iLab Steering Committee Report
Table of Contents
iLab Steering Committee Report................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1
Strengths ................................................................................................................................................... 3
Opportunities ............................................................................................................................................ 5
Challenges and Weaknesses ..................................................................................................................... 6
Recommendations .................................................................................................................................... 7
Process .................................................................................................................................................. 7
Structure ............................................................................................................................................... 8
Communication ..................................................................................................................................... 8
Funding ................................................................................................................................................. 8
Additional Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 8
Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 10
Introduction
Globalization and internationalization are related but not the same thing.
Globalization is the context of economic and academic trends that are part of the
reality of the 21st century. Internationalization includes the policies and practices
undertaken by academic systems and institutions—and even individuals—to cope with
the global academic environment.
Altbach, Phillip, and Jane Knight. “The Internationalization of Higher Education: Motivations
and Realities.” Journal of Studies in International Education, Vol. 11 No. 3-4 (2007): 290-305.
Internationalization has become one of the key challenges in U.S. academia and a driving force for
change and progress in higher education institutions across the world1. A reaction to an ever-changing
multidimensional landscape, internationalization is (and will continue to be) a “moving target” for
universities. Staying current in this arena will require constant research, data collection, policy changes,
and, most of all, swift action.
While most higher education leaders acknowledge the need to internationalize their institutions, many
have not been able to engage in meaningful action leading to a successful, comprehensive
1
Groennings (1987), Kerr (1990), and Smith, Theichler and van der Wende (1994) are among the initial scholarly
publications on the necessity of internationalization of higher education institutions.
1
internationalization. To help address the increasing complexity of internationalization, for more than a
decade, ACE's Internationalization Laboratory has been providing higher education institutions with
“customized guidance and insight as they review their internationalization goals and develop strategic
plans.”2
The University of Montana joined ACE’s Internationalization Laboratory in the fall of 20143, immediately
developing UM’s iLab and working with ACE to form an “internationalization leadership team” on
campus to review internationalization activities. For these tasks, UM’s leadership engaged a campuswide team of faculty, staff, and administrators. Thus far, more than 100 people have been involved in
iLab activities through individual and group meetings4 . Additionally, the iLab online employee survey
collected more than 600 responses and the student survey more than 1,500 responses5. The iLab
leadership (iLab’s Steering Committee and Taskforce6) developed an Internationalization Lab website
(http://www.umt.edu/ilab/) that received praise from some of our Internationalization Lab cohort
universities at the ACE cohort meeting in Washington D.C. in February 2015. The website is founded on
a philosophy of transparency and involvement regarding the UM campus, making available
documentation regarding the iLab process (i.e., iLab team composition, timeline, resources, campus
communications) as well as encouraging engagement in iLab through an online form.
Six subcommittees were formed7 to address major areas of activity regarding UM’s internationalization:
1. Administrative Leadership, Structure, and Staffing (ALSS)
2. Articulated Institutional Commitment (AIC)
3. Collaboration and Partnerships (C&P)
4. Curriculum, Co-Curriculum, and Learning Outcomes (CCLO)
5. Faculty Policies and Practices (FPP)
6. Student Mobility (SM)
The subcommittees were broadly representative, involving members of the iLab Steering Committee,
the iLab Taskforce and many other UM community members.
Each subcommittee defined the necessary data collection needs and methodology so members could
answer a predetermined set of questions (recommended by ACE) about the present status of
internationalization at UM. After this process, all six subcommittees submitted reports to the iLab
Steering Committee highlighting strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and challenges for UM in each of
these six areas, and recommending specific actions to improve internationalization efforts based on the
qualitative and quantitative data collected.
2
“ACE Internationalization Laboratory,” American Council on Education, accessed July 9, 2015,
http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/ACE-Internationalization-Laboratory.aspx.
3
See ACE’s invitation letter and UM’s acceptance letter, Appendix A.
4
See list of UM units iLab subcommittees met with during data collection, Appendix B.
5
See Employee and Student Survey summary of responses, Appendix C1 and C2.
6
See iLab Steering Committee and Task Force composition, Appendix D.
7
See iLab subcommittee composition, Appendix E
2
After analyzing the six subcommittee reports8, the iLab Steering Committee presents the key findings of
this collective effort in this report, along with recommendations for action by UM’s top leadership – the
President’s Office and the President’s Cabinet. The committee report also presents a collection of
challenges and opportunities to guide further strategic planning. These short-term action
recommendations complete the first part of iLab. The second part of iLab consists of developing an
institutional strategic plan for internationalization informed by the report findings presented below.
We hope you value this report as much as we have appreciated serving on this important endeavor for
the future of the University of Montana.
The iLab Steering Committee Members:
Liz Ametsbichler, College of Humanities and Sciences
Jim Burchfield, College of Forestry and Conservation9
Charles Janson, College of Humanities and Sciences
Abraham Kim, Maureen and Mike Mansfield Center
Paulo Zagalo-Melo, Office of the Provost
Strengths
In their reports and summaries of data collection, the six iLab subcommittees identified many strengths
in internationalization efforts and activities at UM. Often, the committees submitted similar
observations about campus. Foremost among these were positive comments about faculty members,’
staff members,’ and students’ high level of interest and engagement in internationalization. This
enthusiasm was demonstrated by the high rate of campus participation in the iLab meetings and surveys
during the spring of 2015.
Committee comments highlighted that faculty members are highly engaged in internationalization;
common adjectives were: motivated, entrepreneurial, creative, and innovative. Many faculty members
are research-oriented with internationally recognized research expertise, established scholarly
reputations, and research networks. They have significant international experience, acquired by
traveling to and presenting at conferences, participating in diverse scholarly activities, and hosting
international guests. Many units on campus have successful records of international activities and
engagement, and the commitment to international education among faculty is strong.
There is also substantial support for international education among staff and students. The human
resource base for supporting internationalization and international education is very solid, including
programs such as Global Leadership Initiative (GLI), Global Gateway, the Undergraduate Pathways
Program, English Language Institute (ELI), Study Abroad Programs, International Student Exchange,
International Student Recruitment, and Foreign Student and Scholar Services (FSSS).
8
9
See six iLab subcommittee reports, Appendix F (F1-F6).
Jim Burchfield retired from UM prior to the Steering Committee’s work on this report.
3
Significant support for internationalization is also evident in curricular offerings (e.g., degree programs
with international components, course offerings that focus on global issues, UM’s affiliation with the
Defense Critical Language and Culture Program (DCLCP), and the number of foreign languages that UM
continues to offer, when other institutions across the country are reducing language offerings). Indeed,
UM provides international educational experiences through the integration of the liberal arts, graduate
study, professional training with international and interdisciplinary emphases, and many study abroad
opportunities around the world–from short-term to year-long programs. Being able to study abroad
provides meaningful, often life-changing educational experiences for students and allows them to gain
knowledge not available in the U.S. In the past five years, nearly 1,500 UM students studied abroad10.
This has been made possible, in part, because of flexible funding through financial aid and external
scholarships and has allowed UM’s participation in international education to grow. In fact, relative to
other states, it is quite strong11.
Other areas of institutional support for internationalization mentioned as strengths were the
infrastructure and mechanisms in place that help facilitate international pursuits, not least of which is
the Office of International Programs (OIP). OIP provides various services, including guidance and support
for students to pursue varied study abroad opportunities, and maintenance of the international travel
registry policy (for students, faculty and staff going abroad). The risk management strategy that OIP has
implemented and is developing further was noted for tracking international activity, thus reducing the
possibility of threatening situations for UM students, faculty and staff. Having an administrator at the
level of Associate Provost for Global Century Education emphasizes that UM is serious about
internationalization efforts. In the past, there have been complaints about the lack of communication
among central offices that deal with international issues. Data the subcommittees gathered showed this
situation is improving.
One subcommittee noted that some deans prioritized (and found some funding for) international
activities. In addition, the Mansfield Center and the College of Forestry and Conservation were praised
for the administrative support that they supply for faculty leading study abroad programs.
UM hosts many international events. This sponsorship cultivates goodwill between campus and the
community and encourages interaction among international students, domestic students, and
Missoulians. A good example of such an event is the International Food and Culture Festival, held every
spring. There are many other internationally themed conferences, lectures, activities, and other events–
some annual, some one-time–through which UM engages the community. Also, the international
student population at UM has increased significantly since 201212. These students and outreach
activities provide important opportunities for greater exposure to internationalization, as well as
opportunity for interaction.
10
See data on study abroad students in the Student Mobility Subcommittee Report, Appendix F6
NAFSA’s Study Abroad Participation by State (http://www.nafsa.org/_/File/_/studyabroad_statebystate_20122013.pdf)
12
See data on international students in the Student Mobility Subcommittee Report, Appendix F6
11
4
In conclusion, UM has many strengths in the area of internationalization and international education. It
is, of course, essential to these efforts that UM is committed to global and international education in its
strategic plan and that it is integral to the long-term vision and goal of the University.
Opportunities
The University of Montana has many untapped opportunities to enhance and expand the role and scope
of international education on campus. UM should more intentionally use the expertise of internationally
engaged faculty, staff, and students, as well as the cultural resources that international students bring to
UM.
There were many comments about the opportunity to expand UM’s curriculum to reflect its
international mission. The most frequent in this regard were about study abroad. UM could improve the
current study abroad programming and intentionally integrate these study abroad experiences into
student learning (i.e., create courses of study within majors). UM also has the opportunity to diversify
the geographic destinations of study abroad programs and increase participation, particularly from
underrepresented student populations. Many students like to participate in faculty-led programs, and
UM has the opportunity to improve the support structure for these programs so that faculty continue
offering them. UM could expand its funding efforts to support and encourage study abroad.
There is an opportunity to focus upon the international content in courses that are already being offered
or creating additional courses (not minors or programs) that have a global focus. In turn, UM could
increase attendance and engagement at international events by connecting these to the curriculum
(e.g., GLI requires attendance). UM should also do a better job of marketing its international curriculum
and study abroad opportunities.
Subcommittees found a general consensus that faculty should be recognized and rewarded for their
international initiative. Departments and programs could be encouraged to include international
activities as part of their Unit Standards, which would reflect the mission described in UM’s Strategic
Plan, and encourage recognition for international activities in promotion and tenure decisions. Units
could use the iLab assessment as an opportunity to think creatively about incentivizing faculty
international activity. UM also could strategically plan academic exchanges, including encouraging closer
ties to targeted countries.
UM offers an impressive number of languages, but they are an underutilized source of strength for
moving curricular internationalization forward on campus. However, the newly strengthened language
requirement could be used to generate interest in internationalization. It was also suggested that the
DCLCP and the Mansfield Center explore areas of synergy and work with departments to identify
opportunities to make lesser-taught languages available (through technology, potentially) to Mountain
Campus students.
Strategic consolidation of infrastructure and support services could help make UM’s internationalization
efforts more efficient. A consolidated structure could then be used to provide centralized administrative
support for faculty-led study abroad program directors. UM should start tracking the international
5
activities of faculty, staff, and students and centralize the information. This would include developing
meaningful data to report study abroad activities and international student numbers. A centralized data
base would enable UM and the wider community to tap into the international expertise of campus and
the community.
The lack of involvement of international students in campus life and the limited interaction they have
with domestic students has always been a problem for internationalization in U.S. academia.
Nevertheless, at UM there are excellent initiatives, such as Conversation Partners, Global Partner
Program, and the Missoula International Friendship Program that have often been praised and received
peer recognition. Making some of these initiatives a requirement for students would improve this
interaction.
UM is positioned to build meaningful and transformational partnerships and initiatives that would have
an impact across all aspects of the University and to build foundations for faculty to engage with
partners around the globe in mutually beneficial teaching, research, and service activities. UM has the
opportunity to use this international expertise as a tool for recruiting ambitious students, and become
one of the most diverse academic communities in the Mountain West (or Northwest).
Challenges and Weaknesses
The University of Montana’s iLab identified a number of weaknesses and challenges that have hindered
the University’s ability to advance its internationalization efforts and change a culture that has
traditionally been inward focused and homogenous.
First, one universal theme across the different stakeholder groups is the lack of financial investment to
support internationalization on campus. Despite the University leadership’s vision of better linking the
University to the world, no funding has been added to build new administrative capacity or to provide
training or professional development programs and processes to reach its goals. In addition, there is
inadequate funding available for the many UM students who find the cost of studying abroad or gaining
international experience prohibitive.
Likewise, existing resources, such as faculty professional enhancement and overseas exchange
programs, have diminished. This lack of funding to adequately support the University’s
internationalization efforts manifests itself in numerous ways, including inadequate funds to create
programs or provide funding for student exchanges, faculty-led programs, and professional training for
staff.
Second, a common critique has been the inadequate articulation of the University leadership’s strategy
to achieve its global vision and what the desired outcomes of this vision will be. The UM 2020 and other
related documents provide overall direction, but how the University intends to achieve this outlook and
how the various stakeholders need to work together is not clear. It is not well-defined what skill sets,
knowledge, and experiences UM students should acquire to be global citizens.
6
Respondents also believed that the internationalization efforts should go beyond the narrow definition
of study abroad programs to include transforming the curriculum to better prepare students for a global
community, improving faculty and staff ability to expand their engagements with the global community,
establishing more effective international partnerships with other academic institutions, and creating the
infrastructure to support more international students.
Third, the lack of clear articulation of the international vision has contributed to an overall lack of
coordination between the existing University organizations and programs responsible for
internationalization. From the University community’s perspective, it is not clear where the various
programs, activities, and resources on campus exist, how these groups work together, and how they
benefit the overall internationalization endeavor on campus. GLI stands out as an example of a program
that does not have a clear academic home and functions outside of regular academic funding and
reporting lines, creating detrimental perceptions about the program. Opportunities to cooperate and
synergize efforts to enhance overall internationalization seem to be missed. In addition, for students
and faculty interested in accessing support from these organizations, it is difficult to navigate the
complex system of disparate organizations.
Finally, a tremendous administrative burden exists for faculty and students who want to do study
abroad programs. Faculty members must complete an enormous amount of paperwork imposed by the
University administration. For example, professors directing faculty-led trips for students are responsible
for the administrative paperwork and must design the curriculum, recruit student participation, and
then actually execute the trip. With no real resources to help professors take care of these steps, this
places a large burden on faculty interested in leading these kinds of programs. Frequent changes in
policies and increasing reporting requirements imposed by the administration exacerbate the burden
and frustration for faculty. For students, administrative hurdles come in the form of transferring credits
from study abroad institutions back to their home university. Navigating credit-transfer processes is
challenging for students and faculty, and additional guidance is needed.
Recommendations
The output of the iLab process produced specific recommendations, but the only way to achieve those
recommendations is a centralized and coordinated commitment by the administration to place
internationalization as a core value of the University. Despite the inclusion of internationalization as a
priority of UM 2020, there is still a significant disconnect between the overall vision and the
grassroots efforts of faculty, staff, and students. UM needs to improve the following processes,
structure, communication, and funding to bridge the gap and fully realize the vision of an Education
for the Global Century:
Process
 Develop a comprehensive University strategy for how the UM 2020 internalization vision will be
carried out and identify strategies of how stakeholders and organizations will support these
efforts. Ensure these strategies are well-publicized and explained across the University.
7



Reward and incentivize faculty and staff involvement in internationalization efforts. For faculty,
this should include specific language in departmental Unit Standards that would consider such
efforts in faculty promotion and tenure decisions. For staff, this should include an Employee
Recognition award for internationalization efforts.
Develop and implement global learning outcomes that articulate specific knowledge and skills
that UM students should acquire to be globally engaged citizens.
Encourage hiring of non-U.S. faculty by increasing Human Resource Services’ capacity to handle
these complicated hiring processes, and by creating a central pool of funding to support the
increased costs of such hires.
Structure
 Restructure the administrative coordination of international support services, including OIP,
FSSS, international internships, faculty-led study abroad programs, and international admissions.
A frequent recommendation is to house all these services in the same location.
Communication
 Improve UM’s communication about internationalization to reflect it as a core value, including
the creation of a central online presence on UM’s homepage that reflects the current strengths
in international education.
Funding
 Create a central funding model that dedicates base budget funding to support the restructuring
of the administrative support services mentioned above.
 Make international education a high priority in fundraising campaigns.
 Increase investment in international student recruitment and retention, and create a strategy
for responding to capacity issues generated by successful recruitment strategy.
 Encourage more direct engagement by increasing funding for faculty and staff international
exchanges, short-term international activity and the Faculty Professional Enhancement Program.
Additional Recommendations
The iLab Steering Committee, along with the iLab Taskforce, will also pursue action on the following set
of recommendations:
 Create a broad “community of practice” with regular opportunities to exchange insights and
learn from each other about how best to facilitate internationalization efforts.
 Have a designated faculty member for each school and college to act as an international advisor
to students.
 Target and encourage first-year freshmen to consider study-abroad as a serious option in their
education at UM.
 Clarify transferability of international credits to UM including major-specific guidelines. Clear
guidelines would benefit all involved in international education at UM and encourage students
to plan their study abroad experience carefully.
 Engage alumni living abroad for networking and fundraising purposes.
 Improve the structure and coordination of faculty-led study abroad programs.
8



Explore the possibility of extending cooperation between the resources and services of UM
Faculty and the Mansfield Center Defense Critical Language and Culture Program to expand
opportunities for international education.
Increase meaningful U.S. student engagement with international students, using learning goals
to guide the structure of such opportunities, enabling some students who might not otherwise
be able to travel abroad to experience some of the cultural and educational benefits of
international education.
Improve and redefine the charge and structure of the International Committee.
