Meeting Notes
October 21, 2001
The Washington Plaza Hotel, Washington, DC
Noon - 5:00 pm
Attending:
John Hudzik, MSU (Chair)
Mike Stohl, Purdue
Steve Hoch, Iowa
Susanne Rudolph, Chicago
Michael Hinden, Wisconsin-Madison
Earl Kellogg, Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Michael Kennedy, Michigan
Beverly Lindsay, Penn State
Jerry Ladman, Ohio State
Alan Lerner, Illinois at Chicago
Barbara Allen, CIC
Unable to attend:
Gene Allen, Minnesota
Devora Grynspan, Northwestern
Stephanie Latkovski, University of Chicago
Invited Guests:
Kathleen Fairfax, MSU (chair of the CIC study abroad directors)
Cynthia Wiliams, Wisconsin-Madison
Miriam Kazanjian, The Coalition
Study Abroad Report
John Hudzik quickly reviewed recent history on CIC discussions
related to study abroad collaboration within the CIC. The CIC
Senior International Officers and Study Abroad Directors submitted
a report to the Provosts in the spring of 2001 (attached) for
consideration. The provosts accepted the report and encouraged
the SIOs and the Study Abroad Directors to move quickly to strengthen
collaboration in study abroad and less commonly taught languages,
particularly.
Kathleen Fairfax (Chair of the CIC Study Abroad Directors) reported
on progress toward those areas of collaboration outlined in the
spring, 2001 report. Highlights include:
· Yolanda Zepeda is serving as liaison to the group from
the CIC, and is already actively supporting the study abroad directors'
collaborations.
· The study abroad directors are pursuing opportunities
for bi-lateral and multi-lateral partnerships between and among
subsets of CIC universities, as well as partnerships with third-party
providers such as CIE. They are initiating a multilateral internship
program in London and/or Madrid, for example. The Study Abroad
Directors consider this the area with the most potential for development.
· The group is pursuing standardization of certain study
abroad program elements, with a particular interest in the potential
for standardization of registration.
· The study abroad directors looked at a number of other
areas for collaboration, particularly in sharing best practices
in staffing, budgeting and local policy.
There then followed a somewhat wide-ranging discussion, with
points made in many areas including:
· There is not a clear understanding of the kinds of cooperative
study abroad programs operating under the CIC umbrella. A clear
and succinct description would be most useful to the SIOs.
· Potential measures of success might include: more programs
available and more students participating are the key measures;
diversity in program offerings and diversity in types of students
participating; safety and security of students.
· The area of registration standardization is probably
one which we should ask the Registrars to address (transcripts,
etc…).
· One potential faculty incentive is working with peer
institutions across the CIC, in areas where one does not have
a program or an expertise. Perhaps there should be financial incentives
built in, as well.
· Michael Stohl pointed out that there is an agreement
that goes back to 1967 in which the provosts identified that in
programs that are shared, the programs should be developed on
a cost-recovery basis. There was some discussion about this as
a strategy to encourage the development of these programs, with
a consensus that program pricing based on cost recovery is appropriate
and encouraged.
The international officers identified collaboration in study
abroad programs as a key strategy for providing access to a diverse
pool of programs, to provide efficiencies in offering programs,
and to provide options and choices in providing programs.
To do: Allen will send the SIOs a list of the names of the study
abroad directors and the AESOP coordinators. Allen will also ask
the study abroad directors to prepare a briefing for the SIOs
on the existingCIC collaborative study abroad programs. The study
abroad directors will also identify areas for standardization
in registration and etc… to be shared with the registrars
and SIOs (as appropriate). The study abroad directors should also
identify a set of issues that the SIOs should address in order
to make these cooperative programs successful.
Policy Issues
Miriam Kazanjian and Cynthia Williams joined the meeting for a
wide-ranging and fruitful conversation about challenges we face
in the aftermath of September 11.
The Coalition for International Education is a coalition of 28
national organizations. Miriam will share information with Barbara
Allen for redistribution to the CIC SIOs and Federal Relations'
Officers regarding members of congress we should be contacting
and the range of issues to influence. The SIOs should take the
lead in getting Title VI information out to our campus community.
Earl Kellogg and John Hudzik will work with Miriam on this planning.
A range of strategies could be employed (conference calls with
the SIOs and the Coalition or other interested parties, a workshop,
a meeting with the CIC federal relations officers, etc..).
Cynthia Williams discussed foreign student issues. Our universities
need to be proactive in getting positive stories out about the
importance of international students to our institutions. The
Feinstein bill seems to be dead, but it is likely that there will
be restrictions and/or delays on students from certain countries.
