34.74528 3.47453 9.08 <.0001 Error 305 116.70169 0.38263 Corrected Total 315 151.44697 Parameter Standard Variable Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F Intercept 3.08625 0.35672 28.64139 74.85 <.0001 In stStat 0.30363 0.10244 3.36173 8.79 0.0033 IntUndergrad 0.03593 0.03430 0.41988 1.10 0.2957 InstSize 0.03686 0.06767 0.11353 0.30 0.5863 InstDesc 0.24779 0.04541 11.39 132 29.77 <.0001 Faculty 0.05744 0.07131 0.24825 0.65 0.4212 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV2Student DV2Student Backward Elimination: Step 2 Parameter Standard Variable Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F Experience 0.06742 0.04694 0.78941 2.06 0.1519 Age 0.08780 0.04937 1.21017 3.16 0.0763 Gender 0.12183 0.07664 0.96703 2.53 0.1129 EngProfi 0.27040 0.07639 4.79371 12.53 0.0005 IntlExp 0.14115 0.05200 2.81899 7.37 0.0070 Bound s on condition number: 1.9763, 143.6 ---------------------------------------------------------------------Backward Elimination: Step 3

PAGE 384

368 Appendix R (Continued) The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV2Student DV2Student Backward Elimination: Step 3 Variable InstSize Removed: R Square = 0.2287 and C(p) = 7.4122 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 9 34.63175 3.84797 10.08 <.0001 Error 306 116.81522 0.38175 Corrected Total 315 151.44697 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV2Student DV2Student Backward Elimination: Step 3 Parameter Standard Varia ble Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F Intercept 3.18020 0.31189 39.69000 103.97 <.0001 InstStat 0.27256 0.08499 3.92635 10.29 0.0015 IntUndergrad 0.04368 0.03118 0.7494 5 1.96 0.1622 InstDesc 0.25350 0.04414 12.59268 32.99 <.0001 Faculty 0.05628 0.07119 0.23854 0.62 0.4299 Experience 0.06519 0.04671 0.74376 1.95 0.1638 Age 0.08875 0.04928 1.23813 3.24 0.0727 Gender 0.12121 0.07654 0.95737 2.51 0.1143 EngProfi 0.27503 0.07583 5.02135 13.15 0.0003 IntlExp 0.13855 0.05172 2.73900 7.17 0.0078 Bounds on condition number: 1.7947, 103.84 ---------------------------------------------------------------------Backward Elimination: Step 4 The REG Procedure Model : MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV2Student DV2Student Backward Elimination: Step 4 Variable Faculty Removed: R Square = 0.2271 and C(p) = 6.0318 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 8 34.39321 4.29915 11.28 <.0001 Error 307 117.05376 0.38128 Corrected Total 315 151 .44697

PAGE 385

369 Appendix R (Continued) The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV2Student DV2Student Backward Elimination: Step 4 Parameter Standard Variable Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F Intercept 3.24254 0.30157 44.07977 115.61 <.0001 InstStat 0.27145 0.08493 3.89544 10.22 0.0015 IntUndergrad 0.04530 0.03109 0.80940 2.12 0.1461 InstDesc 0.25415 0.04410 12.66216 33.21 <.0001 Experience 0.06177 0.04648 0.67356 1.77 0.1848 Age 0.09045 0.04921 1.28831 3.38 0.0670 Gender 0.12055 0.07649 0.94707 2.48 0.1160 EngProfi 0.27625 0.07577 5.06802 13.29 0.0003 IntlExp 0.13844 0.05169 2.73489 7.17 0.0078 Bounds on condition number: 1.7913, 83 .855 ---------------------------------------------------------------------Backward Elimination: Step 5 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV2Stud ent DV2Student Backward Elimination: Step 5 Variable Experience Removed: R Square = 0.2226 and C(p) = 5.7812 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 7 33.71966 4.81709 12.60 <.0001 Error 308 117.72732 0.38223 Corrected Total 315 151.44697 The REG Procedu re Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV2Student DV2Student Backward Elimination: Step 5 Parameter Standard Variable Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F Intercept 3.16091 0.29562 43.70085 114.33 <.0001 InstStat 0.28115 0.08472 4.20976 11.01 0.0010 IntUndergrad 0.05133 0.03080 1.06192 2.78 0.0966 InstDesc 0.25094 0.0440 9 12.38147 32.39 <.0001 Age 0.05400 0.04091 0.66611 1.74 0.1878 Gender 0.12371 0.07655 0.99837 2.61 0.1071 EngProfi 0.28436 0.07562 5.40519 14.14 0.0002 IntlExp 0.14206 0.05168 2.88771 7.55 0.0063 Bounds on condition number: 1.3251, 57.745 ---------------------------------------------------------------------Backward Elimination: Step 6

PAGE 386

370 Appendix R (Contin ued) The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV2Student DV2Student Backward Elimination: Step 6 Variable Age Removed: R Square = 0.2183 and C(p) = 5.5114 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 6 33.05354 5.50892 14.38 <.0001 Erro r 309 118.39343 0.38315 Corrected Total 315 151.44697 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV2Student DV2Student Ba ckward Elimination: Step 6 Parameter Standard Variable Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F Intercept 3.38999 0.23961 76.69279 200.16 <.0001 InstStat 0.27240 0.08456 3. 97625 10.38 0.0014 IntUndergrad 0.05396 0.03077 1.17837 3.08 0.0805 InstDesc 0.25011 0.04414 12.30172 32.11 <.0001 Gender 0.11731 0.07648 0.90134 2.35 0.1261 EngProfi 0.25 396 0.07211 4.75195 12.40 0.0005 IntlExp 0.16090 0.04973 4.00995 10.47 0.0013 Bounds on condition number: 1.231, 40.698 ---------------------------------------------------------------------Backward Elimination: Step 7 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV2Student DV2Student Backward Elimination: Step 7 Variable Gender Removed: R Square = 0.2123 and C(p) = 5.8525 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 5 32.152 20 6.43044 16.71 <.0001 Error 310 119.29477 0.38482 Corrected Total 315 151.44697