9
Appendix
Appendix A: ACE’s invitation letter and UM’s acceptance letter……………………………………………………………11
Appendix B: Units iLab subcommittees met with during data collection ………………………………………………15
Appendix C: Survey analysis….……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….16
Appendix C1: Employee survey summary …………………………………………………………………………………………17
Appendix C2: Student survey summary…………………………………………………………………………………………….26
Appendix D: iLab Steering Committee and Task Force composition………………………………………………………40
Appendix E: iLab subcommittee composition………………………………………………………………………………………..41
Appendix F: iLab subcommittee reports…………………………………………………………………………………………………43
Appendix F1: Administrative Leadership, Structure, and Staffing Subcommittee Report…………………44
Appendix F2: Articulated Institutional Commitment Subcommittee Report……………………………………104
Appendix F3: Collaboration and Partnerships Subcommittee Report………………………………………………123
Appendix F4: Curriculum, Co-Curriculum, and Learning Outcomes Subcommittee Report………………140
Appendix F5: Faculty Policies and Practices Subcommittee Report…………………………………………………152
Appendix F6: Student Mobility Subcommittee Report…………………………………………………………………….160
10
Appendix A: ACE’s invitation letter and UM’s acceptance letter
11
April 8, 2014
President Molly Corbett Broad
American Council on Education
One Dupont Circle NW
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear President Broad,
It is with pleasure that I accept your invitation for the University of Montana to participate in the
Internationalization Laboratory for 2014-2016. This is a great honor for the University of
Montana as we move toward accomplishing the goals set forth in our Strategic Plan “UM 2020:
Building a University for the Global Century”. Through UM’s participation in the American
Council on Education Internationalization Laboratory, we will surely advance our
internationalization efforts, thus laying the foundation for a sustainable and comprehensive
strategy on global education.
The University of Montana remains committed to internationalization and we look forward to the
opportunity to work with you and your staff to find new ways to internationalize teaching,
learning, research, and service, making positive impacts on the next generations of globally
minded and engaged citizens. In these efforts, I have assigned Dr. Paulo Zagalo-Melo, Director
of the Office of International Programs, to be the primary point of contact for this program.
Sincerely,
Royce C. Engstrom
President
University of Montana
RCE/rp
Englet883
Office of the President
University Hall 109 I Missoula, Montana 59812 I
P: 406.243.2311
I F: 406.243.2797 I E: prestalk@umontana.edu
Appendix B: UM units iLab subcommittees met with during data collection




























Academic Enrichment
Academic Officers
Academic Standards & Curriculum Review Committee
Administration and Finance
Business Services
Departmental Chairs
Enrollment Services
Faculty Led Program Directors
Faculty Open Forums
Financial Aid
Foreign Student & Scholar Services
Global Leadership Initiative
Graduate School
Human Resource Services
International Committee
Internship Services
Maureen and Mike Mansfield Center
Office of International Programs
Office of Planning, Budget and Analysis
Office of Research and Creative Scholarship
Office of the Provost
Registrar’s Office
School of Extended & Lifelong Learning
Student Affairs Officers
Student Focus Groups
UM Foundation
Undergraduate Advising Center
University Center
15
Appendix C: Survey Analysis
Appendix C1
Internationalization Employee Survey 2015 – Survey Analysis
Appendix C2
Internationalization Student Survey 2015 – Survey Analysis
16
Appendix C1: Internationalization Employee Survey 2015 – Survey Analysis
Years worked at UM (N=643)
Mean
Median
Range
Minimum
Maximum
Missing
Employment at UM (N=643)
Classified Staff
Faculty
Professional
Letter of Appointment
Temporary
Level of interest in increasing Internationalization at
UM (N=643)
Extremely Interested
Interested
Neither Interested/Uninterested
Uninterested
Not at all interested
Missing
Actions that Would Create Positive Change Toward
Internationalization (N=643) *Respondents could select
more than 1 response
Increase Study Abroad Opportunities
Offer More Coursework Focused on Global
Issues/International
Increase the number of International Students on Campus
Offer More Intercultural Training For Staff
Create a Clear Campus Strategy on Internationalization
Improve communication to increase awareness
More co-curricular programming on global
issues/international
Strengthen or expand centers/services/units that support
international efforts
Invest more financial resources toward
internationalization
Train employees in each College or School with
international advising skills
Support independent faculty initiatives assisted by central
Numbers
9.76
8
39.9
0.1
40
138
Number
279
204
82
60
18
Percentage
Number
173
300
144
14
11
1
Percent
26.9
46.7
22.4
2.2
1.7
0.2
Number
315
Percent
49.0
273
268
215
210
170
42.5
41.7
33.4
32.7
26.4
163
25.3
145
22.6
129
20.1
124
19.3
Percent
43.4
31.7
12.8
9.3
2.8
17
international office
Increase the number of international faculty
Create a centralized governance structure to ensure
synergy & mutual support
Other
Rates of effectiveness of strategies (N=643)
Additional on campus events celebrating international
students
Extremely effective
Effective
Neither effective nor ineffective
Ineffective
Not at all effective
Missing
Coursework on global issues and international
perspectives
Extremely effective
Effective
Neither effective nor ineffective
Ineffective
Not at all effective
Missing
Greater emphasis on second language instruction
Extremely effective
Effective
Neither effective nor ineffective
Ineffective
Not at all effective
Missing
Integrating international perspectives in the classroom
Extremely effective
Effective
Neither effective nor ineffective
Ineffective
Not at all effective
Missing
Programs connecting international students to domestic
students
Extremely effective
Effective
Neither effective nor ineffective
Ineffective
108
107
16.8
16.6
57
71
8.9
11.0
Number
Percent
56
305
160
46
15
61
8.7
47.4
24.9
7.2
2.3
9.5
124
348
86
19
2
64
19.3
54.1
13.4
3.0
0.3
10.0
136
253
118
48
18
70
21.2
39.3
18.4
7.5
2.8
10.9
146
332
80
16
5
64
22.7
51.6
12.4
2.5
0.8
10.0
192
304
62
19
29.9
47.3
9.6
3.0
18
Not at all effective
Missing
4
62
0.6
9.6
21
16
12
0
2
592
3.3
2.5
1.9
0.0
0.3
92.1
Number
Percent
442
150
68.7
23.3
179
181
72
27.8
28.1
11.2
What is your tenure status? (N=643)
Adjunct faculty
Non-tenureable
Tenure-track probationary period
Tenured
Missing
Number
24
18
31
103
467
Percent
3.7
2.8
4.8
16.0
72.6
Which college or school are you employed with?
(N=643)
Bitterroot College
College of Education and Human Sciences
College of Forestry and Conservation
College of Health Professions and Biomedical Sciences
College of Humanities and Sciences
College of Visual and Performing Arts
Davidson Honors College
Graduate School
Libraries
Missoula College
School for Extended and Lifelong Learning
School of Business Administration
School of Journalism
School of Law
Missing
Number
4
24
32
49
134
20
4
4
12
36
12
23
10
4
275
Percent
0.6
3.7
5.0
7.6
20.8
3.1
0,6
0.6
1.9
5.6
1.9
3.6
1.6
0.6
42.8
Other
Extremely effective
Effective
Neither effective nor ineffective
Ineffective
Not at all effective
Missing
How should a greater emphasis on international
learning be funded? (N=643)
Campaign for private philanthropy to support specific
international activities
Fee for international services
Relocation of existing resources toward international
programs
Surcharge to international student tuition
Other
19
Select all the statements that apply to you (N=643)
I teach at least one course with international content
I conduct research outside of the U.S.
I have designed or taught an international study abroad
course
I participated in a study abroad course as a student
I have international experience through previous work
I have participated in an international sabbatical or
faculty exchange
I am willing to volunteer to serve as a host family for an
international student or visitor
I am proficient in a language other than English
Proficient language
Spanish
German
French
Hindi-Urdu
Italian
Japanese
Mandarin
Dutch
Russian
Indonesian
Portuguese
Korean
Pali
Thai
Vietnamese
How has your participation in international activities
positively affected your career? (N=643)
Had a positive impact on teaching
Had a positive impact on research
Contributed to the acquisition of research funds
Contributed to a promotion or tenure decision
Helped earn a merit FEC performance review
Other
How have you supported your colleagues in
international activities? (N=643)
I worked with visiting international faculty.
I collaborated on international research projects.
I covered course while they were away on assignment.
I took additional service work to help colleagues on
Number
112
88
Percent
17.4
13.7
49
45
113
7.6
7.0
17.6
60
9.3
39
74
6.1
11.5
23
13
12
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
3.6
2.0
1.8
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
Number
111
98
43
33
32
25
Percent
17.3
15.2
6.7
5.1
5.0
3.9
Number
71
67
51
Percent
11.0
10.4
7.9
20
international leave.
Other
How well are you and your colleagues supported to
engage in international activities at UM?
Financial support
Extremely supported
Supported
Neither supported nor not supported
Not supported
Not at all supported
Missing
Encouragement
Extremely supported
Supported
Neither supported nor not supported
Not supported
Not at all supported
Missing
How important are the following learning outcomes
for UM undergraduate students? (N=643)
Having experiences in other countries via study abroad.
Extremely important
Important
Neither important nor unimportant
Unimportant
Not at all important
Missing
Developing a proficiency in a language other than
English.
Extremely important
Important
Neither important nor unimportant
Unimportant
Not at all important
Missing
Knowledge of contemporary international issues.
Extremely important
Important
Neither important nor unimportant
Unimportant
Not at all important
Missing
Knowledge of cultural diversity and norms across
cultures.
50
20
7.8
3.1
Number
Percent
1
30
41
49
52
470
0.2
4.7
6.4
7.6
8.1
73.1
16
65
50
20
22
470
2.5
10.1
7.8
3.1
3.4
73.1
Number
Percent
49
85
31
8
3
467
7.6
13.2
4.8
1.2
0.5
72.6
57
73
33
8
5
467
8.9
11.4
5.1
0.8
1.2
72.6
91
74
6
2
2
468
14.2
11.5
0.9
0.3
0.3
72.8
21
Extremely important
Important
Neither important nor unimportant
Unimportant
Not at all important
Missing
Knowledge of international policies in a topical area
(such as law or the environment).
Extremely important
Important
Neither important nor unimportant
Unimportant
Not at all important
Missing
UM faculty-led study abroad courses
Extremely important
Important
Neither important nor unimportant
Unimportant
Not at all important
Missing
Research activities in another country.
Extremely important
Important
Neither important nor unimportant
Unimportant
Not at all important
Missing
Engagement on the UM campus with counterparts from
other countries.
Extremely important
Important
Neither important nor unimportant
Unimportant
Not at all important
Missing
Semester or yearlong study abroad.
Extremely important
Important
Neither important nor unimportant
Unimportant
Not at all important
Missing
Global issues or international perspectives.
Extremely important
Important
88
80
6
1
1
467
13.7
12.4
0.9
0.2
0.2
72.6
44
93
32
5
2
467
6.8
14.5
5.0
0.8
0.3
72.6
38
90
34
7
2
470
5.9
14.0
5.3
0.6
1.1
73.1
30
81
48
10
4
470
4.7
12.6
7.5
1.6
0.6
73.1
48
98
23
4
2
468
7.5
15.2
3.6
0.6
0.3
72.8
55
84
26
8
2
468
8.6
13.1
4.0
1.2
0.3
72.8
74
76
11.5
11.8
22
Neither important nor unimportant
Unimportant
Not at all important
Missing
Foreign language courses.
Extremely important
Important
Neither important nor unimportant
Unimportant
Not at all important
Missing
What are your primary duties?
Missing
Other
Administrative support (non-accounting)
Program management (non-instructional
program)
Research activity or research management
Finance/accounting
Support to instruction
How well prepared are you to address the needs of
international students or faculty?
Extremely prepared
Prepared
Neither prepared nor unprepared
Not prepared
Not at all prepared
Missing
22
3
1
467
3.4
0.5
0.2
72.6
62
68
30
9
6
468
9.6
10.6
4.7
1.4
0.9
72.8
Number
254
106
92
Percent
39.5
16.5
14.3
82
49
40
20
12.8
7.6
6.2
3.1
Number
31
111
129
79
41
252
Percent
4.8
17.3
20.1
12.3
6.4
39.2
Employment at UM compared to level of interest of internationalization
Classified
Staff
Faculty
Letter of
Appointment
Professional
Temporary
Total
Missing
Extremely
Interested
Interested
Neither
interested
nor
uninterested
0
1
48
80
133
86
83
31
7
4
8
2
279
204
0
0
0
1
20
22
3
173
28
45
8
300
12
13
5
144
0
2
1
14
0
0
1
14
60
82
18
643
Uninterested
Not at all
interested
Total
23
Chi-Square Test
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
N of Valid Cases
Value
df
49.853a
52.760
643
20
20
Asymp. Sig. (2sided)
.000
.000
a. 16 cells (53.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .03.
Missing
Missing
Bitterroot
College
College of
Education and
Human
Sciences
College of
Forestry and
Conservation
College of
Health
Professions
and
Biomedical
Sciences
College of
Humanities
and Sciences
College of
Visual and
Performing
Arts
Davidson
Honors
College
Graduate
School
Libraries
Missoula
College
School for
Extended and
Lifelong
Extremely
Interested
Interested
Neither
interested nor
uninterested
Uninterested
Not at all
interested
Total
0
62
126
73
6
8
275
0
0
4
0
0
0
4
1
4
13
5
0
1
24
0
16
11
4
0
1
32
0
12
22
14
1
0
49
0
53
55
23
0
3
134
0
5
13
1
0
1
20
0
1
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
1
2
3
4
0
6
0
0
0
0
4
12
0
5
20
9
1
1
36
24
Learning
School of
Business
Administration
School of
Journalism
School of Law
Total
0
1
8
3
0
0
12
0
6
10
5
2
0
23
0
0
1
4
1
173
5
3
300
1
0
144
0
0
11
0
0
14
10
4
643
Chi-Square Test
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
N of Valid Cases
Value
df
93.079a
80.939
643
70
70
Asymp. Sig. (2sided)
.034
.175
a. 64 cells (71.1%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 0.01.
25
Appendix C2: Internationalization Student Survey 2015 – Survey Analysis
Are you an international student or a domestic student?
Domestic (American)
Valid
International
Total
Are you are undergraduate or graduate student?
Undergraduate
Valid
Graduate
Total
Do you speak a language other than English?
Valid
Valid Percent
1378
90.8
139
9.2
1517
100.0
Frequency
Valid Percent
1121
73.9
396
26.1
1517
100.0
Frequency
Valid Percent
Yes (please specify)
521
34.4
No
992
65.6
1513
4
1517
100.0
Total
Missing System
Total
Do you speak a language other than English? (percent more than 100%
due to multiple languages per person, rounding error)
Frequency
Valid Percent
1039
68.5
American Sign Language
8
.5
Armenian
1
.1
25
1.7
Arapaho
1
.1
Bengali
1
.1
Bisaya
1
.1
Blackfeet
3
.2
Cantonese
2
.1
Catalonian
1
.1
Arabic
Valid
Frequency
26
Chinese
20
1.3
Creole
2
.1
Crow
2
.1
Czech
3
.2
Dari
1
.1
Dutch
2
.1
Ewe
1
.1
Farsi
5
.4
Filipino
1
.1
Finnish
1
.1
French
81
5.3
Georgian
1
.1
Gaelic
1
.1
German
48
3.2
Greek
2
.2
Hawaiian
2
.1
Hebrew
2
.1
Hindi
2
.1
Hmong
2
.1
Hongul
1
.1
Hungarian
1
.1
Indonesian
2
.1
11
.8
1
.1
Italian
12
.9
Japanese
34
2.3
Javanese
2
.1
Java
1
.1
Korean
7
.5
Kurdish
1
.1
Malay
2
.2
Malayalam
1
.1
Mandarin Chinese
5
.3
Nepali
2
.1
Norwegian
2
.1
Irish
Irish Gaelic
27
Nyanja
1
.1
Papiamentu
1
.1
Pashtu
1
.1
Persian
4
.3
Pikuni
2
.1
Polish
2
.2
39
2.6
Quechua
1
.1
Rujarati
1
.1
Russian
17
1.1
Serbo-Croatian
1
.1
Sign Language
3
.3
Sinhala
1
.1
Slovak
2
.2
Spanish
187
12.4
Swahili
2
.1
Swedish
2
.2
Swedish Finnish
1
.1
Tagalog
4
.3
Tajik
2
.2
Tamil
1
.1
Telugu
1
.1
Thai
1
.2
Turkish
4
.3
Twi
1
.1
Urdu
1
.1
Vietnamese
1
.1
Portuguese
What is your primary area of study?