If there is a fee for tracking students, the fee should be collected
by the government. We do need to cooperate, and we need to find
ways to be cooperative within our power. There is a tightrope
between protecting the rights of our students, but we also need
to be helpful. There is a clear need for collaboration and leadership
on this issue. There was some discussion of how the conversation
is being carried out on each campus. Clearly, the Federal Relations
Officers have a key role in coordinating the conversations. We
will clearly be stricter in terms of issuing Visas and in identifying
who comes to campus and who does not. And, will this screening
come through the Embassies or through the universities?
Barbara Allen will contact the Federal Relations' Officers and
Public Relations Officers to survey what institutional strategties
are being employed and could be shared. Barbara Allen will also
look up the article in the Tribune (10/19) and the Times (10/20)
and share those articles with the SIOs. Allen will also survey
the SIOs immediately to determine what responses have been employed,
and will share information on scholars who could be consulted
on matters associated with (e.g.) the Middle East.
Less Commonly Taught Languages
Barbara Allen and Steve Hoch gave a brief status report on less
commonly taught languages.Barbara Allen reminded the group that
developing collaborative programs aimed at preserving access to
LCTLs has been identified as important for the CIC in the next
several years. Two opportunities are being explored: the LAS Deans
are funding a pilot in delivering 2nd year Portuguese; the American
Indian Studies Directors are pursuing opportunities for funding
a project in delivering language instruction in three Lakota dialects.
In order to scale this, we need an infrastructure for coordinating
admissions, registrations, etc… The SIOs could be very helpful
in offering advice, identifying this as a priority for CIC development,
assisting in the identification of funding opportunities, etc…
We should view the current efforts as an experiment, and we should
remain flexible.
Steve Hoch reported that Iowa and MSU are the lead universities
on the Portuguese project, which is in the early stages of discussion.
Faculty are grappling with the intellectual aspects of the program
delivery and development, and the incentives. The group hopes
to offer the course in Fall, 2002.
The following points were raised in the ensuing discussion:
· The faculty will struggle with the intellectual aspects
· We should worry about whether we can deliver a quality
learning experience through an online offering
· Launching a small experiment is the way to go, because
of the challenges we have in addressing the technology
· Faculty motivation is an issue, of course
· The Senior International Officers are very interested
in providing access to language instruction and endorse the Portuguese
project while encouraging a healthy evaluation component
· An interesting model to pursue is the coalition between
Washington and Montana (inter-Mountain model). Norm Peterson (Montana
State University) would be a good contact. There is also a Hindi
program at Chicago and at Washington that may be a useful model.
Irv Boschman at Indiana may have useful information about their
Haitian Creole course, and Beverly Lindsey about a program at
Penn State. All of these models may yield useful information that
would inform a CIC collaborative project.
BMA
10/21/01
version 1.1 11/26/01
MOVING CIC COLLABORATIVE STUDY ABROAD FORWARD
WORKING DRAFT---5/22/01----JKH
CIC institutions are expanding study abroad participation while
attempting to enhance program quality, provide a wider range of
country and subject matter options, and control costs (both to
students and the institution). Institutions pursuing their own
individual programming can meet these objectives only partially.
There are potentially strong advantages to CIC collaborative study
abroad programming, which include: load sharing in new program
development and program administration, shared use of underutilized
sites, greater access to cost effective programs, infrastructure
sharing, leveraging individual campus efforts, and increased purchasing
power with vendors. Although undergraduate students are the focus
of present study abroad programming, collaboration to support
graduate student study and fieldwork abroad is feasible.
The goal of CIC collaboration is to expand the level and type
of cooperation in study abroad while providing greater access
to high-quality cost-effective opportunities for students by supplementing,
rather than necessarily replacing existing institutional efforts.
With some 25% of our students studying abroad in third party and
collaborative programs already, cooperation appears to be a key
strategy for providing access, and there is substantial room for
growth.
Baseline
The institutions that make up the CIC have a long history of collaborating
in the area of study abroad programming. Joint programs of a bilateral
or multilateral nature have existed among some members of the
CIC since the early 60s. This past academic year, at least 11
such study abroad programs involving two or more CIC institutions
as partners accounted for nearly 350 students abroad (see Appendix
A).
In addition to bilateral and multilateral programs, the institutions
of the CIC jointly manage four CIC study abroad programs (summer
programs in Quebec, Guanajuato, and the Dominican Republic, and
a semester program in the Dominican Republic). In 2000-01, these
programs accounted for an additional 110+ students.
A new initiative in collaborating on study abroad programs has
been the implementation of the Alliances for Expanded Study in
Overseas Programs (AESOP). Through AESOP, CIC institutions can
share study abroad programs, facilitating the transfer of credit
and financial aid. In 2000-01, about 90 students participated
in study abroad programs through AESOP.