PAGE 387

371 Appendix R (Continued) The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV2Student DV2Student Backward Elimination: Step 7 Parameter Standard Variable Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F Intercept 3.20378 0.20702 92.15 959 239.49 <.0001 InstStat 0.26914 0.08472 3.88398 10.09 0.0016 IntUndergrad 0.05472 0.03083 1.21203 3.15 0.0769 InstDesc 0.24752 0.04420 12.06612 31.36 <.0001 EngProfi 0.2377 5 0.07149 4.25615 11.06 0.0010 IntlExp 0.15538 0.04971 3.75949 9.77 0.0019 Bounds on condition number: 1.2292, 28.558 ---------------------------------------------------------------------All variabl es left in the model are significant at the 0.1000 level. The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV2Student DV2Student Summary of Backward Elimination Variable Number Partial Model Step Removed Label Vars In R Square R Square C(p) 1 IntGradPost IntGradPost 11 0.0000 0.2297 11.0052 2 InstType InstType 10 0.0003 0 .2294 9.1173 3 InstSize InstSize 9 0.0007 0.2287 7.4122 4 Faculty Faculty 8 0.0016 0.2271 6.0318 5 Experience Experience 7 0.0044 0.2226 5.7812 6 Age Age 6 0.0044 0.2183 5.5114 7 Gender Gender 5 0.0060 0.2123 5.8525 Summary of Backward Elimination Step F Value Pr > F 1 0.01 0.9428 2 0.11 0.7375 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV2Student DV2Student Summary of Backward Elimination Step F Value Pr > F 3 0.30 0.5863 4 0.62 0.4299 5 1.77 0.1848 6 1.74 0.1878 7 2.35 0.1261

PAGE 388

372 Appendix R (Continued) R.3. Multiple Regression 3 Backward Elimination Procedure: Analysis of Variance by Demographic Characteristics for Teaching and Faculty Development Strategies. The REG Pro cedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV3Teaching DV3Teaching Number of Observations Read 349 Number of Observations Used 316 Number of Obser vations with Missing Values 33 Backward Elimination: Step 0 All Variables Entered: R Square = 0.2237 and C(p) = 13.0000 The REG Procedure Mo del: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV3Teaching DV3Teaching Backward Elimination: Step 0 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squ ares Square F Value Pr > F Model 12 43.48991 3.62416 7.28 <.0001 Error 303 150.92405 0.49810 Corrected Total 315 194.41396 Parameter Standard Variable Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F Intercept 2.70461 0.41132 21.53562 43.24 <.0001 InstStat 0.32322 0.12124 3.54003 7.11 0.0081 InstType 0.09404 0.08214 0.65284 1.3 1 0.2532 IntUndergrad 0.02040 0.06305 0.05213 0.10 0.7465 IntGradPost 0.03155 0.05728 0.15110 0.30 0.5822 InstSize 0.07188 0.07830 0.41973 0.84 0.3594 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV3Teaching DV3Teaching Backward Elimination: Step 0 Parameter Standard Variable Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F InstDesc 0.18048 0.05713 4.97102 9.98 0.0017 Faculty 0.12196 0.08156 1.11366 2.24 0.1359 Experience 0.02077 0.05368 0.07457 0.15 0.6991 Age 0.03312 0.05651 0.17108 0.34 0.5583 Gender 0.03879 0.08785 0.09713 0.20 0.6591 EngProfi 0.35517 0.08807 8.10068 16.26 <.0001 IntlExp 0.21725 0.05958 6.62151 13.29 0.0003 Bounds on condition number: 3.4003, 259.98

PAGE 389

373 Appendix R (Continued) ---------------------------------------------------------------------Backward Elimination: Step 1 The REG P rocedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV3Teaching DV3Teaching Backward Elimination: Step 1 Variable IntUndergrad Removed: R Square = 0.2234 and C(p) = 11.1046 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 11 43.43778 3.94889 7.95 <.0001 Error 304 150.97618 0.49663 Corrected Total 315 194.41396 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV3Teaching DV3Teaching Backward Elimination: Step 1 Parameter Standard Variable Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F Intercept 2.69784 0.41019 21.48356 43.26 <.0001 InstStat 0.32356 0.12106 3.54773 7.14 0.0079 InstType 0.09067 0.08136 0.61679 1.24 0.2660 IntGradPost 0.04607 0.03552 0.83556 1.68 0.1956 InstSize 0.06259 0.07274 0.36770 0.74 0.3902 InstDesc 0.18052 0.05705 4.97301 1 0.01 0.0017 Faculty 0.12286 0.08140 1.13152 2.28 0.1322 Experience 0.02235 0.05339 0.08701 0.18 0.6758 Age 0.03318 0.05642 0.17170 0.35 0.5570 Gender 0.03731 0 .08760 0.09008 0.18 0.6705 EngProfi 0.35610 0.08789 8.15220 16.41 <.0001 IntlExp 0.21743 0.05949 6.63300 13.36 0.0003 The REG Procedure Mode l: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV3Teaching DV3Teaching Backward Elimination: Step 1 Bounds on condition number: 1.8083, 176.74 ---------------------------------------------------------------------Backward Elimination: Step 2 Variable Experience Removed: R Square = 0.2230 and C(p) = 9.2793