Accounting
Valid
Frequency
Valid Percent
39
2.7
2
.1
Anthropology
47
3.2
Applied Science
19
1.3
Accounting Technology
28
Art
17
1.2
Athletic Training
22
1.5
Biochemistry
9
.6
Biochemistry and Biophysics
5
.3
Biology
74
5.0
Biomedical Sciences
23
1.6
Business Administration
95
6.5
Business Administration and Law
3
.2
Business Administration and Pharmacy
1
.1
Cellular, Molecular, and Microbial Biology
5
.3
19
1.3
5
.3
Communication Studies
41
2.8
Communicative Sciences and Disorders
28
1.9
Computer Science
26
1.8
1
.1
15
1.0
2
.1
Creative Writing
20
1.4
Curriculum and Instruction
18
1.2
Dance
5
.3
Ecological Restoration
8
.5
Economics
7
.5
Ecosystem Management
1
.1
61
4.2
7
.5
34
2.3
1
.1
41
2.8
Finance
7
.5
Fine Arts, Integrated Arts and Education
1
.1
Fish and Wildlife Biology
1
.1
Forest and Conservation Sciences
8
.5
Forestry
10
.7
French
2
.1
18
1.2
Chemistry
Classics
Computer Science - Mathematical Sciences
Counselor Education
Counselor Education and Supervision
Education
Educational Leadership
English
Environmental Science and Natural Resource Journalism
Environmental Studies
Geography
29
Geosciences
14
1.0
German
3
.2
Global Youth Development
4
.3
29
2.0
Interdisciplinary Studies
3
.2
International Business
3
.2
Japanese
4
.3
Journalism
37
2.5
Law
21
1.4
Law and Business Administration
1
.1
Law and Environmental Studies
1
.1
Law and Public Administration
1
.1
Liberal Studies
9
.6
Linguistics
4
.3
Management
7
.5
Management Information Systems
9
.6
22
1.5
Materials Science
1
.1
Mathematical Sciences - Computer Science
3
.2
Mathematics
13
.9
Media Arts
24
1.6
Medical Technology
17
1.2
7
.5
11
.7
Music Education
7
.5
Native American Studies
3
.2
Neuroscience
1
.1
Organismal Biology and Ecology
2
.1
Parks, Tourism, and Recreation Management
14
1.0
Pharmacy
53
3.6
Pharmacy and Business Administration
3
.2
Philosophy
3
.2
36
2.5
Physical Therapy and Business Administration
1
.1
Physics
5
.3
28
1.9
History
Marketing
Microbiology
Music
Physical Therapy
Political Science
30
Political Science - History
2
.1
88
6.0
7
.5
27
1.8
Radio-Television Production
1
.1
Recreation Management
2
.1
Resource Conservation
14
1.0
Russian
2
.1
School Psychology
5
.3
Social Work
61
4.2
Sociology
41
2.8
Spanish
6
.4
Speech-Language Pathology
1
.1
Systems Ecology
2
.1
22
1.5
1
.1
33
2.2
1467
50
1517
100.0
Psychology
Public Administration
Public Health
Theatre
Toxicology
Wildlife Biology
Total
Missing System
Total
How important were the following items in choosing the University of Montana?
1 = Not at all Important, 5 = Extremely Important
Academics
Cost
Location
Safety
Valid
1441
1434
1438
1431
Missing
Mean
Median
Std. Deviation
Minimum
Maximum
76
4.21
4.00
.749
1
5
83
4.28
4.00
.865
1
5
79
4.23
4.00
.898
1
5
86
3.54
4.00
1.045
1
5
N
Please rate your satisfaction on the following
1=very unsatisfied, 5=very satisfied
31
Pre-arrival (including Orientation
Housing
visa arrangements for to campus arrangements
international
students)
Academic
advising
Dining
services
Academic
coursework
Valid
862
1277
1121
1385
1190
1416
Missing
Mean
Median
Std. Deviation
Minimum
Maximum
655
3.68
4.00
.872
1
5
240
3.67
4.00
.987
1
5
396
3.61
4.00
1.040
1
5
132
3.60
4.00
1.230
1
5
327
3.59
4.00
1.017
1
5
101
4.03
4.00
.871
1
5
N
How interested are you in the following?-Becoming more engaged with
international activities on the UM campus Mean = 3.32
Valid
Valid Percent
Not at all Interested
132
9.2
Uninterested
159
11.0
Neither Interested nor Uninterested
436
30.2
Interested
549
38.1
Extremely Interested
166
11.5
1442
75
1517
100.0
Total
Missing System
Total
Of the regions around the world, which one would interest you the most for
an educational experience abroad?
Valid
Frequency
Frequency
Valid Percent
Africa
120
9.2
Canada
32
2.5
Central or South America
198
15.3
East Asia
111
8.6
Europe
600
46.2
Oceania
119
9.2
South Asia
61
4.7
Middle East
57
4.4
1298
219
100.0
Total
Missing System
32
Total
1517
While at the University of Montana, have you had an educational
experience abroad?
Valid
Frequency
Yes
224
17.2
No
1076
82.8
1300
217
1517
100.0
Total
Missing System
Total
How important is an international component to your studies? Mean
= 3.43
Valid
Missing
Total
Valid Percent
Frequency
Valid Percent
Not at all Important
107
8.2
Unimportant
114
8.8
Neither Important nor Unimportant
443
34.1
Important
386
29.7
Extremely Important
250
19.2
1300
217
1517
100.0
Total
System
How important were the following reasons in preventing you from an educational experience abroad? (For no abroad
experience only)
1=not important at all, 5=Extremely Important
Lack of
financial
resources
N
Lack of
language skills
Lack of
encouragement
from
faculty/advisor
Lack of family
support (other
than financial)
Lack of
Lack of interest
knowledge about
educational
opportunities
abroad
Valid
1050
1047
1045
1050
1051
1049
Missing
467
4.19
4.00
1.058
1
470
3.17
3.00
1.106
1
472
3.04
3.00
1.054
1
467
2.76
3.00
1.150
1
466
3.33
4.00
1.151
1
468
2.27
2.00
1.176
1
Mean
Median
Std. Deviation
Minimum
33
Maximum
5
5
5
5
5
5
How interested would you be in an educational experience abroad if the following were available?
1=Not at all Interested, 5=Extremely Interested
Credit in an elective course
Partial funding via scholarship
Ability to study a topic of
interest
Valid
1051
1055
1055
Missing
Mean
Median
Std. Deviation
Minimum
Maximum
466
3.81
4.00
1.057
1
5
462
4.35
5.00
.911
1
5
462
4.35
5.00
.879
1
5
N
Statistics Where did you go for you educational experience abroad? (for abroad experience only, check all that apply)
Africa
Canada
Central or
East Asia
Europe
Oceania
South Asia Middle East
South America
Valid (Yes)
21
7
55
28
82
13
20
8
Missing
1496
1510
1462
1489
1435
1504
1497
1509
How important were the following in your decision to study abroad? (for abroad experience only)
1= Not at all Important, 5=Extremely Important
N
Valid
Missing
Mean
Median
Std. Deviation
Minimum
Maximum
Important to my academics
Important to my career plan
Personal interest
214
212
213
1303
4.10
4.00
.959
1
5
1305
3.96
4.00
1.016
1
5
1304
4.70
5.00
.654
1
5
34
What type of abroad educational experience did you participate in?
(for abroad experience only)
Valid
Frequency
UM study abroad program (full immersion)
52
24.4
UM faculty-led study abroad program
84
39.4
Non-UM study abroad program
25
11.7
International internship
19
8.9
5
2.3
28
13.1
213
1304
1517
100.0
International service learning
International research/field experience
Total
Missing System (N/A)
Total
How long was your educational experience abroad?
Valid
Valid
Percent
Frequency
Valid
Percent
One month or less
90
41.9
More than one month, but less than 6 months
70
32.6
Six months to one year
42
19.5
More than one year
13
6.0
215
1302
1517
100.0
Total
Missing System
Total
Statistics
For students with abroad experience only
How would you evaluate the
How would you evaluate the
How would you rate the value
preparation you received before process of transferring credits or
of your experience abroad?
going abroad?
earning credits for your
1=Very Useless, 5=Very Useful
1=Very Ineffective, 5=Very
abroad…
Effective
1=Very Difficult, 5=Very Easy
Valid
215
215
214
Missing
Mean
Median
Std.
Deviation
Minimum
1302
3.54
4.00
.960
1302
3.51
3.00
1.063
1303
4.60
5.00
.730
1
1
1
N
35
Maximum
5
Where is your region of origin? (for int. students only)
Valid
5
5
Frequency
Valid Percent
Africa
4
3.1
Canada
7
5.3
Central or South America
38
29.0
East Asia
33
25.2
Europe
29
22.1
South Asia
13
9.9
Middle East
7
5.3
131
1386
1517
100.0
Total
Missing System
Total
36
Comparison of Means: Importance of Items in Choosing UM, by Domestic or International
How important were
Are you an international
N
Mean
Std.
Std. Error
the following items in
student or a domestic
Deviation
Mean
choosing the University
student?
of Montana?
Academics
Cost
Location
Safety
F
Domestic (American)
1310
4.21
.752
.021
International
Domestic (American)
International
Domestic (American)
International
Domestic (American)
131
1303
131
1308
130
1299
4.28
4.33
3.79
4.29
3.61
3.49
.715
.817
1.137
.858
1.045
1.046
.063
.023
.099
.024
.092
.029
132
4.05
.885
.077
International
.032
17.80*
13.10*
25.72*
* significance < .05
There are statistically significant differences in the importance of cost, location, and safety. Domestic
students find cost and location to be more important than international students. International students
find safety to be more important than American students.
Comparison of Means: Satisfaction of Items, by Domestic or International
Please rate your
satisfaction on the
following.
Pre-arrival (including
visa arrangements for
international students)
Orientation to campus
Housing arrangements
Academic advising
Dining services
Academic coursework
Are you an international
student or a domestic
student?
N
Domestic (American)
736
3.59
.822
.030
126
4.21
.960
.086
1150
127
999
122
1259
126
1071
119
1287
3.62
4.12
3.58
3.80
3.56
3.92
3.61
3.50
4.03
.973
1.013
1.026
1.133
1.234
1.143
1.002
1.149
.860
.029
.090
.032
.103
.035
.102
.031
.105
.024
129
4.05
.979
.086
International
Domestic (American)
International
Domestic (American)
International
Domestic (American)
International
Domestic (American)
International
Domestic (American)
International
Mean
Std.
Deviatio
n
Std. Error
Mean
F
1.77*
.002*
2.83*
6.81*
5.98
4.37
* significance < .05
37
There are significant differences in American and international student responses to satisfaction of prearrival, orientation to campus, housing arrangements, and academic advising. International students were
more satisfied with pre-arrival, more satisfied with orientation to campus, more satisfied with housing
arrangements and more satisfied with academic advising.
Comparison of Means: Interest in becoming more Engaged, by Domestic or International
Are you an
How interested are
international student
you in the following? or an domestic
student?
Becoming more
Domestic (American)
engaged with
international
International
activities on the UM
campus
* significance < .05
N
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
1310
3.29
1.105
.031
132
3.56
1.065
.093
F
.066*
International students are more interested in becoming more engaged with international activities.
Interest in becoming more Engaged, by International Experience
While at the
University of
How interested are
you in the following? Montana, have you
had an educational
experience abroad?
Becoming more
Yes
engaged with
international
No
activities on the UM
campus
* significance < .05
N
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
224
3.76
1.040
.069
1075
3.20
1.092
.033
F
2.62*
Domestic students who have had an educational experience abroad are more interested in becoming more
engaged with international activities.
38
Importance of International Component by International Experience
While at the
University of
Montana, have you
had an educational
experience abroad?
How important is an Yes
international
component to your No
studies?
* significance < .05
N
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
224
4.36
.840
.056
1075
3.24
1.099
.034
F
16.09*
American students who have had an international experience report that an international component is
more important to their studies than do students who have not had an international experience abroad.
39
Appendix D: iLab Steering Committee and Task Force composition
iLab Steering Committee





Elizabeth Ametsbichler, Department of Modern and Classical Languages and Literatures (current
Steering Committee Co-chair)
Paulo Zagalo-Melo, Associate Provost for Global Century Education and Director of Office of
International Programs (current Steering Committee Co-chair)
Jim Burchfield, College of Forestry and Conservation (Steering Committee Co-chair prior to
retirement)
Charles Janson, Division of Biological Sciences
Abraham Kim, Maureen and Mike Mansfield Center
iLab Taskforce














Nancy Gass, Office of International Programs (Task Force Co-chair)
Jeanne Loftus, Global Leadership Initiative (Task Force Co-chair)
Larry Abramson, School of Journalism
Peter Baker, Office of International Programs
Jennifer Bell, School of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Science
Bill Borrie, Faculty Senate; College of Forestry and Conservation
Julie Cahill, Office of International Programs
Trey Hill, School of Art
Eftychia Koehn, Foreign Student and Scholar Services
John Matt, Department of Educational Leadership
Mary Nellis, Foreign Student & Scholar Services
Samuel Panarella, School of Law
Nader Shooshtari, Department of Management and Marketing
Marja Unkuri-Chaudhry, Office of International Programs
40
Appendix E: iLab Subcommittee Composition
Administrative Leadership, Structure, and Staffing
•
•
•
•
Claudine Cellier, Office of the Provost (subcommittee chair)
Peter Baker, Office of International Programs
Bill Borrie, College of Forestry and Conservation
Effie Koehn, Foreign Student and Scholar Services
Articulated Institutional Commitment
•
•
•
•
•
•
Brian French, Office for Student Success (subcommittee chair)
John Matt, Department of Educational Leadership
Paulo Zagalo-Melo, Associate Provost for Global Century Education and Director of Office of
International Programs
Liz Putnam, Interim Dean of Davidson Honors College
G.G. Weix, Anthropology
Maria Cole, Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action
Collaboration and Partnerships
•
•
•
•
•
•
Nancy Gass, Office of International Programs (subcommittee chair)
Abraham Kim, Maureen and Mike Mansfield Center
Samuel Panarella, School of Law
Keith Bosak, College of Forestry and Conservation
Jillian Campana, School of Theatre and Dance
Sandy Ross, Graduate School
Curriculum, Co-Curriculum, and Learning Outcomes
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Nader Shooshtari, Department of Management and Marketing (subcommittee chair)
Charles Janson, Division of Biological Sciences
Julie Cahill, Office of International Programs
Trent Atkins, Department of Curriculum & Instruction
Clint Walker, Department of Modern and Classical Languages and Literatures
Nathan Lindsay, Provost's Office
Liz Roosa Millar, University Center
Faculty Policies and Practices
•
•
•
•
•
•
Jennifer Bell, School of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Science (subcommittee chair)
Elizabeth Ametsbichler, Department of Modern and Classical Languages and Literatures
Beckie Christiaens, Provost's Office
Chris Comer, College of Humanities and Sciences
Steve Lodmell, Division of Biological Sciences
Amy Kinch, Faculty Development Office
41
Student Mobility
•
•
•
•
•
Larry Abramson, School of Journalism (subcommittee chair)
Jeanne Loftus, Global Leadership Initiative
Mary Nellis, Foreign Student & Scholar Services
Trey Hill, School of Art
Marja Unkuri-Chaudhry, Office of International Programs
42
Appendix F
Appendix F1
Administrative Leadership, Structure, and Staffing Subcommittee Report
Appendix F2
Articulated Institutional Commitment Subcommittee Report
Appendix F3
Collaboration and Partnerships Subcommittee Report
Appendix F4
Curriculum, Co-Curriculum, and Learning Outcomes Subcommittee Report
Appendix F5
Faculty Policies and Practices Subcommittee Report
Appendix F6
Student Mobility Subcommittee Report
43
Appendix F1: Administrative Leadership, Structure, and Staffing Subcommittee
Report
44
Final Report to Steering Committee
Submitted on June 30, 2015 to Internationalization Lab Task Force Co-Chairs Jeanne Loftus and Nancy
Gass by Subcommittee for Administrative Leadership, Staffing and Structure members Claudine Cellier,
Effie Koehn, Peter Baker, and Bill Borrie
Table of Contents
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................................. 1
Strengths ................................................................................................................................................... 1
Weaknesses .............................................................................................................................................. 2
Opportunities ............................................................................................................................................ 4
Challenges ................................................................................................................................................. 5
Recommendations related to Administrative Leadership, Staffing and Structure....................................... 7
Other recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 8
Data Collection .............................................................................................................................................. 9
Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 20
Data Analysis
Strengths
Strengths in administrative leadership, staffing and structure in support of internationalization at UM
include: the work of faculty, the International Food and Culture Festival, the support of leaders in some
schools and colleges, the international travel registry, and the diversity of individuals and units involved
in decision-making that affects matters such as internationalization.
Faculty engagement, entrepreneurialism, creativity and innovation
UM faculty are engaged in internationalization in a variety of ways: they design, develop, market,
administer and lead faculty led study abroad programs; research and design international degree
programs; incorporate international components into campus and classroom learning; conduct research
and outreach activities overseas; and host and advise students, scholars and professionals who come to
UM to learn from them. Many UM faculty share and nurture the foundations of activities that support
internationalization.
International Food and Culture Festival
The International Food and Culture Festival is a popular and successful annual event in the Missoula
community, one of the largest non-athletic events held on campus. It helps to raise awareness in regard
to the diverse composition of the Missoula community, and serves as a platform from which
1
international themes and topics can be discussed and explored. It engages the entire community: young
children, K-12 students, parents, UM students (both domestic and international), and others.
Prioritization and funding for international activities by some deans
Some schools and colleges have taken steps to support international activities. A specific example is the
College of Forestry and Conservation which, among other actions, has established the International
Sustainability Fellows program for undergraduate students to learn leadership skills and connect with
international partners on natural resource projects.
International Travel Registry policy
UM faculty, staff and students are required to use the UM International Travel Registry, which is
managed by the Office of International Programs, before traveling abroad. In addition to being a
necessary risk management tool, that system also gathers helpful information about the UM
community’s international travel on topics such as scale (how many international travelers from the
University), destinations, durations abroad, and other topics.
Many entities are involved in decision-making processes that can support internationalization
The strong shared governance system at UM is such that a diverse set of campus entities representing
students, staff, faculty and administrators are regularly involved in making and backing decisions related
to campus-wide initiatives such as internationalization. We consider this a strength because if a decision
gains the support of all these groups, it will have a broad foundation upon which to grow.
Weaknesses
The weaknesses we identified fit into three general categories: lack of financial resources to support
internationalization, lack of clear communication articulating UM’s goals for internationalization, and
lack of coordination amongst stakeholders who pursue activities related to internationalization in a
variety of disparate ways.
Lack of financial resources to support internationalization
Our data collection conversations revealed the unanimous sentiment that there is a widespread lack of
funds to support and sustain every level of activity in the realm of internationalization at the University
of Montana.