Bilateral and multilateral programs, joint CIC programs, and
AESOP programs enabled approximately 550 students in CIC institutions
to study abroad in 2000-01. That impressive figure, which comprises
only about 4.5% of CIC students who study abroad each year, has
the potential to be much larger.
Planning Parameters
A number of assumptions that have guided discussions to date
include the following:
· Our respective institutional study abroad efforts are
not homogenous in goals, priorities and intended outcomes. So,
it is unrealistic to expect that all institutions will collaborate
in the same ways or to the same degree. Campuses use many different
study abroad models and confront different on-campus problems
and challenges. There are significant differences in the ways
that study abroad offices (and other support infrastructure) are
staffed, managed, organized and related to other parts of campus.
Therefore:
§ We need flexible collaborative approaches so that institutions
can participate as easily as possible under their particular circumstances.
§ Because a single mode of collaboration will not address
everyone's needs, projects should allow for flexibility in terms
of institutional participation, payment, and access. Participation
will need to be voluntary; individual CIC institutions may elect
to collaborate on some programs and not others, or none.
· Projects pursued as CIC will require sound management
and coordination, financial resources, funding on a project basis,
and well-articulated goals and objectives.
· CIC collaborative efforts should augment rather than
necessarily replace any existing activities of individual institutions
(as well as institutional collaborations with others outside the
CIC).
Barriers to Expanded Collaboration
There are several barriers that restrict expanding study abroad
enrollments in general, as well as in CIC programs. These include:
· Insufficient attention is given on our respective campuses
to integrating study abroad into curricula (e.g., into major,
minor or general education requirements or electives). As a result,
departmental cultures are often neutral toward or unsupportive
of the academic value of study abroad. Even greater departmental
and institutional skepticism or hostility arises when attempting
to transfer credit and coursework from another institution's study
abroad programming.
· There is insufficient financial aid and scholarship
money to assist economically needy students. Also there are varying
institutional constraints on the portability of financial aid
for use in another institution's programs. This greatly reduces
the pool of students who can study abroad in the first place,
and even more so the pool of students able to study on a consortial
program or those of another institution.
· While campus-based programs have powerful legitimizing
and "marketing" forces in the form of faculty leaders,
departmental advisors and the study abroad office, collaborative
programs headed by another institution usually lack effective
campus-based advocates.
· By design, many of the CIC's AESOP programs are in underutilized
(hard-to-sell) locations or subject matter. The CIC has not tended
to collaborate in high interest, high enrollment program areas,
partly because of the fear of establishing "American study
abroad ghettos" and partly because there are potential disincentives
and no clear value added for individual campuses to share their
own popular program locations.
· Information on partnership/collaboration/or third-party
provider programs often does not get to students, faculty and
advisors on participating campuses. Marketing and information
flow usually give an advantage to campus-owned programs where
the incentive is to sufficiently fill slots in order to sustain
revenues to meet costs.
· Information on others' programs (including CIC programs)
are often not up-to-date, and often inaccurate or incomplete,
and it is difficult to get updated or complete information.
· Registrars' offices do not, for the most part, have
accurate data on students who study abroad on "outside"
programs, thereby making it difficult to analyze potential markets
for collaborative programming.
· There are often bureaucratic nightmares in determining
credits, grades, equivalencies, and transferability of study abroad
credits through other providers. Support of registrars in overcoming
these obstacles would be beneficial.
· The absence of faculty and academic advisor participation,
and incentives for them to support CIC collaborative programming
is a major impediment to expanding participation. Faculty and
academic advisor involvement and support is critical for marketing,
credit transfer and encouraging study abroad.
· Because the majority of current third-party provider
programs (e.g., CIEE and IES) are too expensive for students,
campus-based programs are generated that may be less costly to
students but more expensive in both monetary and non-monetary
costs to individual campuses as the number of programs grow.
· In-state/out-of-state tuition and fee issues impact institutions'
motivations for participating in collaborative programs (e.g.,
in cases in which an institution counts on the income generated
from non-resident tuition fees on its own programs, the incentive
to "farm out" those students, and their fees, to cooperative
programs is problematic). Also, high out-of-state tuition rates
in some programs provide a powerful disincentive to attracting
students from CIC institutions in a collaborative endeavor.
· Incentives for an individual campus to sponsor and manage
a cooperative program appear minimal, with the clear exception
of the opportunity to strengthen and vitalize low or dwindling
enrollment programs that are important to the host university.
In other words, managing a cooperative program is more labor intensive
and costly than running a local program, and the incentives may
not be enough to encourage universities to take on this burden.
Priorities for Increased Collaboration
After much discussion involving CIC study abroad directors and
the CIC senior international officers, there is general agreement
to move forward as quickly as feasible with more collaborative
programming involving a variety of models:
· Expand AESOP options and enrollments
· Establish new multilateral program agreements
· Increase the number of CIC cooperative programs
· Broker agreements for new program development with IES,
CIEE, and other third-party providers
To accomplish this, we must make headway in reducing several
of the current barriers to expanding participation in CIC programs.