PAGE 390

374 Appendix R (Continued) The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV3Teaching DV3Teaching Backward Elimination: Step 2 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 10 43.35077 4.33508 8.75 <.0001 Error 305 151.06319 0.49529 Corrected Total 315 194.41396 Parameter Standard Variable Estimate Er ror Type II SS F Value Pr > F Intercept 2.67841 0.40700 21.44987 43.31 <.0001 InstStat 0.32539 0.12082 3.59260 7.25 0.0075 InstType 0.09241 0.08114 0.64229 1.30 0.2557 IntGradPos t 0.04832 0.03506 0.94072 1.90 0.1692 InstSize 0.06439 0.07251 0.39061 0.79 0.3752 InstDesc 0.17919 0.05688 4.91539 9.92 0.0018 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV3Teaching DV3Teaching Backward Elimination: Step 2 Parameter Standard Variable Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F Fac ulty 0.11988 0.08097 1.08564 2.19 0.1398 Age 0.02031 0.04726 0.09152 0.18 0.6676 Gender 0.03823 0.08745 0.09466 0.19 0.6623 EngProfi 0.35972 0.08735 8.399 88 16.96 <.0001 IntlExp 0.21843 0.05937 6.70534 13.54 0.0003 Bounds on condition number: 1.7608, 138.14 ---------------------------------------------------------------------Backward Elimin ation: Step 3 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV3Teaching DV3Teaching Backward Elimination: Step 3 Variable Age Remov ed: R Square = 0.2225 and C(p) = 7.4631 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 9 43.25925 4.80658 9.73 <.0001 Error 306 151.15471 0.49397

PAGE 391

375 Appendix R (Continued) Corrected Total 315 194.41396 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV3Teaching DV3Teaching Backward Elimination: Step 3 Parameter Standard Variable Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F Intercept 2.74714 0.37379 26.68181 54. 02 <.0001 InstStat 0.32397 0.12061 3.56393 7.21 0.0076 InstType 0.09021 0.08088 0.61461 1.24 0.2655 IntGradPost 0.04918 0.03496 0.97786 1.98 0.1604 InstSize 0.06126 0.0 7205 0.35711 0.72 0.3958 InstDesc 0.17894 0.05680 4.90231 9.92 0.0018 Faculty 0.12364 0.08039 1.16833 2.37 0.1251 Gender 0.03577 0.08715 0.08321 0.17 0.6818 EngProfi 0.34845 0.08321 8.66217 17.54 <.0001 IntlExp 0.22577 0.05678 7.80925 15.81 <.0001 Bounds on condition number: 1.7595, 110.43 --------------------------------------------------------------------Backward Elimination: Step 4 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV3Teaching DV3Teaching Backward Elimination: Step 4 Va riable Gender Removed: R Square = 0.2221 and C(p) = 5.6301 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 8 43.17605 5.39701 10.96 <.0001 Error 307 151.23791 0.49263 Corrected Total 315 194.41396 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Varia ble: DV3Teaching DV3Teaching Backward Elimination: Step 4 Parameter Standard Variable Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F Intercept 2.69178 0.34813 29.45185 59.78 < .0001 InstStat 0.32142 0.12029 3.51745 7.14 0.0079 InstType 0.08852 0.08066 0.59332 1.20 0.2733 IntGradPost 0.05015 0.03483 1.02126 2.07 0.1509 InstSize 0.06207 0.07192 0.36690 0.74 0.3888 InstDesc 0.17876 0.05672 4.89271 9.93 0.0018 Faculty 0.12274 0.08026 1.15227 2.34 0.1272 EngProfi 0.34394 0.08237 8.58925 17.44 <.0001 IntlExp 0.22419 0.05658 7.73597 15.70 <.0001

PAGE 392

376 Appendix R (Continued) Bounds on condition number: 1.7548, 89.461 ---------------------------------------------------------------------Backward Elimination: Step 5 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV3Teaching DV3Teaching Backward Elimination: Step 5 Variable InstSize Removed: R Square = 0.2202 and C(p) = 4.3667 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 7 42.80915 6.11559 12.42 <.0001 Er ror 308 151.60481 0.49222 Corrected Total 315 194.41396 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV3Teaching DV3Teaching Backward Elimination: Step 5 Parameter Standard Variable Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F Intercept 2.49031 0.25814 45.80942 93.07 <.0001 InstStat 0.37732 0.10132 6.82679 13.87 0.0002 InstType 0.08452 0.08050 0.54271 1.10 0.2945 IntGradPost 0.04257 0.03369 0.78594 1.60 0.2073 InstDesc 0.16969 0.05572 4.56550 9.28 0.0025 Faculty 0 .12225 0.08022 1.14318 2.32 0.1285 EngProfi 0.33796 0.08204 8.35226 16.97 <.0001 IntlExp 0.22830 0.05635 8.07934 16.41 <.0001 Bounds on condition number: 1.5778, 61.536 --------------------------------------------------------------------Backward Elimination: Step 6 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV3Teaching DV3Teachi ng Backward Elimination: Step 6 Variable InstType Removed: R Square = 0.2174 and C(p) = 3.4563 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 6 42.26644 7.04441 14.31 <.0001 Error 309 152.14752 0.49239 Corrected Total 315 194.41396

PAGE 393

377 Appendix R (Continued) Th e REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV3Teaching DV3Teaching Backward Elimination: Step 6 Parameter Standard Variable Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F Intercept 2.47713 0.25788 45.43332 92.27 <.0001 InstStat 0.34032 0.09501 6.31777 12.83 0.0004 IntGradPost 0.04564 0.03357 0.90990 1.85 0.1750 InstDesc 0.195 53 0.05000 7.52987 15.29 0.0001 Faculty 0.11498 0.07993 1.01876 2.07 0.1513 EngProfi 0.33990 0.08204 8.45275 17.17 <.0001 IntlExp 0.23249 0.05622 8.42101 17.10 <.0001 Bounds on condition number: 1.2291, 40.453 ---------------------------------------------------------------------Backward Elimination: Step 7 The REG Procedure Mod el: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV3Teaching DV3Teaching Backward Elimination: Step 7 Variable IntGradPost Removed: R Square = 0.2127 and C(p) = 3.2830 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 5 41.35654 8.27131 16.75 <.0001 Error 310 153.05742 0.49373 Corrected Total 315 194.41396 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV3Teaching DV3Teaching Backward Elimination: Step 7 Parameter Standard Variab le Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F Intercept 2.64313 0.22744 66.67751 135.05 <.0001 InstStat 0.33665 0.09510 6.18745 12.53 0.0005 InstDesc 0.19994 0.04996 7.90747 16.02 <.0001 Faculty 0.12054 0.07994 1.12266 2.27 0.1326 EngProfi 0.31818 0.08057 7.69907 15.59 <.0001 IntlExp 0.22747 0.05617 8.09609 16.40 <.0001 Bounds on con dition number: 1.2239, 28.116 ---------------------------------------------------------------------Backward Elimination: Step 8