Lack of funding is a fundamental part of another weakness identified, the nearly total1 lack of staffing
and administrative structure to serve and support internationalization-related activities within UM’s
schools and colleges.
Lack of funding also relates to another weakness identified: lack of training and professional
development opportunities related to internationalization for all UM employees. Classified staff
members, in particular, are on the front lines of service to students and serve as the “face” of UM.
However, training is needed for all UM employees (not just classified staff) on topics ranging from what
office to send students to for a particular problem (basic customer service) to cross-cultural
communication and sensitivity, to immigration procedures.
1
Nader Shooshtari’s function within the School of Business Administration and Devi Zdziebko’s function within the
College of Forestry and Conservation stood out as exceptions.
2
Lack of clear communication articulating UM’s goals for internationalization prevents
administrative leaders and staff from working cohesively toward those goals
The word “global” appears in the title of the University’s strategic plan (UM2020: Building a University
for the Global Century) and that plan identifies “Education for the Global Century” and “Discovery and
Creativity to Serve Montana and the World” as two of its strategic issues. Despite this, we found
consensus that the institution’s vision and goals for internationalization are not clearly articulated. There
were diverging opinions on how that vision and goals should be communicated – some thought a
Presidential pronouncement would be necessary; others thought a collective, more inclusive strategy
(perhaps this iLab process) might be used to develop UM’s vision and goals. There was general
consensus that a clear vision and set of goals would help UM obtain stronger engagement from its
administrators, faculty, staff and students in support of internationalization. A clear vision and set of
goals would help campus leaders set the course for internationalization in their sectors, schools, colleges
and offices, and help them work together to achieve them.
Another weakness related to lack of communication is lack of clear guidance about administrative
processes related to internationalization. The lack of shared goals for internationalization leads to a set
of disparate and sometimes counterproductive administrative processes that cause confusion and
frustration for faculty, staff and students.
The Global Leadership Initiative stands out as an example of a program related to internationalization
that would greatly benefit from the articulation of a clear vision and set of goals for UM’s
internationalization. While the GLI is one of UM’s newest, most distinguished and exciting programs, the
fact that it has no academic home and functions outside of regular academic funding and reporting lines
has created a set of detrimental perceptions about the program. Its lack of academic home leads to
difficulties in obtaining credibility and approvals through the University’s regular curriculum review
processes2; the fact that it’s entirely donor-funded leads to doubts about its longevity and rumors that
it’s not really a priority because it hasn’t been attributed a more stable, permanent funding line. A
clearly articulated, shared understanding of the GLI’s place within the vision and goals for UM’s
internationalization would allow the GLI to gain a stronger foothold within the institution.
Lack of coordination related to internationalization
Overall, our data collection discussions revealed widespread consensus on two points: UM has too many
institutional partnerships; and UM has too many study abroad programs.
The Office for International Programs recently undertook a review of all of UM’s institutional
partnerships and designed a process for suggesting new partnerships be formed. Some suggested that it
would be preferable to cultivate a handful of very strong partnerships than engage in many relationships
that consist of little more than a Memorandum of Understanding.
Study abroad programs are available to UM students in the form of exchanges with partner universities,
exchanges conducted through International Student Exchange Programs (ISEP), an outside organization,
and faculty-led study abroad programs created and organized by UM faculty members. Study abroad
programs are growing in number and have begun to compete with one another for students.
Collaboration, cooperation and coordination are needed to eliminate this type of internal competition,
perceived as frustrating and counterproductive.
2
The recent awarding of a rubric for GLI is a positive development in this respect.
3
Opportunities
The diversity of interests, motivations and available resources sets the stage for many constituents and
stakeholders to make contributions towards internationalization. The University of Montana has many
untapped opportunities to enhance and expand the role and scope of international education on
campus.
Internationally Engaged Faculty and Staff
First and foremost, the role of faculty and staff in international programs is a sine qua non. A directory
of UM employees with international experiences will enable the institution to increase international
visibility and identify persons with relevant knowledge and cross-cultural competencies. A campus-wide
resource information and communication network could then be established and centrally
administered. Such a resource would help improve advising with a view to internationalization students on study abroad would complete their degree requirements without delays by covering
General Education credits and advise international students to enroll in appropriate courses that make
their education relevant to the needs of their home countries. With a strong Native American Studies
program at UM we should also strive to connect with indigenous groups internationally.
We need to cultivate relationships with exchange visitors on campus, UM alums and affiliates
internationally, as well as retirees who travel overseas, in order to enhance marketing, recruitment,
alumni relations and fundraising efforts and raise the visibility of UM.
International Students are an Important Resource
Increases in international enrollments not only contribute to the revenue base of the University but
bring more diversity and cross-cultural competencies to our campus. The presence of international
students and scholars offers us the opportunity to design innovative, cross-cultural programs and
provide structured social activities to help them become more actively engaged with both the campus
and community. “Making the Most of Intercultural Interactions,” a GLI Capstone project submitted last
spring, could inform future decisions related to integrating international students to the UM community
(see appendix). In addition, part of a new international student fee will fund proposals from the
different nationality clubs when they plan celebrations and make a concerted effort to invite domestic
students, as well as staff and faculty, to attend. Events like the Chinese New Year, African Film Series, Eid
al-Fitr Muslim holiday, Persian Norooz New Year observance, Griz for UNICEF banquet , Japanese Sushi
Making, etc., should not be limited to members of the nationality clubs alone. The extra funding will
allow expansion of such events where domestic students can get exposure to different cultures and
customs and help foreign students foster friendships with Americans.
Missoula International Expertise, UM Experts and UM Employee databases
These are three separate efforts underway to centralize information about UM employees and their
expertise, including expertise related to internationalization. These efforts are a step in the right
direction in terms of helping catalog and promote knowledge and competencies related to
internationalization on campus, in Missoula, and beyond.
International advisors’ network
Building on the iTeam initiative and modeled on VETS office trainings, the Office for Student Success is
developing a series of trainings for advisors and faculty members who work with international students
to create a network of support for international students in terms of academic advising. This fairly new
initiative will be fully developed and implemented over the course of the next academic year.
4
Challenges
There are numerous challenges facing UM in administrative leadership, structure, and staffing: in
particular, the constant challenge of minimizing fees and complicated procedures; the challenges for
students, faculty and campus leadership navigating a dispersed structure for internationalization; and
uncertainty about future academic calendars.
Minimizing fees, complicated procedures, and paperwork
Our data collection revealed the constant challenge of the costs of international activity. From a
student’s point of view, any additional fee to participate in study abroad opportunities can discourage or
prohibitively constrain participation. While each fee may seem small but necessary, the cumulative
burden inevitably falls on the student. Similarly, confusing and complicated procedures (e.g. application
software such as StudioAbroad) may be discouraging participation. There were several comments about
the increasing difficulty of procedures for study abroad.
It was quite frequently noted that international experiences need to be better integrated into courses of
study, particularly so that students can still graduate in a timely manner. Encouraging, accurate study
abroad advising is needed to assist students in not losing time towards graduation: one example would
be encouraging short-term programs during Wintersession or May/early June; another would be
facilitating study abroad courses be approved to as General Education requirements. Secondly, degree
programs/maps could be structurally designed to encourage and recognize study abroad as an
important and central component (rather than as an add-on).
Faculty would greatly benefit from a decrease in confusing bureaucracy, regulation and paperwork for
international activity. The more time and effort that it takes to get international activity documented,
approved, and credentialed, the less time that faculty have for creatively developing their academic,
research, or outreach programs. Offices such as Human Resource Services and Business Services (who
must implement sometimes poorly designed state and federal guidelines) can unreasonably delay and
complicate faculty international activity. The use of external sponsors to manage logistics
(accommodations, transportation, in-country support, etc.) by a number of study abroad programs is
cited as a successful strategy to allow program directors and faculty to focus on academic coordination
and content.
Confusion regarding dispersed structure and responsibility for international activity
The distributed model for leadership and coordination of international activity is frequently cited as
confusing by students, staff, and faculty. The Office of International Programs tends to focus most on
academic components (admissions, outgoing programs, and exchanges), Foreign Student and Scholar
Services tends to focus most on support services for international students (housing, dining, health care,
recreation, etc.) as well as assisting students, faculty, and visiting scholars with immigration-related
issues, and the Mansfield Center tends to focus most on events (conferences, workshops, forums,
institutes, etc.). These three units report to different Vice Presidents (Academic Affairs, Student Affairs)
and having different funding lines. However, while there may have been historical reasons for this
structure primarily by function, today all three units, now do aspects of all three functions (academic,
support services, and programming). In addition, the Office for Student Success and various advisors
within some schools and colleges also provide advising to international students and domestic students
wishing to study abroad.
5
There is also a profound challenge for students, staff, and faculty in engaging with a large number of
international degree programs (such as International Development Studies, International Conservation
and Development, Global Public Health, Global Youth Development, International Business, etc.) as well
as a significant number of area studies programs such as East Asian Studies, South and Southeast Asian
Studies, Central and Southwest Asian Studies, Latin American Studies (some of which are academic
minors and/or degrees). These degree programs and area studies programs don’t coordinate with one
another and appear to overlap in some instances and compete with each other. It is not generally
understood why so many of these programs coexist and how they relate to one another.
Uncertainty regarding academic calendars
Perhaps reflecting the timing of our data collection efforts which coincided with campus-wide
discussions regarding the future of Wintersession and Summer Session, the challenge of fitting
international activity within future academic calendars was identified. The logistics and expense of
international programs necessitates longer time periods than may be possible with shortened
Wintersessions. International programs may also have longer lead times in order to successfully secure
facilities and recruit students, thus looking for greater predictability of future calendars.
6
Recommendations related to Administrative Leadership, Staffing and Structure
ONE STOP SHOP FOR STUDENT SERVICES
Create a one-stop shop for all internationalization-related student services in the Lomasson
Center (study abroad, GLI, OAE) as a complement to the existing student services offices already
located there (FSSS, OSS, Registrar, Graduate School, Financial Aid, Business Services). This has
been suggested in the past (see appendix).
IMPROVE COORDINATION
Improve administrative coordination of internationalization functions at UM including, but not
limited to: recruitment, marketing, enrollment, advising for both international students here
and domestic students wishing to study abroad, better integration of international and domestic
students on campus, curriculum and co-curriculum development, programming and outreach
about international opportunities for faculty, staff and students.
DESIGNATE SPECIFIC DUTIES TO FACULTY AND STAFF
Like in the School of Business Administration, designate a senior faculty member or experienced
administrator as the point person for internationalization in every school and college (e.g.
leading curriculum development, negotiating faculty involvement, encouraging and advocating
for international research/outreach…). Like in the College of Forestry & Conservation, identify
and assign duties to a staff member to provide administrative support, general coordination and
advising related to internationalization.
INTERNATIONALIZATION NETWORK/COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE
Create a strong network of UM employees dedicated to internationalization composed of the
abovementioned senior leaders and administrative staff from the schools and colleges in
addition to others who share responsibility for internationalization in a variety of contexts:
student affairs, administration & finance, research & creative scholarship, alumni relations, the
UM Foundation. Similar to the FAM group in Academic Affairs, the formation of this community
of practice related to internationalization would result in better communication, coordination,
and information sharing across sectors in support of internationalization at UM.
EMPLOYEE TRAINING & AWARENESS
Develop faculty and staff awareness about internationalization at UM through tailored,
continuous professional development opportunities. Build on existing efforts to broaden faculty
and staff perspectives on internationalization and develop knowledge of on-campus resources.
Develop communication strategies to broaden and deepen faculty and staff understanding of
how internationalization is structured at UM by identifying all internationalization-related
offices, people, and functions and how they relate to each other. Connect the Missoula
International Experts and UM Experts databases to this outreach initiative.
7
STAFF ATTITUDES MAKE A DIFFERENCE
Start collecting data on UM staff attitudes toward and perceptions of internationalization. When
funding becomes available, revive the staff short term international activity grant program and
promote it so that staff members take better advantage of this opportunity than in the recent past.
MORE AUTHORITY TO INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE
Assign more authority to the International Committee and modify its membership to achieve
broader campus representation. Define and increase the responsibility and accountability of the
International Committee as the leading body for campus internationalization. Connect the
International Committee with the network of employees working to support internationalization
described in recommendation #4. Articulate the International Committee’s reporting line and
relationships to other shared governance bodies such as Faculty and Staff Senate, ASUM, the
Diversity Advisory Council, Academic Officers, etc.
DIRECTORY OF GRIZ ABROAD
Develop a directory of all UM alumni, affiliates, and potential donors abroad and actively pursue
and/or renew relationships with them.
CONTINUOUSLY IMPROVE RISK MANAGEMENT
Bolster UM’s international risk management strategy by 1) continuing to enforce requirements
laid out in the UM international travel registry policy 2) updating that policy based on current
best practices for international higher education risk management 3) developing a system to
track all international visitors to campus at any given time for safety (as well as the benefit of
the campus community), and 4) creating an international risk officer position within OIP to help
UM address international risk, health and safety for students and faculty travelling and
collaborating overseas, as well as overseas crisis management, export controls, etc. (see
appendix for sample job description).
Other recommendations
SHORT STUDY ABROAD WORKS WELL FOR SOME STUDENTS
Maintain UM’s commitment to study abroad programs of shorter duration as they are more
accessible for some students and serve as an on-ramp for longer study abroad and international
travel afterwards.
8
Data Collection
See appendix for the data from which we developed the summaries that follow.
Where does primary responsibility for internationalization lie? What other structures
or bodies share responsibility? How effective are these arrangements?
Academic Officers, campus-wide faculty meetings, Financial Aid, Foreign Student and Student Scholar
Services (FSSS), Global Leadership Initiative (GLI), International Committee, Mansfield Center, Office for
Academic Enrichment, Office of International Programs (OIP), Office of the Provost, Student Affairs
Officers, UM Foundation, Undergraduate Advising Center
Summary of findings:
Having senior faculty leadership within a College or School is hugely impactful.
• With responsibility to keep up with & share best and most current practices in international
education
o Encourages greater faculty input, collaboration and commitment
o Leads to much increased activity, with time and direction to grow new academic
programs, as well as to integrate within existing academic programs
o With an emphasis towards maintaining on-time graduation
o Better and closer support for faculty and students
o Puts international activity front & center in Colleges & Schools, not in some distant,
centralized office
o Can be tied in with existing College/School communications & marketing
o Better tied into unit-based fundraising (e.g. for scholarships, funding for program
development)
o Better able to guide proposals through ASCRC/Grad. Council and Faculty Senate
o Better leverage for existing research & outreach/extension activities
o Better monitoring of partners (sponsors, hosts, funding agencies, etc.)
OIP, FSSS & Mansfield Center co-existing is a major challenge
• Reporting to different Vice-Presidents (Academic Affairs, Student Affairs), with different funding
lines
• May have historically made sense, but less so today to structure by function as all three now do
aspects of all three sets of functions
o OIP focuses on: academic (admissions, programs, partnerships & exchanges)
o FSSS focuses on: services (visas, housing, dining, health care, recreation, etc.)
o Mansfield Center focuses on: events (conferences, workshops, forums, institutes, etc.)
• Perceived duplication of efforts, accompanied by general consensus that collaboration
improving
• Inconsistency across bodies, with students unsure where to go for assistance
• Could have direct line to/from President, who sets overall campus priority for
internationalization
• Less consensus on desirable unified location (Academic Affairs or Student Affairs or autonomous
under new Vice President for International Activities)
• Consistency & co-ordination of incoming international student academic advising needs to
improve
9
•
•
Perception that international students don’t know where to go and sometimes get conflicting
advice
o E.g. from FSSS, OIP, OSS, Admissions, schools and colleges, Curry Health Center,
Financial Aid, Graduate School, Residence Life, Scholarships, Disability Services for
Students
One-stop shop (one geographic location, such as an International Center), could be
advantageous so that students don’t have to go to two or three different offices for answers and
assistance
The Global Leadership Initiative (GLI) is controversial
• It is unclear how it fits within existing programs, authority & structure
• May have taken some of the “energy and clarity” away from internationalization
• Demonstrates that academic learning outcomes/processes must come first
• Unclear what “global learning” is going on, particularly given retention problems
• Uncertain status of interdisciplinary program that doesn’t have an academic home
• Self-funded program may not show true University commitment
• Unclear relationship with regional programs such as East Asian Studies, South and Southeast
Asian Studies, Central and Southwest Asian Studies, Latin American Studies
• Too many global partnerships (e.g. exchange programs)
• Most have poorly defined objectives and measured outcomes
• Impossible for a campus our size to foster and maintain so many
• A good number established for distinct purposes by a single faculty member (who may now
have left campus)
• Too many programs/exchanges in some regions (e.g. Latin America) without consideration or
monitoring of quality control
o Students may be assuming UM endorses and verifies the rigor and value of every
program
What are the communication or coordination lines to ensure community wide
awareness, synergy and mutual support?
Mansfield Center, OIP, Office of the Provost, Office for Academic Enrichment, GLI, Student Affairs
Officers, Academic Officers, Undergraduate Advising Center, International Committee, Faculty-led
program directors, Financial Aid, UM Foundation and FSSS
Summary of findings:
Increased and improved internal communication/coordination amongst individual UM employees, UM
offices, and governing bodies, is needed.
• There is a set of offices and people performing internationalization-related functions on campus.
(OIP, FSSS, Enrollment Services, Academic Units, OAE, GLI, UAC, etc.) Relationships and
connections within this set of offices and people are complex. Communication between these
offices and people has improved recently (examples: Foreign Student Coordinating Committee,
iTeam), but could become even more streamlined, effective and efficient. Coordination needs to
improve as well, and efforts are being made to do so (new student orientation, advising).