Among the most important to address initially are:
· Assess market potential for programs of various types,
locations, and subject matter, and, then, assemble various new
partnerships/collaborations using the program models that respond
best to these markets.
· Provide regularly updated and complete information in
a variety of formats (print, Web-based, and through informed faculty/advisors)
to collaborating campuses.
· Create incentives as well as the means for faculty and
advisors on collaborating campuses to become involved and familiar
with program settings, curricula and opportunities (e.g., through
site visits and campus visits).
· Make more effective use of collaboration economies of
scale to reduce program costs and use our collective strength
(purchasing power) to broker cost-effective and high-quality program
agreements with strong international organizations or third-party
providers (both to create value-added new program capacity as
well as potentially to become an "accreditation" source
for quality programming).
· Establish mechanisms for ongoing sharing of best practices
in areas such as access to and portability of financial aid, curricular
integration, faculty and advisor involvement, safety and emergency
procedures, program assessment, and credit evaluation and transfer
procedures and criteria.
Funding and Staffing Issues
The priorities above will not be pursued effectively without
attention to issues of staffing and funding. The CIC study abroad
directors group can accomplish some of what is needed through
its establishment of working groups. Mechanisms can be put in
place that make it easier for campuses to update their program
information. Collaborative programs under various models can and
ought to be designed to be self-supporting.
However, coordination and management of these programs and new
initiatives cannot be left alone to a committee (or sub-committees)
and funds need to be secured to support new program design and
start up. Thought needs to be given to the following:
· The appointment of a full or part-time CIC staff person
(either located at the CIC offices or on one of the CIC campuses)
to support, manage, coordinate and push forward the myriad of
issues needing attention. This person could also pay regular visits
to CIC campuses to "market" CIC programs and provide
information updates.
· Seed money start-up grants provided to CIC institutions
for initiating new programs.
· Identify sources of revenue to cover staff and seed
money costs. Initially, the CIC institutions might contribute
to a "ramp up" pool (perhaps on the order of $5,000
to $10,000 each). The pool of funds would be replaced through
a CIC program management and development fee of, say, $50 to $100
per student participating on a CIC collaborative program.
Current Activity
A number of working groups have been established among the CIC
study abroad directors committee. They have begun work and consultation.
Their initial individual recommendations to date include:
1. Enhance AESOP (by creating a better informational structure,
developing a program of CIC matches for institutional travel grants,
investing in CIC staff support of the AESOP program).
2. Establish multilateral agreements for new programs, by identifying
both academic disciplines and geographic locations that are underserved
in our current study abroad offerings, and pulling together several
CIC institutions with similar needs to see if new multilateral
programs might be developed. Explore as appropriate increasing
the number of CIC cooperative programs. Perhaps a "seed grants"
model would help new programs get off the ground.
3. Broker agreements with IES, CIEE, and others as appropriate,
considering such options as further fees reductions on their existing
programs, customized programs for the CIC (in lieu of a CIC institution
having to be the managing institution for a new program) and outsourcing
administration of existing CIC or campus-based programs.
4. Explore options for cooperation on other issues related to
study abroad management, such as: insurance coverage, sharing
of best/worst practices, sharing of information and resources
on various topics (such as orientation, re-entry, program assessment,
peer advising, staffing at home and abroad, monitoring health
and safety, dealing with problem students), and engaging in joint
research projects on issues such as outcomes assessment.
BILATERAL AND MULTILATERAL STUDY ABROAD PROGRAM ARRANGEMENTS
AMONG CIC INSTITUTIONS
PROGRAM CIC PARTNERS # STUDENTS 00-01
WIP Program - Madrid Wisconsin 37
Indiana 21
Purdue 9
Aix-en-Provence, France Wisconsin 18
Michigan 9
Indiana 12
Academic Year in Freiburg Michigan 19
MSU 6
Iowa 6
Wisconsin
PU/IN program in Freiburg* Indiana 13
Purdue 4
Bologna Consortium* Indiana 0
Wisconsin-Madison 3
Illinois 2
Northwestern 3
Minnesota 2
Chicago 3
Dublin, Ireland Michigan 19
Wisconsin-Madison 19
Wisconsin-Mil. 3
Florence* Michigan 2
Wisconsin-Madison 45
Shiga, Japan* Michigan 4
MSU 22
Santiago, Chile Michigan 9
Wisconsin-Madison 14
Quito, Ecuador Michigan 6
Wisconsin-Madison 16
Universidad de Sevilla Northwestern 19
Chicago 4
TOTAL 349
*program involves non-CIC partner(s) as well
|