PAGE 394

378 Appendix R (Continued) The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV3Teaching DV3Teaching Backward Elimination: Step 8 Variable Faculty Removed: R Square = 0.2069 and C(p) = 3.5369 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 4 40.23388 10.05847 20.29 <.0001 Error 311 154.18008 0.49576 Corrected Total 315 194. 41396 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV3Teaching DV3Teaching Backward Elimination: Step 8 Parameter Standard Variable Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F Intercept 2.83695 0.18802 112.86218 227.66 <.0001 InstStat 0.33071 0.09521 5.98129 12.06 0.0006 InstDesc 0.20198 0.05005 8.07516 1 6.29 <.0001 EngProfi 0.31498 0.08071 7.55042 15.23 0.0001 IntlExp 0.22935 0.05627 8.23478 16.61 <.0001 Bounds on condition number: 1.223, 18.452 --------------------------------------------------------------------All variables left in the model are significant at the 0.1000 level. The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV3Teaching DV3Teaching Summary of Backward Elimination Variable Number Partial Model Step Removed Label Vars In R Square R Square C(p) 1 IntUndergrad IntUndergrad 11 0.0003 0.2234 11.1046 2 Experienc e Experience 10 0.0004 0.2230 9.2793 3 Age Age 9 0.0005 0.2225 7.4631 4 Gender Gender 8 0.0004 0.2221 5.6301 5 InstSize InstSize 7 0.0019 0.22 02 4.3667 6 InstType InstType 6 0.0028 0.2174 3.4563 7 IntGradPost IntGradPost 5 0.0047 0.2127 3.2830 8 Faculty Faculty 4 0.0058 0.2069 3.5369

PAGE 395

379 Appendix R (Continued) The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DV3Teaching DV3Teaching Summary of Backward Elimination Step F Value Pr > F 1 0.10 0.7465 2 0.18 0.6758 3 0.18 0.6676 4 0.17 0.6818 5 0.74 0.3888 6 1.10 0.2945 7 1.85 0.1750 8 2.27 0.1326 R.4. Multiple Regression 4 Backward Elimination Procedure: Analysis of Variance by Demographic Characteristics (Total) The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DVTotal1 DVTotal1 Number of Observations Read 349 Number of Observations Used 316 Number of Observations with Missing Values 33 Backward Elimination: Step 0 All Variables Entered: R Square = 0.2567 and C(p) = 13.0000 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DVTotal1 DVTotal1 Backward Elimination: Step 0 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 12 36.17165 3.01430 8.72 <.0001 Error 303 104.74004 0.34568 Corrected Total 315 140.91169 Parameter Standard Va riable Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F Intercept 2.99238 0.34266 26.36223 76.26 <.0001 InstStat 0.34935 0.10100 4.13557 11.96 0.0006 InstType 0.08282 0.06843 0.5 0630 1.46 0.2271 IntUndergrad 0.05055 0.05252 0.32023 0.93 0.3366 IntGradPost 0.00423 0.04772 0.00271 0.01 0.9295 InstSize 0.01355 0.06523 0.01491 0.04 0.8356

PAGE 396

380 Appendix R (Continued) The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DVTotal1 DVTotal1 Backward Elimination: Step 0 Parameter Standard Variable Esti mate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F InstDesc 0.20771 0.04759 6.58429 19.05 <.0001 Faculty 0.09827 0.06795 0.72311 2.09 0.1491 Experience 0.04620 0.04472 0.36892 1.07 0.30 24 Age 0.05839 0.04707 0.53187 1.54 0.2158 Gender 0.07372 0.07319 0.35072 1.01 0.3146 EngProfi 0.22908 0.07337 3.37012 9.75 0.0020 IntlExp 0.17985 0.04964 4.53819 13.13 0.0003 Bounds on condition number: 3.4003, 259.98 ---------------------------------------------------------------------Backward Elimination: Step 1 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DVTotal1 DVTotal1 Backward Elimination: Step 1 Variable IntGradPost Removed: R Square = 0.2567 and C(p) = 11.0078 Analysis of Vari ance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 11 36.16894 3.28809 9.54 <.0001 Error 304 104.74275 0.34455 Co rrected Total 315 140.91169 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DVTotal1 DVTotal1 Backward Elimination: Step 1 Paramet er Standard Variable Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F Intercept 2.99663 0.33873 26.96567 78.26 <.0001 InstStat 0.35005 0.10053 4.17709 12.12 0.0006 InstType 0.08367 0.06764 0.52724 1.53 0.2170 IntUndergrad 0.05420 0.03256 0.95446 2.77 0.0971 InstSize 0.01273 0.06446 0.01343 0.04 0.8436 InstDesc 0.20766 0.04751 6.58197 19.10 <.0001 Facu lty 0.09834 0.06783 0.72425 2.10 0.1481 Experience 0.04629 0.04464 0.37054 1.08 0.3005 Age 0.05872 0.04685 0.54113 1.57 0.2111 Gender 0.07425 0.07282 0.3582 1 1.04 0.3087 EngProfi 0.22817 0.07253 3.41035 9.90 0.0018 IntlExp 0.17965 0.04950 4.53766 13.17 0.0003