• In addition, communication and coordination between the set of offices and people described
above and other offices, groups and people who make decisions that affect internationalization
(Faculty Senate committees, ASUM, Business Services, Human Resource Services) needs to
10
•
•
•
improve so that these decision-makers are aware of the effect their decisions might have on
internationalization (curriculum and credit-transfer decisions, travel expense reimbursement
policy changes, visa procurement procedures, etc.). A clear and comprehensive
internationalization strategy/policy for the UM campus (the outcome of the iLab process) would
help inform the decisions these groups and people make as concerns internationalization at UM,
based on the level of importance/priority it ultimately occupies, campus-wide.
Also, communication and coordination between the set of offices and people described in the
first bullet point and offices carrying out functions that serve the entire student body / all of
campus could improve so that there is increased awareness on campus about the campus’ goals
for internationalization in general, and so that the needs of specific groups on campus
(international students and scholars, domestic students planning to go abroad or returning from
time spent abroad) are appropriately met. Some all-campus entities demonstrate awareness
and sensitivity to international visitors, UM Dining providing halal meat options for example.
One example was given that showed need for improvement: training Curry Health Center staff
to respond appropriately to students from different places and cultures, such as Saudi Arabia.
Most respondents agreed that the Office of International Programs needs to take the lead on
administering internationalization activities, communications and coordination on campus. The
idea of creating a university committee to oversee and coordinate international activities was
also put forth (it was generally acknowledged that the role of the International Committee is
unclear to most, and that a group with more authority and less of an advisory role is needed.)
Faculty leading study abroad programs acknowledged that lately steps have been taken to
better coordinate administrative processes for travel abroad for UM students and faculty in the
form of the Travel Registry and OIP’s Faculty Directed or Affiliated Study Abroad Program
Application. They all expressed frustration with the fact that to lead these programs, faculty
have to do all of the work involved and agreed that creating some centralized administrative
support for faculty-led programs would be beneficial. They also acknowledged that there is
growing competition between study-abroad programs for a limited number of students.
Coordination is needed in that respect, too.
Internal communication/coordination from UM offices with internationalization functions toward
students is critical and needs drastic improvement.
• Students are very confused about who does what on campus. Decentralized offices combined
with students’ typical aversion to attend information sessions and read emails leads to
disorganization and communication breakdown.
• Advising of students needs to improve - both for international students at UM and for domestic
students interested in study abroad.
o International students need help picking classes appropriate to their language skill level
and other needs (tailored to the individual and their academic / programmatic needs).
o Lack of clear connection between and support for students’ degree paths and study
abroad opportunities diminishes the numbers of domestic students who study abroad.
Many students express an interest in study abroad upon arrival at UM, but interest
peters out / some departments dissuade students from doing so because that will likely
prevent them from graduating within 4 years. Credit transfer matters need to be
simplified and advising needs to be more robust. More information on the nonacademic implications of study abroad such as its real cost, etc. needs to be made
available to both students and parents.
11
•
•
More feedback from students experiencing all aspects of internationalization (international
students at UM; UM students going abroad; on-campus experience (curricular and co-curricular
components)) should be gathered and used to effect change and improve the student
experience.
Domestic students returning to UM from study abroad experiences find that others don’t want
to hear about their experiences. They tend to gather together for mutual support. It is hard for
them to comfortably, proactively share their experiences abroad and feel like they are “giving
back” to campus.
Communication and coordination related to integrating international visitors into campus life must
improve.
• How can we take better advantage of the presence of international visitors on our campus?
Sometimes groups visit classes or give presentations, but this seems to happen on an ad hoc
basis (for example, Humphrey Fellow presentations at Jeannette Rankin Peace Center last year;
FSSS relationship with the Missoula Speakers’ Bureau) and is not centrally coordinated. Can
some sort of on-campus visitor directory be created and maintained? FSSS provides an annual
report of visiting scholars by visa type to the Department of State and IIE, but there is no oncampus system to share constantly updated information about who is visiting, from where, for
what purpose and for how long.
• Some of our international visitors who are indigenous peoples in their parts of the world would
have a lot in common with the Native Americans on our campus. How can we bring these
groups together?
External communication and coordination exist to various degrees but could improve to support overall
internationalization at UM.
• The International Culture and Food Festival, organized by FSSS and the International Student
Association, is a major event in the Missoula community every month of March. It is one of the
largest non-sporting public events at UM and in Missoula and generates awareness and goodwill towards international students.
• The Mansfield Center and OIP also conduct outreach programs in the community and
throughout Montana. In Missoula, people seek out UM for international-related matters
because the University is such a dominant, visible component of our community.
• Many MOLLI courses have an international component and this program is very successful.
(Some MOLLI students are studying abroad alongside UM students in Vienna next year.)
• A systematically updated directory of UM constituents abroad would be very desirable for
anyone from UM traveling abroad. According to the UMF, alumni/potential donor base is very
limited at this time.
What are the staffing arrangements and reporting lines? How well are they working?
OIP, Office of Academic Enrichment, Enrollment Services, GLI, Graduate School, School of Extended &
Lifelong Learning, International Committee, Faculty-led program directors, Financial Aid, and FSSS
Summary of findings:
Different Reporting Lines Exist for International Activities
• Different offices report to different VPs and follow different practices and direction from above
12
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
OIP initiatives, such as exchange programs, are under the direction of the Associate Provost for
Global Century Education
FSSS is a unit within the Student Affairs Division. Its mission is to provide critical services and
expertise in meeting the needs of international students and offering them opportunities for cocurricular activities and integration into the life of the campus
International student admissions should go over to OIP 3, especially since international student
recruitment is now there. Also admissions and evaluation function should stay together
Directors of Faculty-led programs state that faculty leaders do everything: host families,
students, money, etc. Business Services is very hard to work with which hurts relationships with
partners, recruitment of students, etc.
The administrative structure and application process is confusing to study abroad students
which discourages them from completing and submitting study abroad applications
For logistics, Davidson Honors College (DHC) works through EF tours so staff members don’t
have to handle anything. School of Business Administration also uses a contractor for logistics.
Different models, where faculty do everything, to outsourcing logistics and making contracted
agreements may result in higher cost for the students
Admission of graduate students happens at the departmental level with varying responsiveness
Collaboration of Graduate school, (Admissions and Human Resource Services) with FSSS which
provides DSO and immigration services
Perception that certain units with internationalization functions have too many staff, that
duplication of efforts is taking place and could be restructured with an eye to efficiency.
Faculty and other Stakeholders Vary in their Expectations and Attitudes Toward Internationalization
• Too much emphasis on OIP initiatives and not enough on other university opportunities
• Unclear how exchange programs reflect college/degree priorities
• DHC programs have been advised not to compete with other UM programs, for example those
dealing with Ireland
• When UM students go abroad for a semester, whether on faculty-led study abroad programs or
via ISEP or at a partner university, numbers decline in Modern Languages and Literatures (MCLL)
classrooms. This is detrimental to the department
• General decline in study abroad programs correlates with a decline in language majors
• Spending time abroad is decisive in a student’s choice of language as a major
• In terms of faculty, MCLL doesn’t have enough faculty to be offering faculty-led study abroad
programs on a regular basis AND teach course at UM on a regular basis. MCLL is not filling
faculty lines fast enough to ensure study abroad program frequency and quality
• Uncertainty about Wintersession schedule adds more instability to FLSAP planning for the future
What governance structures support internationalization? How well are they working?
OIP, Office for Academic Enrichment, GLI, School of Extended & Lifelong Learning, Student Affairs
Officers, Undergraduate Advising Center, International Committee, Faculty-led study abroad program
directors, Financial Aid, FSSS
3
This suggestion was made during data collection; it is the authors’ understanding that such a change has recently
been made.
13
Summary of findings:
Many entities are involved in different aspects of internationalization governance.
• Collaborators include: the International Committee, the International Student Coordinating
Committee, Academic Officers, President’s Cabinet and others.
o Those groups and others meet and can make recommendations about matters related
to internationalization (Cabinet ultimately approves University policies).
• ASCRC, General Education Committee, Writing Committee, and the Graduate Council have the
power to approve or reject plans that impact internationalization (e.g. English language
proficiency requirements, writing requirements, course and program development, etc.).
• Understanding how to negotiate the online space is a key to internationalization, which is how
students communicate today. Online learning is contemporary, and an important aspect of
internationalization.
• GLI committees are new and support internationalization
• The OIP-FSSS-OSS coordination committee supports internationalization.
• Because many units on campus (both academic and non-academic) play a critical role in
achieving the goals of campus internationalization “to centralize or not are not viable options.”
The existing internationalization governance structure is not effective. The existing structure produces
challenges that impede internationalization.
• The International Committee needs to apply greater emphasis on academic leadership and
strategic oversight and less on ‘busy work’.
• The Associate Provost (for Global Century Education) has a presence at the Academic Officer’s
meetings, so his voice is there, but is he active on other university committees (e.g. ASCRC,
Grad. Council, Research & Creative Scholarship)?
• The International Committee could have more input and collaboration from deans & faculty (it is
currently dominated by OIP).
• There is a chance for online education to help internationalize the University.
• International education administration is organized in silos and there is a lack of staff
representation within international education administration at UM.
• What sort of commitment or support to an effort (regarding internationalization) is leadership
putting in place? Is it consistent?
• There is a perception that ASCRC does not support internationalization.
• Permanent course numbers being eliminated and replaced by bag numbers, which “will kill
study abroad.” Students can only take a certain number of bag courses. This will look bad on
their transcript if they want to apply to grad school.
• Trying to get appropriate number of credits for a course (especially a faculty-led study abroad
course), getting permanent course numbers, getting cross-listing, showing certain numbers of
contact hours, etc. are difficult steps.
• Flexibility within schools and colleges is needed (especially in regard to faculty-led study abroad
courses).
o SOBA, for example, teaches 3+3 course loads. The dean won’t pay more for more work.
Need for a policy where faculty are paid a prorated amount.
• There is a perception that the International Committee has an advisory role but no real power.
• There is a perception that the Faculty Senate wields a lot of power concerning
internationalization.
14
Leadership, collaboration and change are needed to articulate a clearer vision of internationalization at
the University. There are committees and structures already in place that leadership could task to
provide that clearer vision.
• The more strongly something is worded (in regard to international education being an
institutional priority), the better.
• Policies that govern international education (e.g. risk management) are not an academic
freedom issue.
• No formal governance structure at UM directly supports internationalization.
• Oversight of internationally-themed academic programs (International Development Studies,
International Conservation and Development, International Business Program, Global Public
Health, Global Youth Development) needs to be separated from OIP and have more campuswide academic coordination.
• Does ASUM have a committee focused on internationalization?
• What is Diversity Advisory Council’s role? Sometimes students perform at its meetings, but how
does it influence internationalization at UM?
• Should there be a campus-wide governance committee for internationalization?
• The “matrix management organization” structure/model would be the best fit as it would
recognize UM’s context of collective engagement and responsibility, making the academic, and
support service units would be effectively engaged in the process of internationalization.
o …the essential elements of this model would be communication and coordination with
direct collaborative crosswalks among contributors.
What policies or practices (related to this subcommittee) hinder internationalization
efforts at this institution?
OIP, campus-wide faculty meetings, Office of the Provost, Office for Academic Enrichment, Enrollment
Services, Graduate School, Academic Officers, Undergraduate Advising Center, International Committee,
Faculty-led study abroad program directors, Financial Aid, Business Services, FSSS, and Office of
Planning, Budgeting and Analysis (OPBA)
Summary of findings:
Lack of Reciprocal Relationship between Faculty-led study abroad programs and OIP’s Study Abroad
Office and Lack of Coordination between Study Abroad Programs and Business Services
• Decentralized structure for faculty-led study abroad programs. It was suggested by some that
UM needs to centralize and structure processes for developing and conducting these programs.
• Lack of administrative support for Faculty-led study abroad programs so that professors leading
programs are required to do EVERYTHING related to leading the program.
• Recruitment of students (for study abroad) difficult – more coordination is needed
• OIP doesn’t give anything back. Asks faculty to do a lot of work but don’t give much in return.
• Communication is totally lacking between Business Services and Study Abroad programs.
Business Services needs information about study abroad programs because it impacts student
bills and student financial aid packages
• There doesn’t seem to be any standardization of how study abroad is administered—it seems
very reactionary/rushed. There does not seem to be any coordination between what students
are paying for in regard to study abroad programs and registration.
15
•
•
Faculty should instruct students to register to go abroad - set things up ahead of time.
Study abroad for UM: need more streamlined practices.
Insufficient Resources to Support and Sustain International Education on Campus
• We do not have the necessary level of financial support to internationalize
• If we had greater financial resources we could apply them to student retention and recruitment,
support for UM students to study abroad, support for faculty international experiences.
• Don’t endorse/adopt user-pays systems (whereby the students or programs end up paying for
centralized services; students are turned off, can’t afford these systems, and many are excluded
by higher costs to participate.
• Can there be a system in place to remunerate faculty leaders for Wintersession study abroad
programs as faculty leading Wintersession trips can’t receive additional salary for their work (all
the preparation, etc.)
• UM has a tendency to take advantage of people’s passions and not remunerate them.
• Fundraising is needed for students to be able to participate in study abroad.
• OIP’s electronic study abroad application system a “nightmare” $50 cost for “a bunch of
headaches” per application – seems to be set up for single applications for long term study
abroad (ISEP) not FLSAP.
• Financial constraints hinder us in the recruitment and retention of high caliber international
students
• Limited financial aid, lack of an on-campus work-study program, and high health insurance costs
have a negative impact on foreign students.
• UM does not provide the type of support that other universities provide for visiting scholars and
students in the form of housing and meals. Residence Life and Dining Services schedules at the
beginning and end of each semester need to better accommodate foreign students in their
transition to the University and at departure times (e.g., for Spring Semester new internationals
students arrive seven to ten days before the official start of the semester to attend a new
foreign student orientation, but there are very limited dining options, especially in the evening.
At the end of a semester many are stressed out trying to depart the day after finals since they
must vacate their dorm rooms.)
• Federal funding for graduate research, which in the past supported many international students,
has decreased.
• If more resources were available to the Graduate School they’d be used for purposes such as to
enhance collaboration for international student recruitment.
• From application to admission, there is a challenge (especially in regard to finances) as there is a
limited number of assistantships available for international graduate students.
• Motor pool policy doesn’t allow children in UM vehicles which excludes foreign students and
scholars with family members to participate in educational fieldtrips. This is an example of how
a rule based on saving money for potential tort claims against the University has an undue
negative impact on one population we serve.
Divergent Motivations and Rationales Drive Campus Internationalization
• Many do not understand what it means to internationalize the campus
• Internationalization is perceived as idiosyncratic, usually with one faculty member pushing for a
particular program. When that faculty member leaves so does the program – it is a moving
target.
16
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
There may be a sense the OIP makes decisions and imposes them on campus which isn’t very
helpful or encouraging.
Top-down initiatives from senior administration impede/squash enthusiasm and creativity by
academic programs, particularly if a one-size-fits-all approach is implemented
Senior administration need to emphasize greater communication with campus leadership, such
as deans’ offices and faculty.
The President has his vision but not exactly clear what the actual plan is. Need to make sure
everyone has bought into it (the vision).
The University’s commitment and vision in regard to internationalization is to be welcoming to
students and “make it easy” and not referring to academics.
We don’t have anyone with a campus-wide perspective
The University would benefit from more cultural sensitivity training - a series of interrelated
workshops.
Introduce a required one or zero credit seminar to facilitate transition of international students
from ELI to campus courses. Help place them in courses where they can succeed.
Incoming and outgoing programs could be unified under the banner of internationalized
learning. Little information and /or education on internationalization to domestic students –
could be particularly impactful on first year students.
Policies and practices are not very even across the schools and colleges. Is the
organic/grassroots development of international initiatives that is typical of UM a hindrance in
itself?
BANNER cited as a hindrance as it prevents proper reconciliation -- it does not facilitate/support
accounting for students abroad vs. students on campus.
Interdepartmental on-campus faculty-led study abroad programs could be developed if greater
coordination and commitment existed between academic departments.
Perception that many interdisciplinary courses linked to internationalization get eliminated in
the curricular review process. In one instance, ASCRC did not approve a 6-credit, 4 week
interdisciplinary course. Its members seem not to understand the value of offering such a
course. If faculty from different parts of UM teach interdisciplinary courses, these warrant crosslisting to serve students from all over campus. Cross-listing denied.
Processes in regard to the collection of data about study abroad and international faculty have
not been determined; only data collection and analysis model for international students has
been launched.
Efforts to standardize reporting and provide training (about reporting) are underway by the
Office of Planning, Budgeting and Analysis.
Does the institution gather information on the attitudes of staff (all non-faculty
employees) toward international learning? If so, how is this information used?
Mansfield Center, OIP, Office of the Provost, Office for Academic Enrichment, GLI, School of Extended
and Lifelong Learning, Student Affairs Officers, Undergraduate Advising Center, International
Committee, Financial Aid, FSSS
Summary of findings:
The institution does not gather information on the attitudes of staff toward international learning.
• It doesn’t, but it should.
• Probably typical of universities elsewhere (the lack of information about the attitudes of staff).
17
It would be helpful if the institution did gather information on the attitudes of staff toward international
learning.
• If it did, we could use this information to create a strategic plan for the future.
• If internationalization is a priority global competency skills need to be built into different
departmental policies.
International learning isn’t everyone’s priority, and its emphasis can be a burden.
• High priority for Academic Enrichment (and OIP, GLI, FSSS), but not necessarily for other units.
• Endless data collection, imposing burden on other units.
• Few of us now have time for yet another memo, yet another email asking us to provide data –
we just don’t have time we need to be attending to our current duties and compile our input for
others’ efforts.
• Who has the staff time (and expense) to manage and keep data on staff attitudes about
international learning up-to-date? Sometimes invitations to participate in international learning
efforts are attended by committees “of the interested” – the usual suspects always attend.
To what extent does staff (all non-faculty employees) perceive international learning
as an important element of the educational process at the institution? What is the
evidence?
Employee Survey, Enrollment Services, Financial Aid, FSSS, GLI, Mansfield Center, OIP, Student Affairs
Officers, UM Foundation, Undergraduate Advising Center
Summary of findings:
Staff are the frontline “face” of UM
• Staff frequently interact with both incoming and outgoing international as well as domestic
students who want to study abroad
• Departments that don’t as often engage international students and/or study abroad are less apt
to be informed and able to help
• Too many wrong answers
• Cost of misinformation is high
• Each College/School should have knowledgeable staff member to assist with myriad of pieces
Many staff/support services could improve with better training and systems designed to make
international activities easier and more sympathetic to international travel
• Including but also extending beyond obvious
o e.g. HRS, business services, travel desk
• Some systems (e.g. State of Montana – purchasing, employment, and expenses) weren’t built to
encourage or facilitate international travel, and so UM needs to vastly improve interface so that
international activity is not discouraged by inappropriate/burdensome paperwork
• Many staff have never left the U.S. and have little experience/awareness of challenges of
international travel
• Many staff have little experience/ability to work with different cultures and different languages
o Diversity training
18
•
Need to strengthen staff exchange program
Need for staff to embrace and endorse international students, not see them as a difficulty or challenge
• Increasing numbers of incoming international students
• Should be given same treatment as domestic students, so they don’t feel they are special or
different
• Should be equal to other students groups that receive abundant assistance (e.g. Athletics,
Veterans, Students with Disabilities, Honors Students, etc.)
19
Appendix
Table of Contents
Selected Excerpts from “Making the Most of Intercultural Interactions: Designing a Catalyst for
Intercultural Learning at the University of Montana” ................................................................................ 21
UM documentation about physically co-locating student services related to internationalization from
1996, 2002-2005 and 2006 ......................................................................................................................... 25
International Risk Officer Job Description .................................................................................................. 33
Data collected, organized by question........................................................................................................ 35
ALSS Question 1: Where does primary responsibility for internationalization lie? What other
structures or bodies share responsibility? How effective are these arrangements? ............................. 35
ALSS Question 2: What are the communication or coordination lines to ensure community wide
awareness, synergy and mutual support? .............................................................................................. 39
ALSS Question 3: What are the staffing arrangements and reporting lines? How well are they working?
................................................................................................................................................................ 42
ALSS Question 4: What governance structures support internationalization? How well are they
working?.................................................................................................................................................. 44
ALSS Question 5: What policies or practices (related to this subcommittee) hinder internationalization
efforts at this institution? ....................................................................................................................... 46
ALSS Question 6: Does the institution gather information on the attitudes of staff (all non-faculty
employees) toward international learning? If so, how is this information used? .................................. 52
ALSS Question 7: To what extent does staff (all non-faculty employees) perceive international learning
as an important element of the educational process at the institution? What is the evidence? .......... 53
ALSS Other points recorded .................................................................................................................... 56
20
Selected Excerpts from “Making the Most of Intercultural Interactions:
Designing a Catalyst for Intercultural Learning at the University of Montana”
GLI Capstone Project 2014/2015, the University of Montana-Missoula
Amanda Charron, Joseph Crowley, Taylor Dantic, Hannah Goetz, Ashley Roness
Abstract
In recent decades, there has been a push for internationalization in higher education because many
educators believe that cultural diversity is an essential element of the campus environment as
universities strive to prepare graduates for a globalizing world. As international education scholar Darla
Deardorff (2014) claims, “The question of integrating international and domestic students is an ongoing
question that’s been with us for many years and unfortunately I haven’t found any institution that’s yet
found the answer.” We aim to make use of untapped opportunities for mutual intercultural learning
among students of diverse cultural backgrounds. Specifically, our GLI capstone project involves
designing a program that serves to facilitate the development of transnational competence through
various kinds of interactions between foreign and U.S. students (Koehn and Rosenau, 2010). Through a
student survey and interviews with university program officers and faculty conducted at the University
of Montana, we found two main problems: (1) non-engaging intercultural learning environment and (2)
a lack of motivation on the part of U.S. students. To address these issues, we explored ways to
collaborate with offices on campus that already have relevant programs in place and determined that
Student Involvement Network (SIN) would best serve as the home of our program coordinator. Our
program design is based on insights from professionals in the field, a literature review, and student
survey findings. It involves a systematic three-step process that incorporates educational, social, and
community service components that would help participants develop various aspects of transnational
competence. Our program uniquely aims first to establish analytic and emotional dimensions of
transnational competence as the foundation on which participants can build communicative, functional,
and creative competencies. This paper reports on the research and the program development process
that we engaged in to address the global problem.
Program Introduction
We aim to design a program that fosters intercultural learning and friendship while facilitating
development of transnational competence. From our literature review and stage one and two needs
assessment, we realize that intercultural learning is not being achieved by merely bringing people
together. As the article The Maturing of Diversity Initiatives on American Campuses states, “Diversity is,
above all, a challenge that demands we rethink how we educate students and for what ends” (Musil,
1996). When asked if they believed that diversity on campus had brought about intercultural learning on
campus, two of the three staff members interviewed did not provide a definite answer, indicating that
the issue is not being fully addressed here at the University of Montana-Missoula. On the basis of our
research, we decided that there are four components necessary to facilitate intercultural learning that
will lead to the desired transnational competencies. The components are: friendship, social activities,
civic engagement, and educational activities.
We aim to create a program that improves the atmosphere on the UM campus and to help enhance
intercultural learning among both international and local students. We have developed a plan to
incorporate programs that already exists on campus into a larger initiative that would provide a catalyst
for intercultural learning. Approaching it in a three step process that includes educational, social, and
community service components. Our goal is to help facilitate the development of transnational
21
competences, particularly Analytic and Emotional to help lay the foundation for further development of
Communicative, Functional, and Creative competences.
In order to increase meaningful, educational interactions between international and U.S. students we
designed a program that can serve as a catalyst, which in part comes from the order in which students
engage in the three program stages. Research demonstrates that an educational setting often eases
initial acquaintance, and a social environment would help solidify those connections. Next, a community
service activity puts students in an environment representative of real world problem solving.
The first stage in the program is an educational partnership. For example, conversation partners, mutual
tutoring, and academic buddies. The goal of this step is to facilitate the development of analytic
competence as defined by Koehn and Rosenau (2010).Educational partnership is the first step because
an educational environment allows one to nurture analytic competence in a non-threatening structured
environment.
The second stage in the program is a social activity. Such as partnering with the Student Recreation
Association (SRN) for an outdoor event, and various events organized by campus offices and
associations. The goal of this step is to facilitate the development of emotional competence based on
meaningful and lasting friendships. A social environment provides a fun environment for development
of emotional transnational competence as defined by Koehn and Rosenau but moves beyond a
relationship of necessity.
The third stage in the program is collaboration on a civic engagement project. Potential student groups
can be recruited through existing student organizations such as Circle K and the Harry Potter Alliance.
The Office of Civic Engagement may be a useful resource in arranging such projects. Civic engagement
allows one to refine the tools acquired through educational partnership and social environment and to
develop functional, communicative, and creative transnational competence as defined by Koehn and
Rosenau (2010). This stage synthesizes the first two environments, but adding a constructive aspect.
Friendship is an important component of both our program and for a student’s overall success in their
academic careers. Direct interaction with cultural others provides an opportunity for developing
understanding and mutual respect, key components of analytic and emotional competence. As SiegelHawley, at the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Education states, “the skills gained in
diverse settings are becoming ever more important in a rapidly changing society” (National Coalition,
2012). We learned through Heather Bruce’s, the Diversity Advisory Council’s co-chair’s, interview that
“there have been really difficult reports of ignorance and discrimination against foreign students” at
UM. This finding demonstrates the lack of transnational competence and the need for intercultural
friendship among students here at the University of Montana-Missoula. We also gathered from our
survey that over 50% of International students said that they have difficulty making friends with U.S.
students. This finding further supports the need for an environment that fosters intercultural friendship.
Through our literature review, we learned that international housing (merely pairing U.S. students and
international student roommates) had no statistically significant effect on the friendship patterns of
overseas and local students (Bocher, 2014). Through an Oxford study, 70% of foreign students did not
have any English friends at all after at least a year in the country (Bocher, 2014). Therefore, we believe
that both educational activities and social activities are possible ways to create an environment that is
conducive for intercultural friendship development.
Administrative Structure
The administrative structure for our program will be housed within the Student Involvement Network
(SIN). Which is self-described as “an activities board offering array of programs from workshops, comedy
shows, concerts, lectures, guest speakers, films, entertainment, and much more - all with the foundation
of learning, leadership, diversity, and fun” (Student Involvement Network, 2014). Their focus on
22
learning, leadership, diversity, and fun makes SIN a perfect fit for our program. University Center
Associate Director, Student Involvement and Communications, Adrianne Donald will supervise the
program.
SIN employs five student coordinators, who each have an area and/or program that they focus on while
also collaborating with each other. One of these coordinators will be hired to focus on our program. This
position will be the lead on recruitment and organization. They will be responsible for making
connections with departments across campus to promote participation from a wide variety of student
groups. They will have support from the other coordinators as well as other resources housed within
SIN.
Recruitment
For our program we want to be able to recruit half of the incoming international students and roughly
around the same amount of local students. The University of Montana is expected to receive around
one thousand international students, and for our program we hope to have five hundred local and five
hundred international students involved. We hope to have as many students as possible involved in our
program so we have reached out to (SIN) Student Involvement Network. SIN is a program on campus
that has the ability to provide email connections with many other programs throughout the University.
Our goal is to have two specific coordinators through SIN, an international and a local student, both
helping to recruit students using their resources and their connections with other programs on campus.
If we are able to finance having more than just these two coordinators, then that is an option that we
would like to explore. Having these specific coordinators will help give us better access to recruitment
options to help our program have its full potential.
In addition to using SIN we would also like to utilize the help of other branches on campus that deal
particularly with international student affairs. We hope that by getting involved with the English
Language Institute (ELI), the students involved in this program will be interested in ours, as one of our
plans is to eventually offer a tutoring program between local and international students. We are
optimistic that through this partnership, local students and international students can improve their
various language and communication skills.
The goal of our program is to offer international and local students a chance to create lasting friendships
and to connect socially through some type of retreat. This retreat will either be offered at the beginning,
middle, or end of the year. Through fundraising and help from the University, we would like to offer our
program participates a trip that will really help international and local students to connect. This trip can
either be to a national park or something small like a rafting trip. Overall this will help keep people
interested and involved in our program that will enhance it all around.
Conclusion
The strength of the program we designed, Intercultural Competence Network, lies in its potential to lay
a strong foundation for both domestic and international students to develop transnational competence
within a fluid framework. The progression of the three stages of our programs, namely from the
educational facet to the social facet to the civic facet. These stages parallel the natural progression of
learning from knowledge to understanding to application. Housing our program within an existing,
integrated network of organizations facilitates not only the collaborative environment we wish to build
among existing campus efforts in intercultural learning, but also the largest and most effective outreach
to the multitude of students we wish to move through our program at the University of Montana. The
partnerships, endeavors, and future expansions of our program will mold a more open, communicative
and enabling intercultural environment. It will aid the University of Montana and the Missoula
community in putting intercultural interactions toward more effective mutual learning and growth. The
23
bonds participants and partners will forge through our program will hopefully aid in their future
effective and meaningful participation in a globalizing world and marketplace.
24
UM documentation about physically co-locating student services related to
internationalization from 1996, 2002-2005 and 2006
(see next page)
25
International Risk Officer Job Description
Wake Forest University, posted June 2015
Summary:
Coordinates policies, procedures and programs associated with identifying, monitoring, and mitigating
international risks for student, faculty, and staff travelers. Provides guidance to faculty, staff, and
administrators on decisions that have export control impact.
Essential Functions:
International Risk, Health & Safety (75%)
Develops, implements, and revises policies and protocols designed to assess and mitigate risk to
students, faculty and staff on WFU global programs across all academic units on the Reynolda campus
(with support to the Bowman Gray campus as requested).
Conducts pre-departure training, in both individual and group format, for faculty, students, and staff
travelling internationally.
Manages web-based registration software for international travel conducted on university funds.
Serves as contact for overseas crisis support involving WFU students, faculty, and staff; enables
appropriate emergency response.
Monitors world events and keeps current of global health/safety issues and legal and regulatory
developments that affect WFU global programs; updates Director accordingly.
Liaises with campus units (e.g. University Police, University Risk Services, etc.) and external entities
(e.g. HTH Insurance) regarding practices and policies related to international risk, health and safety.
Export Control (25%)
Assists in the development and implementation of (a) institutional policy requirements regarding U.S.
export control laws and regulations and (b) effective export control education and training programs.
Provides guidance, education, and training to faculty, staff and students on export control
policies,procedures and federal regulations, including but not limited to: advising faculty and staff on
foreign travel; assisting PIs and other individuals involved in the conduct and research in obtaining an
understanding of the compliance issues associated with the transfer of materials, restrictions of foreign
nationals in labs, publication restrictions, etc.; providing guidance with implementing technology control
plans; purchasing controlled technology and securing of technical data; and financial procedures for
foreign payments.
Uses web-based system as part of the University’s compliance efforts for commodity classifications,
license applications, and other export control compliance obligation.
Prepares, submits, and monitors licensing authorizations and institutional registrations.
Other Functions:
Serves as member of Overseas Crisis Management Team.
Maintains and updates relevant content on University’s global and export control websites.
Gathers and provides data related to international risk and export control.
33
Reviews contracts/agreements and advises on export related issues arising in connection with these
documents as needed; manages relationships with relevant vendors.
Acts as liaison and coordinator for export-related matters between the various research and
regulatory offices within the University.
Required Education, Knowledge, Skills, Abilities:
Bachelor’s degree plus 3-5 years of progressively responsible experience in international
education/risk-related field, or an equivalent combination or education and experience.
Familiarity with issues related to international travel and education abroad.
Ability to use good judgment and discretion in potentially stressful environment.
Ability to prioritize and work in fast-paced office environment.
Ability to collaborate and coordinate with key stakeholders across the university.
Excellent written, verbal, and interpersonal communication skills, with effective presentation and
training skills.
Proficiency on Microsoft Office suite and standard computing operations.
Ability to interpret and ensure compliance with federal regulations.
Ability to travel, as required.
US citizen or permanent resident.
Preferred Education, Knowledge, Skills, Abilities:
Experience working, studying, or living in a foreign country.
Knowledge of relevant federal export control regulations, including those pursuant to EAR, ITAR, and
OFAC, and the Patriot Act.
Familiarity with Terra Dotta/StudioAbroad and Visual Compliance software.
Experience in a research university environment.
Proficiency in a foreign language.
Accountabilities:
Responsible for own work only.
Note: This position profile identifies the key responsibilities and expectations for performance. It cannot
encompass all specific job tasks that an employee may be required to perform. Employees are required
to follow any other job-related instructions and perform job-related duties as may be reasonably
assigned by his/her supervisor.
In order to provide a safe and productive learning and living community, Wake Forest University
conducts background investigations and drug screens for all final staff candidates being considered for
employment.
Wake Forest seeks to recruit and retain a diverse workforce, and encourages qualified candidates across
all group demographics to apply.
Position Type
Full-Time/Regular
34
Data collected, organized by question
ALSS Question 1: Where does primary responsibility for internationalization lie? What
other structures or bodies share responsibility? How effective are these arrangements?
Mansfield
Center
Office of
International
Programs
Campus-wide
faculty
meeting
4.24.15
Campus-wide
faculty
meeting
4.29.15
Office of the
Provost
• Responsibility for internationalization lies with whoever makes the decisions on
requiring foreign language courses for all UM students. ASCRC? Faculty Senate?
ASUM? • It seems our system is built to maintain the status quo - not support change.
• Fractured structure means if one body vetoes an initiative, it doesn’t go further.
• AA and SA/OIP, GLI, OSS, Admissions, Mansfield Ctr, schools/colleges, FSSS (group
agreed upon) • UM’s structure is analogous and arrangements are not as effective as
they could be. Most “FSSS” functions are under the umbrella of “OIP”s at other
universities. • The separation of FSSS from OIP is strange. Leads to duplication and
challenges. • The use of the word “foreign” instead of “international” is a negative.
• Also, having international admissions functioning in Enrollment Services, outside of
OIP, creates challenges. OIP should handle all admissions related to ELI, international
undergraduate and graduate applicants.
• Faculty initiative – for items like collaborative research. • GLI. • International
Programs did an inventory of international education at the university which was
helpful. • GLI took some of the “energy and clarity” away from internationalization –
it’s foggy where the authority / structure lies. • Sustainability fellows at college of
forestry has been incredibly effective. • The authority (for internationalization)
should be in oip rather than in different colleges. • An individual should be
responsible to keep track of study abroad support and disseminate it to the campus
community.
• Responsibility lies with the Provost who is the boss of the OIP director. However,
initiatives for internationalization come through the faculty that need the
endorsement of the leadership • The International Committee (IC)is responsible
for reviewing and recommending MOUs with potential partner institutions but more
coordination is needed between IC and OIP in following up on those agreements
• Several faculty shared experiences working with former OIP directors which they
characterized as informal and ineffective. Sometimes also showing gender bias and
giving preferential treatment to visiting delegations from particular countries.
The Office of International Programs – OIP has many cooperative arrangements (e.g.