PAGE 397

381 Appendix R (Continued) The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DVTotal1 DVTotal1 Backward Elimination: Step 1 Bounds on condition number: 1.9917, 180.27 ---------------------------------------------------------------------Backward Elimination: Step 2 Variable InstSize Removed: R Square = 0.2566 and C(p) = 9.0467 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DVTotal1 DVTotal1 Backward Elimination: Step 2 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 10 36 .15551 3.61555 10.53 <.0001 Error 305 104.75618 0.34346 Corrected Total 315 140.91169 Parameter Standard Variable Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F Intercept 3.02903 0.29584 36.00464 104.83 <.0001 InstStat 0.33985 0.08611 5.34986 15.58 <.0001 InstType 0.08485 0.06727 0.54639 1.59 0.2082 IntUndergrad 0.05687 0.02957 1.26994 3. 70 0.0554 InstDesc 0.20927 0.04673 6.88666 20.05 <.0001 Faculty 0.09803 0.06771 0.72001 2.10 0.1487 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 D ependent Variable: DVTotal1 DVTotal1 Backward Elimination: Step 2 Parameter Standard Variable Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F Experience 0.04548 0.04438 0.36070 1.05 0.3063 Age 0.05905 0.04675 0.54809 1.60 0.2075 Gender 0.07410 0.07270 0.35682 1.04 0.3089 EngProfi 0.22980 0.07194 3.50406 10.20 0.0015 IntlExp 0.17869 0.04919 4.53310 13.20 0.0003 Bounds on condition number: 1.7949, 136.02 ---------------------------------------------------------------------Backward Elimination: Step 3

PAGE 398

382 Appendix R (Continued) The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DVTotal1 DVTotal1 Backward Elimination: Step 3 Variable Gender Removed: R Square = 0.2541 and C(p) = 8.0789 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 9 35.79869 3.97763 11.58 <.0001 Error 3 06 105.11300 0.34351 Corrected Total 315 140.91169 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DVTotal1 DVTotal1 Backward Elimination: Step 3 Parameter Standard Variable Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F Intercept 2.92571 0.27795 38.05829 110.79 <.0001 InstStat 0.33555 0.08601 5.22784 15.22 0.00 01 InstType 0.08125 0.06718 0.50245 1.46 0.2274 IntUndergrad 0.05737 0.02957 1.29267 3.76 0.0533 InstDesc 0.20880 0.04674 6.85647 19.96 <.0001 Faculty 0.09702 0.06770 0.70538 2.05 0.1529 Experience 0.04697 0.04436 0.38511 1.12 0.2905 Age 0.05738 0.04672 0.51802 1.51 0.2204 EngProfi 0.21799 0.07101 3.23713 9.42 0.0023 IntlExp 0.17621 0.04913 4.41896 12.86 0.0004 Bounds on condition number: 1.7927, 112.57 ---------------------------------------------------------------------Backward Elimination: Step 4 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DVTotal1 DVTotal1 Backward Elimination: Step 4 Variable Experience Removed: R Square = 0.2513 and C(p) = 7.1930 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 8 35.41358 4.42670 12.88 <.0001 Error 307 105.49811 0.34364 Corrected Total 315 140.91169

PAGE 399

383 Appendix R (Continued) The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DVTotal1 DVTotal1 Backward Elimination: Step 4 Parameter Standard Variable Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F Intercept 2.86799 0.27261 38.03433 110.68 <.0001 InstStat 0.34442 0.08 562 5.56084 16.18 <.0001 InstType 0.08527 0.06709 0.55508 1.62 0.2047 IntUndergrad 0.06209 0.02924 1.54959 4.51 0.0345 InstDesc 0.20517 0.04662 6.65595 19.37 <.0001 Faculty 0.09067 0.06745 0.62093 1.81 0.1799 Age 0.03014 0.03901 0.20511 0.60 0.4404 EngProfi 0.22392 0.07080 3.43700 10.00 0.0017 IntlExp 0.17862 0.04909 4.55035 13 .24 0.0003 Bounds on condition number: 1.5699, 81.994 ---------------------------------------------------------------------Backward Elimination: Step 5 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DVTotal1 DVTotal1 Backward Elimination: Step 5 Variable Age Removed: R Square = 0.2499 and C(p) = 5.7864 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 7 35.20847 5.02978 14.66 <.0001 Error 308 105.70322 0.34319 Correct ed Total 315 140.91169 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DVTotal1 DVTotal1 Backward Elimination: Step 5 Parameter Standard Variable Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F Intercept 2.99241 0.21981 63.60559 185.34 <.0001 InstStat 0.33880 0.08525 5.41992 15.79 <.0001 InstType 0.08281 0.0 6697 0.52473 1.53 0.2172 IntUndergrad 0.06340 0.02917 1.62091 4.72 0.0305 InstDesc 0.20545 0.04659 6.67491 19.45 <.0001 Faculty 0.09643 0.06699 0.71110 2.07 0.1510 EngProfi 0.20758 0.06753 3.24304 9.45 0.0023 IntlExp 0.18930 0.04707 5.55159 16.18 <.0001 Bounds on condition number: 1.5663, 61.306 --------------------------------------------------------------------Backward Elimination: Step 6

PAGE 400

384 Appendix R (Continued) The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DVTotal1 DVTotal1 Backward Elimina tion: Step 6 Variable InstType Removed: R Square = 0.2461 and C(p) = 5.3043 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F M odel 6 34.68374 5.78062 16.81 <.0001 Error 309 106.22795 0.34378 Corrected Total 315 140.91169 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DVTotal1 DVTotal1 Backward Elimination: Step 6 Parameter Standard Variable Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F Intercept 2.98826 0.21997 63.44381 184.55 <.0001 InstStat 0.30252 0.08011 4.90189 14.26 0.0002 IntUndergrad 0.06396 0.02919 1.65048 4.80 0.0292 InstDesc 0.23100 0.04179 10.50362 30.55 <.0001 Faculty 0.08959 0.06682 0.61802 1.80 0.1810 EngProfi 0.20819 0.06758 3.26220 9.49 0.0023 IntlExp 0.19314 0.04700 5.80471 16.88 <.0001 Bounds on condition number: 1.2299, 40. 369 ---------------------------------------------------------------------Backward Elimination: Step 7 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DVTotal 1 DVTotal1 Backward Elimination: Step 7 Variable Faculty Removed: R Square = 0.2418 and C(p) = 5.0922 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source D F Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 5 34.06572 6.81314 19.77 <.0001 Error 310 106.84597 0.34466 Corrected Total 315 140.91169