FSSS, admissions, etc.). There are many parts to OIP’s operation – travel registration,
risk management, recruitment, etc. The admissions office is responsible to evaluate
and admit international students. Other programs are scattered across campus –
Central and Southwest Asian Studies Center, Mansfield Center, etc. The University’s
commitment to international education is expressed, at least in part, by having an
Office of International Programs. Effectiveness of international education is ultimately
determined by how the various units that perform international education functions
collaborate and cooperate. Things fall between the cracks and certainly don’t work
perfectly but stream-lining has occurred and things (communication) is getting better.
Metrics can be used to gauge to determine internationalization effectiveness (e.g.
35
Office for
Academic
Enrichment
Human
Resource
Services
Enrollment
Services
Global
Leadership
Initiative
Graduate
School
School of
Extended &
Lifelong
Learning
Student Affairs
Officers
enrollment of international students). Qualitative metrics can be used to gauge
effectiveness as well.
• Structurally needs to be housed in one location (eg. OIP) o How does IE3, Academic
Enrichment, Peace Corps recruiting, etc. fit? ♣ Many of these should be housed under
Provosts Office, so that they get more traction • Clearer link to academics
• But, definitely needs also to be responsibility of each campus unit
department/college) o Which would require stronger ties and greater coordination
o Advisors / faculty in every school ♣ Responsible for communicating
upstream/downstream ♣ Members of an International Council ♣ Could help train
other faculty ♣ Allows for greater efforts for avoiding duplication (eg. how many
programs do we need to any particular Latin American country? Seems like we have
too many exchange programs going there, as well as faculty-led programs)
• Need to advise students better (no-one is controlling central information)
o Little guidance as what is legitimate (particularly with external exchange partners,
ISEP, etc.), what’s safe, and what credits will transfer back to UM ♣ This is obviously
not a problem with faculty-led programs.
• OIP is the driving force • It must be from the top down, from the
President. • Everyone has a stake in this – faculty, departments, etc. • International
Programs is the driving force – academic departments and offices don’t necessarily
have familiarity with challenges that international students face (e.g. student credits,
foreign educational systems, etc.).
• Within the administration, ultimate implementation responsibility lies with the
Associate Provost & the Deans. Internationalization can’t be achieved without
academics being front and center. Internationalization can’t be a vacuum from
centralized offices, but instead needs to be front and center in the Colleges and
Schools. • The centralized offices (OIP, FSSS, GLI) should all report to the Associate
Provost, including budgetary responsibility. • These offices are not academic units,
and this proves challenging when interdisciplinary programs are being pursued.
• Collaborative model makes it a positive for the institution. • If one location, you
wouldn’t get input, collaboration and commitment that is currently the case.
• Partnerships across campus more valuable than one-stop location. • President’s
Cabinet – leaders of all University sectors. • Institutional articulation of commitment to
internationalization. Must be articulated as a clear value (and budgeted for) if it’s to
truly become a priority. • More should lie within Student Affairs : housing, dining,
recreation, disability, health – intl students served at the 11th hour. There is a dfinite
need to keep academic needs of intl students one place and the co-curricular student
life needs of intl students in student affairs. Students only spend 30% of their time
doing academic related things. Student affairs can • If we meet students’ basic needs
36
they can be more successful. Advocacy for student affairs being more involved in
services to international students. • Importance of responsibility across the
administration for internationalization • Make argument that this is important at the
State level and for Montanans. All MUS institutions should be required to focus on
internationalization. Need support of legislature and BOR… Lobby for State support.
Academic
Officers
• SOBA has named Nader S. as the focal point for internationalization in that college.
That has made a big difference for SOBA and international activity has increased as a
result. SOBA’s accrediting body was favorably impressed that UM was participating in
the ACE iLAB process. • A central point to coordinate safety, travel, security is
desirable. Dispersed coordination of travel is complicated. • Travel policy has started
this processs. • Faculty led programs – deans can’t drive them. Units should have a
global picture of what’s going on. Let it happen where it makes sense. • As university,
we can’t be everywhere – this is changing, we need to refocus our partnerships and
areas of focus – we should bring it down to about 25 places where we can build
meaningful relationships • Travel registry a big improvement. There still needs to be
more awareness / information sharing so that everyone knows what’s going on and
celebrate that (or not) • There needs to be a more attention paid to what and how
these things are funded. What students are paying for… we only tend to deal with
things when something goes wrong. We could be on the front end of some issues. Lots
of diversity in international activity how it is organized and funded – that is OK but it
could come back to bite UM. It’s out there and it’s a potentially dangerous thing.
• Through lens of support for students: FSSS, OIP, Admissions, others tend to compete
with academic advising when international students arrive (often late because of visa
issues) – this is not the best transition for students – need for coordination. • For
students studying abroad, how to plan the experience without sacrificing on-time
graduation.
Undergraduate • Currently, primary responsibility seems to lie with OIP. But, there is a problem with
Advising
not having a more unified/collectivized system with all units in one location. That is,
Center
student services, recruiting, marketing, etc. could all benefit from being under one
umbrella (fusion of ideas and energy). Each is not as sophisticated as the others, and
not always aware of the policies of the others. Silos have been created, perhaps
reflecting funding lines. • The current structure creates confusion for students, not
knowing where they are supposed to go and sometimes having to go to two or three
different offices to get the answers/support they need. • Space is always an issue, and
being in one location would be better. Symbolism is important and a one-stop-shop
would be seen as prioritizing and raising the profile of international activities.
• Erasmus (European Credit Transfer System) / Bologna Process provides an important
model: o A credit is a credit is a credit o Staff on each campus have similar credentials
o Tuition is less of a hindrance to international learning o Big business for tourism (eg.
youth hostels)
International
• Primary responsibility lies with Academic Affairs (Admissions, OSS, OIP, Mansfield
Committee
Center, GLI, individual colleges and schools) and Student Affairs (FSSS). • The main
challenge with the current model is coordination. Lack of coordination is an obstacle,
and creates inefficiencies. • In the past, foreign student support was always strong –
OIP started out smaller but has caught up. It is weird that now FSSS and OIP coexist.
• If FSSS and OIP merged, that would create more synergy and effectiveness for the
37
colleges and schools. • Could the role of an international officer be created within each
college and school? This would strengthen coordination and communication lines to
ensure community wide awareness, synergy, and mutual support (addressed in the
next question). At other institutions, associate deans/other administrators play this
role.
Faculty-led
Program
Directors
5.4.15
Faculty-led
Program
Directors
5.6.15
Financial Aid
Business
Services
UM
Foundation
Foreign
Student and
Scholar
Services
Office of
OIP should be the centralized organizer of all international initiatives.
• Not sure there is primary responsibility, although some would say Paulo • Should be
cross-campus, show be coordinated and publicized that it is central o Confusion at the
moment as to where students go (eg. incoming international students don’t go to OIP
for financial problems, outgoing exchange students might not get assistance through
financial aid, etc.) o New Student scholarships offered to international students: who
made this decision?
• Gifts are donor driven so ultimately the foundation doesn’t have much of a say in
how narrow or broad the terms of a gift/scholarships can be. • Fundraising is unitspecific, unit-driven. Development directors create opportunities that the UMF
supports. • If internationalization made priority across campus this would enhance
UMF’s ability to raise money
• (Claudine started out by naming OIP, Mansfield Ctr, FSSS, OSS, and Admissions, plus
the schools/colleges and asked people to add their perspectives.) • Responsibility lies
with the UM President. He sets the strategic directions for our campus. • Also, the
Graduate School. • Within Student Affairs, FSSS is not the only unit that is responsible
for internationalization - Residence Life, UM Dining, the UC, Curry Health Center, SAIT,
and Campus Recreation all play proactive roles in the internationalization of campus.
(ex. by hiring international students, serving halal meat, etc.) • Foreign Student and
Scholar Services, as part of the Division of Student Affairs, has been effective in
meeting the needs of international students and moving towards the goal of
internationalizing the University of Montana campus. Student Affairs has a great deal
of experience in working with special student populations (i.e. Native Americans,
veterans, and students with disabilities) and that expertise is seamlessly available to
Foreign Student and Scholar Services. For students in their non-academic life, The
Division of Student Affairs is a critical sector as it embraces important services (e.g.,
housing, dining, counseling, health care, recreation, etc.) and develops informed
approaches to problem solving. Additionally, FSSS work with other campus units and
sound working relationships with colleagues across campus has insured a coordinated
effort in successfully meeting the needs of foreign students and
scholars and integrating them into the campus community.
OPBA is the university’s ‘official’ for data
38
Planning,
Budgeting and
Analysis
Tony Tomsu (in OPBA) is the point-of-contact for data requests
ALSS Question 2: What are the communication or coordination lines to ensure
community wide awareness, synergy and mutual support?
Mansfield
Center
Office of
International
Programs
Campus-wide
faculty
meeting
4.24.15
Campus-wide
faculty
meeting
4.29.15
Office of the
Provost
Office for
Academic
Enrichment
Human
Resource
Services
• Internationalization is a 2-way process - UM reps going abroad and then hosting
visitors in Missoula. • Mansfield Center does a lot of community outreach, throughout
the State actually via community organizations, economic development groups, retired
military groups, legislators, etc. • How could on-campus communication about
Mansfield Ctr activities be coordinated? How can we get a list of people who are
visiting campus from abroad at any given moment? Conversely, can we create a
system to identify UM-related people in any given country abroad? This would prove
immensely valuable and create very valuable synergy.
• People have worked hard to communicate and coordinate given the current
structure. This is time intensive and many things could be automated/made more
efficient if streamlined. • Coordination has improved of late. • Frequency of
communication does not mean more effective communication. • There is lots of
confusion amongst students about what office does what.
• Global Gateway, and with other members in the community (e.g. Mansfield Center).
• Synergy and coordinate occurs because the University is such a dominant and visible
member of the community. • Channels or ‘open’ and communication occurs and a
number of activities occur each year. • New relationships constantly pop-up • MOLLI
courses have been particularly effective, its content has included a lot of international
focus. • OIP is the hub (of communication) – there are other actors / participants
across campus • Would be interesting to see information about how familiar new
students are with international-related services
We need to provide Central One-Stop Shop for students o They won’t generally go out
of their way to attend information sessions o Tie study abroad into degree, make it
relevant • UM currently has too much programming of international activities,
overprogrammed o Too much is top-down/administrator-driven, and not grass-roots
organized ♣ Questionable relevancy or connection to students & their studies
o Not well coordinated, not well prioritized ♣ Little link to UM strategic plan
• Not well communicated to students (why else would we bother, if students don’t
attend?) o Too many emails, students may not see OIP as relevant
39
Enrollment
Services
Global
Leadership
Initiative
• There has been more communication / coordination in recent times among OIP,
FSSS, International Recruiting, but it is still problematic having them in different
administrative units. • There needs to be a clearly identified university committee to
oversee and co-ordinate international activities. It is currently not clear this is the
International Committee’s role.
Graduate
School
School of
Extended &
Lifelong
Learning
Student Affairs
Officers
• Health center example – coordination could be improved so all parts of campus can
better prepare to welcome international students (the example given was that of
Saudi students arriving at Curry Health Center for their student health requirements
and Curry staff being unprepared to address some cultural issues that arose.)
Academic
• MOLLI program has been successful. There are 16 MOLLI students going to Vienna
Officers
this summer. Great on several levels. We offer 6 wk program for students, but 2 wk
sessions for anyone. Program has grown. MOLLI folks become another group of
chaperones – interaction between MOLLI students and younger students is very
valuable. Imparting different information to younger students. Added value to younger
students. Development of relationships is very enriching for all. Fundraising
opportunities for CVPA from MOLLI students who become committed to supporting
undergraduate student experiences. • Sometimes intl groups come on campus. Are we
able to take advantage of them? Humphrey Fellows are an example. Could they visit
classes, etc? Library invites them to talk to Library staff about their countries of origin,
work and experience. • Do we collect data from students on their experience at UM?
We can speculate on what their needs are but we could ask them what they think.
Does FSSS do this? It would be helpful to look at that data. • When we bring
international students to campus, do we bring in the Native American story? There are
parallels between formal nations that live within the state who have integration issues
– parallel to as part of orientation, should we include part of the US native American
story?
Undergraduate • Orientation is an example of good co-operation (OIP, FSSS, OSS all working together)
Advising
• Advising is an example of lesser co-operation (Student Affairs, Academic Affairs,
Center
Admissions all doing something different) • There would be value in developing a
campus-wide international directory, similar to that which the Vets Office has
developed. There could also be Regional guides (eg. if a student is from Southeast
Asia), focusing particularly on their needs • Departments and programs need people
who can advise incoming international students, particularly for departments and
programs that teach international students
International
• They are fractured. • Communication and coordination are two different things.
Committee
Communication between OIP and FSSS has improved recently. Coordination has not
followed to the same degree.
Faculty-led
• There is no synergy or mutual support. • Total lack of communication, although that
Program
seems to be improving. • Sort of tradition in MCLL to conduct faculty led study abroad
40
Directors
5.4.15
Faculty-led
Program
Directors
5.6.15
Financial Aid
Business
Services
UM
Foundation
Foreign
Student and
Scholar
Services
programs (FLSAP) very independently so there may be resistance to coordination or
communication (attitude described
as “don’t tell us what to do”)
• Lack of coordination amongst study abroad programs – it is hard to recruit students
when there is an increasing number of opportunities on campus. • Students returning
from study abroad should be given opportunities to share their experiences with other
students as well as with the community. Students returning from study abroad
experiences relish the opportunity to get together with others they spent time abroad
with and relive the experience. It’s hard for them to tell others about it and feel like
others are relating well to them.
• Not a very good job at explaining variety of opportunities available to outgoing
students (eg. IE3, ISEP, faculty-led programs), no one office fairly responsible for
promoting all university programs o Need to make it easy for students/parents to
understand real costs (including food, activities, transportation, etc.) • Quite
confusing, and quite difficult to figure out where to ask for guidance o Students
sometimes don’t even know what to ask for (eg. What does FSSS do?
[in the context of the UMF, community includes alums and donors in the US and
abroad] • Intl alumni/donor base very limited at this time • Alumni base are generally
interested in seeing students have an international experience – they are recognizing
value but still limited
• On the ground, we have coordination and communication, but overall there is room
for improvement. • OIP should conduct that coordination. The reason OIP should
conduct that coordination is related to its mission and goals: Mission Statement: The
mission of the Office of International Programs (OIP) is to promote and provide
international life-changing experiences and related educational opportunities, serving
as a resource that contributes to the culture of a globally-minded community.
Strategic Goals: Enhance the quality of international activities and experiences
provided by the university. Develop sustainable interdisciplinary campus and
community collaborations which promote mutual understanding and intellectual
diversity. Promote the integration of global competence into the UM curriculum and
academic experience. • Student Affairs Officers meetings take place twice monthly to
coordinate and share efforts. New policies and procedures that may have an impact on
foreign students and scholars are noted upfront allowing us to be proactive in
situations that may arise. • FSSS organizes a Foreign Student Coordinating Committee
that brings together relevant partners on campus who intersect with Foreign Student
advising and mentoring, etc. (FSSS, OIP, Graduate School, Enrollment Services, UG
Advising Office, departmental advisors, GLI, and many others). The committee
discusses all concerns that impact foreign students, and works together to develop
best practices and to provide advocacy. The group convenes special committees
where needed to address issues. • The UM International Culture and Food Festival,
directed by Foreign Student and Scholar Services and hosted every March, brings
together diverse departments, the Missoula community, and both international and
domestic students in a collaborative effort to provide over 100 internationally-themed
family-friendly activities (food booths, ethnic performances, display and information
booths, children’s international films and interactive activities) in one afternoon. The
41
festival is well-established in the campus and community and yearly attracts over
3,500 attendees, making it one of the largest non-sporting public events at UM and in
Missoula. The Festival generates a lot of awareness and good-will on campus and in
the community for international students. • The UM International Month places a
month-long focus during the month of March on UM’s many international activities
with lectures, presentations. Many units on campus collaborate to offer relevant
activities and programs. Coordination of these events is carried out by OIP. • amongst
offices and units that have functions related to internationalization.
ALSS Question 3: What are the staffing arrangements and reporting lines? How well
are they working?
Mansfield
Center
Office of
International
Programs
Campus-wide
faculty
meeting
4.24.15
Campus-wide
faculty
meeting
4.29.15
Office of the
Provost
Office for
Academic
Enrichment
Human
Resource
Services
Enrollment
Services
Global
Leadership
Initiative
Graduate
School
• Different offices reporting to different VPs follow different practices and direction
from above. Inefficient.
• Too much emphasis on OIP initiatives (eg. exchange programs) and not enough on
other university opportunities o Unclear why that is the case, and why exchange
programs reflect UM priorities o Unclear how those exchanges reflect college/degree
priorities
• The lines lie with Paulo and his role as the Assoc. Provost for Global Education. • All
positions report to Paulo • “I’m it” (Lou Laakso) in regard to international admissions
except for some functions performed by Marja (and her admission of int’l students
from partner universities and ISEP) • International student admissions should go over
to International Programs, especially since international student recruitment is now
there. • The admissions and evaluation function should stay together, but maybe more
than 1 person should be able to perform both of those duties.
• There are questions of inefficiencies with some personnel overlapping in duties. For
other administrators and for students and faculty, this can be confusing. While UM
has need of specialized knowledge bases, there is potentially duplication.
The graduate school has a lot of supervision if the IIP program and the Peace Corps
(Global Youth Development) grad program. • Collaboration with FSSS, and their DSO
services. • Incoming international students with foreign (academic) credentials, such
42
as a foreign transcript, can have it evaluated/translated by an outside agency (WES)
and submit it with their application. They (the student) are responsible for that cost.