PAGE 401

385 Appendix R (Continued) The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DVTotal1 DVTotal1 Backward Elimination: Step 7 Parameter Standard Variable Estimate Erro r Type II SS F Value Pr > F Intercept 3.12300 0.19593 87.57056 254.07 <.0001 InstStat 0.29899 0.08017 4.79345 13.91 0.0002 IntUndergrad 0.06628 0.02918 1.77835 5.16 0.0238 InstDesc 0.23228 0.04183 10.62560 30.83 <.0001 EngProfi 0.20637 0.06766 3.20663 9.30 0.0025 IntlExp 0.19482 0.04705 5.90981 17.15 <.0001 Bounds on condition number: 1.2292, 28.558 --------------------------------------------------------------------All variables left in the model are significant at the 0.1000 level. The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Va riable: DVTotal1 DVTotal1 Summary of Backward Elimination Variable Number Partial Model Step Removed Label Vars In R Square R Square C(p) 1 IntGradPost IntGradPost 11 0. 0000 0.2567 11.0078 2 InstSize InstSize 10 0.0001 0.2566 9.0467 3 Gender Gender 9 0.0025 0.2541 8.0789 4 Experience Experience 8 0.0027 0.2513 7.1930 5 Age Age 7 0.0015 0.2499 5.7864 6 InstType InstType 6 0.0037 0.2461 5.3043 7 Faculty Faculty 5 0.0044 0.2418 5.0922 Summary of Backward Elimination Step F Value Pr > F 1 0.01 0.9295 2 0.04 0.8436 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variabl e: DVTotal1 DVTotal1 Summary of Backward Elimination Step F Value Pr > F 3 1.04 0.3089 4 1.12 0.2905 5 0.60 0.4404 6 1.53 0.2172 7 1.80 0.1810

PAGE 402

386 Appendix R (Continued) The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DVTotal 1 DVTotal1 Number of Observations Read 349 Number of Observations Used 316 Number of Observations with Missing Values 33 Backward Elimination: Step 0 All Variables Entered: R Square = 0.2567 and C(p) = 13.0000 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DVTotal1 DVTotal1 Backward Elimination: Step 0 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 12 36.17165 3.01430 8.72 <.0001 Error 303 104.74004 0.34568 Corrected Total 315 140.91169 Parameter Standard Variable Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F Intercept 2.99238 0.34266 26.36223 76.26 < .0001 InstStat 0.34935 0.10100 4.13557 11.96 0.0006 InstType 0.08282 0.06843 0.50630 1.46 0.2271 IntUndergrad 0.05055 0.05252 0.32023 0.93 0.3366 IntGradPost 0.00423 0.04772 0.00271 0.01 0.9295 InstSize 0.01355 0.06523 0.01491 0.04 0.8356 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DVTotal1 DVTotal1 Backward Elimination: Step 0 Parameter Standard Variable Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F InstDesc 0.20771 0.04759 6.58429 19.05 <.0001 Faculty 0.09827 0.067 95 0.72311 2.09 0.1491 Experience 0.04620 0.04472 0.36892 1.07 0.3024 Age 0.05839 0.04707 0.53187 1.54 0.2158 Gender 0.07372 0.07319 0.35072 1.01 0.3146 EngProfi 0.22908 0.07337 3.37012 9.75 0.0020 IntlExp 0.17985 0.04964 4.53819 13.13 0.0003 Bounds on condition number: 3.4003, 259.98 ---------------------------------------------------------------------Backward Elimination: Step 1

PAGE 403

387 Appendix R (Continued) The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DVTotal1 DVTotal1 Backward Elimi nation: Step 1 Variable IntGradPost Removed: R Square = 0.2567 and C(p) = 11.0078 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 11 36.16894 3.28809 9.54 <.0001 Error 304 104.74275 0.34455 Corrected Total 315 140.91169 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DVTotal1 DVTotal1 Backward Elimination: Step 1 Parameter Standard Variable Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F Intercept 2.99663 0.33873 26.96567 78.26 <.0001 InstStat 0.35005 0.10053 4.17709 12.12 0.0006 InstType 0.08367 0.06764 0.52724 1.53 0.2170 IntUndergrad 0.05420 0.03256 0.95446 2.77 0.0971 InstSize 0.01273 0.06446 0.01343 0.04 0.8436 InstDesc 0.20766 0.04751 6.58197 19.10 <.0001 Faculty 0.09834 0.06783 0.72425 2.10 0.1481 Experience 0.04629 0.04464 0.37054 1.08 0.3005 Age 0.05872 0.04685 0.54113 1.57 0.2111 Gender 0.07425 0.07282 0.35821 1.04 0.3087 EngProfi 0.22817 0.07253 3.41035 9.90 0.0018 IntlExp 0.17965 0.04950 4.53766 13.17 0.0003 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DVTotal1 DVTotal1 Backward Elimination: Step 1 Bou nds on condition number: 1.9917, 180.27 ---------------------------------------------------------------------Backward Elimination: Step 2 Variable InstSize Removed: R Square = 0.2566 and C(p) = 9.0467

PAGE 404

388 Appendix R (Continued) The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DVTotal1 DVTotal1 Backward Elimination: Step 2 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 10 36.15551 3.61555 10.53 <.0001 Error 305 104.75618 0.34346 Corrected Total 3 15 140.91169 Parameter Standard Variable Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F Intercept 3.02903 0.29584 36.00464 104.83 <.0001 InstStat 0.33985 0.08611 5.34986 1 5.58 <.0001 InstType 0.08485 0.06727 0.54639 1.59 0.2082 IntUndergrad 0.05687 0.02957 1.26994 3.70 0.0554 InstDesc 0.20927 0.04673 6.88666 20.05 <.0001 Faculty 0.09803 0 .06771 0.72001 2.10 0.1487 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DVTotal1 DVTotal1 Backward Elimination: Step 2 Paramet er Standard Variable Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F Experience 0.04548 0.04438 0.36070 1.05 0.3063 Age 0.05905 0.04675 0.54809 1.60 0.2075 Gender 0.07410 0.07270 0.35682 1.04 0.3089 EngProfi 0.22980 0.07194 3.50406 10.20 0.0015 IntlExp 0.17869 0.04919 4.53310 13.20 0.0003 Bounds on condition number: 1.7949, 136.02 --------------------------------------------------------------------Backward Elimination: Step 3 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DVTotal1 DVTotal1 Backward Elimination: Step 3 Variable Gender Removed: R Square = 0.2541 and C(p) = 8.0789 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 9 35.79869 3.97763 11.58 <.0001 Error 306 105.11300 0.34351 Corrected Total 315 140.91169

PAGE 405

389 Appendix R (Continued) The REG Procedur e Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DVTotal1 DVTotal1 Backward Elimination: Step 3 Parameter Standard Variable Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F Intercept 2.92571 0.27795 38.05829 110.79 <.0001 InstStat 0.33555 0.08601 5.22784 15.22 0.0001 InstType 0.08125 0.06718 0.50245 1.46 0.2274 IntUndergrad 0.05737 0.02957 1.29267 3.76 0.0533 InstDesc 0.20880 0.04674 6.85647 19.96 <.0001 Faculty 0.09702 0.06770 0.70538 2.05 0.1529 Experience 0.04697 0.04436 0.38511 1.12 0.2905 Age 0.05738 0.04672 0.51802 1.51 0.2204 EngProfi 0.21799 0.07101 3.23713 9.42 0.0023 IntlExp 0.17621 0.04913 4.41896 12.86 0.0004 Bounds on condition number: 1.7927, 112.57 --------------------------------------------------------------------Backward Elimination: Step 4 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DVTotal1 DVTotal 1 Backward Elimination: Step 4 Variable Experience Removed: R Square = 0.2513 and C(p) = 7.1930 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF S quares Square F Value Pr > F Model 8 35.41358 4.42670 12.88 <.0001 Error 307 105.49811 0.34364 Corrected Total 315 140.91169 The REG Proce dure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DVTotal1 DVTotal1 Backward Elimination: Step 4 Parameter Standard Variable Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F Intercept 2.86799 0.27261 38.03433 110.68 <.0001 InstStat 0.34442 0.08562 5.56084 16.18 <.0001 InstType 0.08527 0.06709 0.55508 1.62 0.2047 IntUndergrad 0.06209 0.0292 4 1.54959 4.51 0.0345 InstDesc 0.20517 0.04662 6.65595 19.37 <.0001 Faculty 0.09067 0.06745 0.62093 1.81 0.1799 Age 0.03014 0.03901 0.20511 0.60 0.4404 EngProfi 0.22392 0.07080 3.43700 10.00 0.0017 IntlExp 0.17862 0.04909 4.55035 13.24 0.0003 Bounds on condition number: 1.5699, 81.994 ---------------------------------------------------------------------Backward Elimination: Step 5

PAGE 406

390 Appendix R (Continued) The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DVTotal1 DVTotal1 Backward Eliminatio n: Step 5 Variable Age Removed: R Square = 0.2499 and C(p) = 5.7864 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 7 35.20847 5.02978 14.66 <.0001 Error 308 105.70322 0.34319 Corrected Total 315 140.91169 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DVTotal1 DVTotal1 Backward Elimination: Step 5 Parameter Standard Variable Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F Intercept 2.99241 0.21981 63.6055 9 185.34 <.0001 InstStat 0.33880 0.08525 5.41992 15.79 <.0001 InstType 0.08281 0.06697 0.52473 1.53 0.2172 IntUndergrad 0.06340 0.02917 1.62091 4.72 0.0305 InstDesc 0.20545 0.04659 6.67491 19.45 <.0001 Faculty 0.09643 0.06699 0.71110 2.07 0.1510 EngProfi 0.20758 0.06753 3.24304 9.45 0.0023 IntlExp 0.18930 0.04707 5.55159 16.18 <.0001 Bounds on condition number: 1.5663, 61.306 ---------------------------------------------------------------------Backward Elimination: Step 6 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DVTotal1 DVTotal1 Backward Elimination: Step 6 Variable InstType Removed: R Square = 0.2461 and C(p) = 5.3043 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 6 34.68374 5.78062 16.81 <.0001 Error 309 106.22795 0.34378 Corrected Total 315 140.91 169

PAGE 407

391 Appendix R (Continued) The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DVTotal1 DVTotal1 Backward Elimination: Step 6 Parameter Standard Variable Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F Intercept 2.98826 0.21997 63.44381 184.55 <.0001 InstStat 0.30252 0.08011 4.90189 14.26 0.0002 IntUndergrad 0. 06396 0.02919 1.65048 4.80 0.0292 InstDesc 0.23100 0.04179 10.50362 30.55 <.0001 Faculty 0.08959 0.06682 0.61802 1.80 0.1810 EngProfi 0.20819 0.06758 3.26220 9.49 0.00 23 IntlExp 0.19314 0.04700 5.80471 16.88 <.0001 Bounds on condition number: 1.2299, 40.369 ---------------------------------------------------------------------Backward Elimination: Step 7 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DVTotal1 DVTotal1 Backward Elimination: Step 7 Variable Faculty Removed: R Square = 0.2418 and C(p) = 5.0922 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 5 34.06572 6.81314 19.77 <.0001 Error 310 106.84597 0.34466 Corrected Total 315 140.91169 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DVTotal1 DVTotal1 Backward Elimination: Step 7 Parameter Standard Variable Estimate Error Type II SS F Value Pr > F Intercept 3.12300 0.19593 87.57056 254.07 <.0001 InstStat 0.29899 0.08017 4.79345 13.91 0.0002 IntUndergrad 0.06628 0.02918 1.77835 5.16 0.0238 InstDesc 0.23228 0.04183 10.62560 30.83 <.0001 EngProfi 0.20637 0.06766 3.20663 9.30 0.0025 Intl Exp 0.19482 0.04705 5.90981 17.15 <.0001 Bounds on condition number: 1.2292, 28.558 ---------------------------------------------------------------------All variables left in the model are significant at the 0.1000 level.

PAGE 408

392 Appendix R (Continued) The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DVTotal1 DVTotal1 Summary of Backward Elimination Variable Number Partial Model Step Removed Label Vars In R Square R Square C(p) 1 IntGradPost IntGradPost 11 0.0000 0.2567 11.0078 2 InstSize InstSize 10 0.0001 0.2566 9.046 7 3 Gender Gender 9 0.0025 0.2541 8.0789 4 Experience Experience 8 0.0027 0.2513 7.1930 5 Age Age 7 0.0015 0.2499 5.7864 6 InstType InstType 6 0.0037 0.2461 5.3043 7 Faculty Faculty 5 0.0044 0.2418 5.0922 Summary of Backward Elimination Step F Value Pr > F 1 0.01 0.9295 2 0.04 0.8436 The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: DVTotal1 DVTotal1 Summary of Backward Elimination Step F Value Pr > F 3 1.04 0.3089 4 1.12 0.2905 5 0.60 0.4404 6 1.53 0.2172 7 1.80 0.1810

PAGE 409

About the Author Janice Sullivan is the Dean o f Academic Affairs at the Arkansas School for Mathematics, Sciences and the Arts; a campus of the University of Arkansas located in Hot Springs, AR. Janice Sullivan receiv Architecture at the National University of Colombia in Bogota, Colombia in 1998 ster University in St. Louis, Missouri in 2005 Previous to her position as a Dean she worked for five years in research and administration at the University of South Florida in Tampa where she received her Ed.S. in Curriculum and Instruction in 2008. Her professional practice of architecture includes design, construction services, and instruction for public and private institutions including the Colombian Navy and the National University of Colombia. Originally from Bogota, Colombia, she moved to the United States in 2003 after marrying an American construction manager and designer. Ja nice Sullivan became an American Citizen on November 19, 2007. At the University of South Florida, she was instrumental in conducting research, coordinating professional development programs and securing grants for educational projects. Janice Sullivan has been the recipient of eminent awards and honors including the Distinguished Graduate Achievement Award from the University of South Florida in 2010.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 22 Ka 4500
controlfield tag 007 cr-bnu---uuuuu
008 s2011 flu ob 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0004848
035
(OCoLC)
040
FHM
c FHM
049
FHMM
090
XX9999 (Online)
1 100
Sullivan, Janice
0 245
Global leadership in higher education administration :
h [electronic resource] /
b perspectives on internationalization by university presidents, vice-presidents and deans
by Janice Sullivan.
260
[Tampa, Fla] :
University of South Florida,
2011.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 409 pages.
Includes vita.
502
Disseration
(Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2011.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic dissertation) in PDF format.
520
ABSTRACT: The purpose of the study was to identify international university administrators' perspectives on organizational strategies to support higher education internationalization. Internationalization is the conscious effort to integrate international, intercultural, and global dimensions into the ethos and outcomes of higher education (NAFSA, 2008). A descriptive survey design method was used and the instrument entitled "Strategic Internationalization Priority Scale" was developed for this research. This study is quantitative and cross-sectional. The online survey was sent to 1,043 top university administrators at 149 universities in 50 countries. These universities had active international agreements with the University of South Florida at the time of the study. Approximately 350 university presidents, vice-presidents, and deans, from 33 countries, and 65 universities, participated in the study. ANOVA, MANOVA, and Multiple Regression analyses were used to examine data in the three dimensions of internationalization: 1) Planning and operations, 2) Student Education, and 3) Teaching and Faculty Development. The statistical programs used for data analysis were SAS 9.2, SPSS 18.0 and Mplus 5. In general, the study participants perceived the three dimensions as having a medium priority level. Planning and operation strategies, and student education strategies, were rated higher than those for teaching and faculty development. Four of the 34 strategies were perceived as having a high priority level: 1) Motivating students to participate in study abroad programs, 2) Establishing institutional collaboration with foreign universities, 3) Communicating an institutional global vision, and 4) Increasing visibility of international focus on institution's web site. In contrast, the following strategies were perceived as having a low priority level: 1) Creating a branch campus abroad, and 2) Considering foreign language fluency in salary and promotion decisions. The research findings revealed that there were differences in perceptions based on the following demographic characteristics: 1) Institutional description, 2) Institution's world region, 3) Institutional status, 4) Number of international undergraduate students, 5) Administrators' position, 6) Administrators' English proficiency, and 7) Administrators' International experience. Furthermore, the participants identified the following top difficulties in achieving internationalization at their institutions: 1) Lack of economic resources, 2) Lack of faculty involvement, 3) Lack of planning and coordination, and 4) Lack of governmental support. The implications of these results are presented as they relate to the research and practice of higher education administration, educational leadership and policy development.
538
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
590
Advisor:
Young, William .
653
Chief Academic Officers
Colleges
Global Competiveness
Globalization
Internationalization
Study Abroad
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Higher Education Administration Educational Tests and Measurements Educational leadership
Doctoral.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.4848