• For students who don’t use WES the evaluation can sometimes be done in-house (at
UM). • The language of instruction at the foreign institution determines if the student
must take a GRE or not. If the student needs must take a TOEFL then they can submit
that score in lieu of a GRE. • How well is it working? It all depends on the respective
graduate program and how responsive they are. How well their systems are
developed.
• Don’t even know what the staff reporting lines are. • What is the University’s plan for
internationalization? • Decision-making is slow.
School of
Extended &
Lifelong
Learning
Student Affairs
Officers
Academic
Officers
Undergraduate
Advising
Center
International
• For students, who does what is very confusing. They don’t care about the
Committee
administrative structure. An example is the onerous and confusing study abroad
application process, that discourages students from completing and submitting study
abroad applications.
Faculty-led
• In terms of faculty, MCLL doesn’t have enough faculty to be offering FLSAP on a
Program
regular basis AND teach courses at UM on a regular basis. MCLL is not filling faculty
Directors
lines fast enough to ensure study abroad program frequency and quality. Currently,
5.4.15
faculty ask themselves, “Who will teach UM courses if I go away for a semester?”
• Some FLSAP offerings have disappeared others have been scaled down to shorter
periods of time. (e.g. semester to Wintersession, or summer course. Uncertainty about
Wintersession schedule adds more instability to FLSAP planning for the future.
• Shorter periods abroad give students exposure to another country/culture but don’t
necessarily help them acquire fluency in another language • When UM students go
abroad for a semester, whether on FLSAP or via ISEP or at a partner university,
numbers decline in MCLL classrooms. This is detrimental to the department. Is there a
way to enroll students spending time abroad in mountain campus classes to account
for them as language majors? • General decline in study abroad programs correlates
with a decline in language majors. Spending time abroad is decisive in a student’s
choice of language as a major.
Faculty-led
• Faculty leaders do everything. Host families, students, money, etc. Kept detailed
Program
expense records and submitted all to BS and they seem to think some money is left in
Directors
account when there is none. People in BS don’t understand complexities of going
5.6.15
abroad/exchange rates, etc. • DHC works through EF tours (DHC staff wasn’t going to
handle anything) for logistics. • Does Business Services (BS) tell faculty what they’re
supposed to do when leading programs? • BS very difficult to work with. Things have
improved lately. Serious issues w/BS: refusal to pay bills to sponsoring organizations
(70K!) delays in payment – deans have had to get involved, to get BS moving. Study
abroad on campus very entrepreneurial – compared to BS which moves much more
43
Financial Aid
Business
Services
UM
Foundation
Foreign
Student and
Scholar
Services
slowly. Hurts relationships with partners, recruitment of students, etc. • Contracted
services agreements need to be very clear, but even when very clear there tend to
be service breakdowns. • SOBA does one trip that uses a contractor for logistics. Other
trips faculty-led to try to keep the costs low so students can participate. Kathy White
helps out. Concern about new requirements from BS about providing receipts for all
meals. • Naming of indexes used to pay for these trips – there are various
funding/contracting/payment models on campus. • Switch from per diem to receiptbased expense reporting will put faculty at a disadvantage when they are not paid for
doing this. Same for graduate students. Small incentive. UM one of the few
universities that doesn’t give per diem • A number of different models, where faculty
do everything, to people outsource logistics, make contracted agreements, etc. but the
costs go up for the students, • DHC programs advised not to compete with other UM
programs… created Ireland course and coordinated with another faculty member’s
Italy course to offer every other year (complementary). Now there are a gazillion
Ireland trips.
• Why does FSSS have so many staff? Are they duplicating duties in other
departments (eg. human resources, residential life, student clubs, etc.?
FSSS reports to the Division of Student Affairs. As stated above, this situation is
particularly beneficial to our students because all non-academic services are easily
accessible within the same division.
ALSS Question 4: What governance structures support internationalization? How well
are they working?
Mansfield
Center
Office of
International
Programs
Campus-wide
faculty
meeting
4.24.15
Campus-wide
faculty
• Intl committee; intl student coordinating committee; Academic Officers; President’s
Cabinet are groups that meet and can make recommendations about matters related
to internationalization (Cabinet ultimately approves University Policies) • Faculty
Senate wields a lot of power concerning internationalization. ASCRC, General
Education Committee, Writing Committee, Grad Council - all have the power to
approve or reject plans that would directly support or hinder internationalization
(English language proficiency requirements; writing requirements; course and program
development, etc.) • ASUM also wields strong influence as evidenced by its rejection
of the notion that students should have a second language requirement (when did this
happen?)
44
meeting
4.29.15
Office of the
Provost
Office for
Academic
Enrichment
Human
Resource
Services
Enrollment
Services
Global
Leadership
Initiative
Graduate
School
School of
Extended &
Lifelong
Learning
Student Affairs
Officers
Academic
Officers
Undergraduate
Advising
Center
International
Committee
Faculty-led
• Staffing needs to follow priorities o If internationalization is truly a UM / College
priority then more staff & faculty o Part-time, temporary students who work with
international activities don’t understand or respect faculty, and this is hurting forward
progress • Each college ‘owns’ and manages academic programs and courses • The
International Committee needs greater emphasis on academic leadership and strategic
oversight and less on ‘busy work’
• The Associate Provost has presence at the Academic Officer’s meetings, so his voice
is there, but is he active on other university committees (eg. ASCRC, Grad. Council,
Research & Creative Scholarship)? • In particular, oversight of academic programs
(International Development Studies, International Conservation and Development,
International Business Program, Global Public Health, Global Youth Development)
needs to be separated from OIP and have more campus-wide, academic coordination.
• The International Committee could have bigger input and impact from Deans &
Faculty, as it is currently dominated by OIP.
• Everything we do is ‘reactive’, not proactive planning. • What sort of commitment or
support to an effort is leadership putting in place? Is it consistent? • The
internationalization of online education and the chance for that (online education) to
help internationalize the University. • Understanding how to negotiate the online
space is a key to internationalization, which is how students communicate
today. Online is contemporary. • What’s working well?? • Bringing structure to
international education at the university. What sort of support do you have to
implement and enforce certain requirements? • The more strongly something is
worded, the better. When the units read those messages it’s clear. It’s not an
academic freedom issue.
• Diversity Advisory Council’s role ? (featuring students/performers at meetings? T.
Branch)
• Don’t know much about the International Committee. Indicative of silos and a lack
of staff representation.
• No formal governance structure of UM (faculty senate, staff senate, ASUM) directly
supports internationalization. • The International Committee has an advisory role but
no real power. • GLI committees are new and support internationalization • The OIPFSSS-OSS coordination committee supports internationalization
45
Program
Directors
5.4.15
Faculty-led
Program
Directors
5.6.15
Financial Aid
Business
Services
UM
Foundation
Foreign
Student and
Scholar
Services
• ASCRC does not support internationalization. • Trying to get appropriate number of
credits for a course, getting permanent course numbers, getting cross-listing, showing
certain numbers of contact hours, etc. Permanent course numbers being eliminated
and replaced by bag numbers “this will kill study abroad”. Students can only take a
certain number of bag courses. This will look bad on their transcript if they want to
apply to grad school. • Some guidance on credits would be useful. • Flexibility within
schools and colleges. SOBA teach 3+3. Dean won’t pay more for more work. If there
was a set policy where faculty were paid a prorated amount,
• Not clear what they are. o Does Faculty Senate have a committee focused on
internationalization? o Does Staff Senate have a committee focused on
internationalization? o Does ASUM have a committee focused on internationalization?
o Should there be a campus-wide governance committee for internationalization?
With many units on campus, both academic and non-academic, that play a critical role
in achieving the goals of campus internationalization, to centralize or not are not
viable options. Instead, the matrix management organization structure would be
of best fit as it would recognize UM’s context of collective engagement and
responsibility, making the academic, support and service units effectively engaged in
the process of internationalization. Under this model, the essential elements would be
communication and coordination with direct collaborative crosswalks among
contributors. OIP would be the unit to oversee implementation of this model.
ALSS Question 5: What policies or practices (related to this subcommittee) hinder
internationalization efforts at this institution?
Mansfield
Center
Office of
International
Programs
• Decentralized structure for faculty-led study abroad programs. UM sorely needs to
centralize and structure processes for developing and conducting these programs. This
does not mean that faculty will lose any freedom in creating their programs but it will
allow UM to standardize practices related to these programs and reduce liability
faculty may unknowingly create for the institution through these programs. Currently,
people are “going rogue” “under the radar” and this is not an ideal situation!
Anecdotally, people have asked “what’s the story with this program, should I send my
child on it” when no one should have to seek out the back story on a UM-sponsored
program - all information should be thorough and transparent through OIP. • UM does
not provide the type of support that other universities provide to visiting scholars and
students in the form of HOUSING and MEALS. We cannot invite people to UM because
we can’t provide free, comfortable housing to them. We cannot ensure that they will
have a meal plan in the summer months. Therefore, we can’t bring as many people to
campus as we potentially could, and we can’t reciprocate with other universities that
46
Campus-wide
faculty
meeting
4.24.15
Campus-wide
faculty
meeting
4.29.15
Office of the
Provost
Office for
Academic
Enrichment
Human
Resource
Services
Enrollment
Services
Global
Leadership
Initiative
Graduate
School
roll out the red carpet when our faculty and students go visit them.
• Many do not understand what it means to internationalize the campus.
Internationalization is perceived as idiosyncratic, usually with one faculty member
pushing for a particular program. When that faculty member leaves so does the
program -- it is a moving target.
• Financial requirements at the state and federal levels can dissuade participation in
internationalization efforts. • Many activities are ‘informal’ • Silo-ed administrative
structure does not help. Certain units don’t recognize international
content as supportive / essential. • We don’t have the necessary levels of financial
support to internationalize. UM has the lowest per student level of any flagship
institution in the country. • If we had greater financial resources we could apply them
to: • Student retention and recruitment • Support for UM students to study abroad
• Support for faculty international experiences • The Yamaguchi gift the School of
Business Administration helps to support international efforts. • The University is
‘open to travel’ – the Department of State is the only restriction. • Internationalization
is prominent in our strategic plan and brand.
• Top-down initiatives from senior administration impedes/squashes enthusiasm and
creativity by academic programs, particularly if a one-size-fits-all approach is
implemented • Senior administration need to emphasize greater communication with
campus leadership, such as Dean’s offices and faculty o There may be a sense that OIP
makes decisions and imposes them on campus, which isn’t helpful or encouraging.
• Don’t endorse/adopt user-pays systems (whereby the students or programs end up
paying for centralized services) o Students are turned-off, can’t afford these systems,
and many are excluded by higher costs to participate
• The President has his vision but not exactly clear what the actual plan is. • Need to
make sure everyone has bought into it (the vision). • The university’s commitment and
vision in regard to internationalization is to be welcoming to students and ‘make it
easy’ (their experience here, not referring to academics). • The University would
benefit from more cultural sensitivity training – a series of interrelated
workshops.
• It’s difficult for graduate students to go abroad because they’re tied to research,
which doesn’t necessary lend to the ability to study abroad. • Some programs do have
research sites overseas (e.g. Forestry). • A ‘leave of absence’ form is required to
maintain enrollment, which some students forget about and are dropped.
• The graduate school is understaffed for any duties other than admission and
graduation. • If more resources were made available (to the graduate school) they’d
be used for purposes such as to enhance collaboration for international student
47
School of
Extended &
Lifelong
Learning
Student Affairs
Officers
Academic
Officers
recruitment. • Some programs are more efficient than others in regard to making
admissions decisions. • Laurie Drake (in the Honors College) has a list of scholarships
that accept international students. • There is a “low acceptance rate” of international
students – data shows there are a lot of applications from international
students. From application to admission, however, there is a challenge (especially in
regard to finances). This is not a discriminatory practice against international student
applicants, however, it’s just about the limited number of
assistantships that are available. • Federal funding for research, which in the past
supported many international students, has decreased.
• For students coming from abroad, (Brazilian science mobility program) – they spend
time in ELI then move on to regular science courses. Difficulty in the fact that TOEFL
scores don’t translate to ability to do well in coursework. Scientific terms – steep
learning curve. Variable experiences for students. Which courses are at appropriate
level for these students? Translate their academic experience into ours, placement in
courses where they can succeed. Better standardization / analysis where we can
better place these students, so they have a good experience, go back, more come.
• Non-science side – SOJ experience of students who pass TOEFL but can’t do writing
courses. Debating whether to establish a certain standard – in-house support?
Program relies heavily on self-expression and ability to step outside of cultural boxes –
• With Math there has been a renaissance of taking background while taking basic
math, for foreign students could we make a one credit experience to supplement
vocab and expressive arts at the same time that they take these challenging courses.
Could ELI provide this? • Writing center (Gretchen) might serve as a bridge and
develop some sort of seminar that could work. • Are we selecting the wrong students?
Does our screening process need to change to select engagement, language skills, etc.
• Pharmacy does a selection – not sure that’s the only solution. • The one or zero
credit seminar (required) to facilitate transition seems like a good idea. • LAW: ABA
requires that students have 4 year degree. They do admit some students but this
causes difficulties in the classroom (18 yr olds in class with older more experienced
students). • Bridge program discussed with Sandy Ross and Joe Hickman and Peter
Baker for Iraqi student
Undergraduate • Incoming and outgoing programs aren‘t unified. Could be unified under banner of
Advising
internationalized learning. • Little informing and/or education on internationalization
Center
to domestic students, could be particularly impactful on first year students
International
• No policies or practices either hinder or encourage internationalization. Resource
Committee
limitations are the key issue. • Is the organic/grassroots development of international
initiatives that is typical of UM a hindrance in itself? • Policies and practices are not
very even across the schools and colleges.
Faculty-led
• We need BANNER to facilitate/support accounting for students abroad vs. students
Program
on campus. • Bureaucracy – changes in Business Services policies (mandated by
Directors
federal and state laws, BOR) – workload associated with reporting travel expenses
48
5.4.15
Faculty-led
Program
Directors
5.6.15
Financial Aid
Business
Services
• Lack of administrative support for FLSAP so that professors leading programs are
required to do EVERYTHING related to leading the program. This limits the number of
students you can take when there is so much work involved. o Comparison with
University of Florida experience – all logistics executed by a centralized office – faculty
did nothing but arrive at location and teach • Interdepartmental on-campus FLSAPs
could be developed if greater coordination and commitment existed between
departments, e.g. MCLL and Political Science collaboration for Paul Haber’s Patzcuaro
trip. Obstacles for developing more solid interdepartmental FLSAP ventures named:
time, lack of official recognition for effort
• BANNER cited as a hindrance – prevents proper reconciliation • Lack of clarity in
terms of definitions and procedures – it would be good to centralize all this
information • The fact that faculty leading Wintersession trips can’t receive additional
salary for their work (all the preparation, etc.) This varies across campus. Perhaps two
pools of money – preparation and then while the trip is going on. • Group travel only
considered as such if all students travel there and back together. When it’s group
travel there is less paperwork (otherwise each student has to fill out a W9) - • Can
there be a system in place to remunerate FLSAP leaders for Wintersession courses.
• Lack of consistent policies across campus about how to remunerate faculty leading
these courses. • Faculty want to make experiences possible for students. UM has a
tendency to take advantage of people’s passions and not remunerate them.
• instructors trade turns leading Vietnam course. Cross-listing denied. So much time
spent on this with ASCRC. If faculty from different parts of UM teach interdisciplinary
courses, these warrant cross-listing to serve students from all over campus. • ASCRC
didn’t understand the value of offering an interdisciplinary experience for 6 credits in 4
weeks. • BOR wouldn’t allow DHC class to be worth more than 1 credit. • Supporting
programs: having students earn credits toward their degree for this (climate change
studies minor and Vietnam trip). • Recruitment of students difficult – more
coordination is needed. • OIP doesn’t give anything back. Asks faculty to do a lot of
work but don’t give much in return. • Marja is not familiar with FLSAP. She has taken it
on, which is great. There needs to be someone at the UM level looking at FLSAP on
campus with a larger perspective, and say wait, we already have 5 Ireland programs.
Now there are 4 India programs. There are models at other universities to help faculty
understand how to set these up. We don’t even have policies, and we don’t have
anyone with a campus-wide perspective. • Fundraising is needed for students to be
able to participate in study abroad. • OIP’s electronic study abroad application system
a nightmare $50 cost for a bunch of headaches per application. Seems to be set up for
single applications for long term study abroad (ISEP) not FLSAP.
• Not clear how faculty are instructed to lead international programs o Eg. to contact
Financial Aid with a specific list of costs of program • No centralized functionality • Not
clear where to refer students to • What happens with UM Foundation support – can it
go towards international learning? • Are expenses being correctly accounted for (eg.
payroll, scholarships, business expenses are all treated differently?)
•Business Services does not receive information ahead of time about short-term
visiting faculty and scholars, so it is often unclear how to pay them. They cannot be
paid unless Business Services has the following: visa, passport, W8 BEN (W9 for
Foreign Nationals), visa type • Faculty should instruct students to register to go abroad
–set things up ahead of time. Promote internationalization among faculty /study
49
abroad programs because it is a good advertising to potential students. Students might
qualify for financial aid for SAP even if don’t typically qualify… Luanne responsible to
give an accounting to student IF student asks. • In regard to inviting international
faculty: Tough because don’t get paperwork ahead of time – don’t know what
treaties, agreements, etc. available. Need info for payment: visa, passport, w8ben,;
have to look at visa type to see if they are eligible to receive payment. Changing
situations with countries – so is often different. To what extent and how does their
presence contribute to institutional internationalization? Sometimes state policy for
travel is more stringent than federal policies… [reimbursement for anyone at UM].
Need receipts for everything – even for the $36 that is allowed ahead of time. GREAT,
but hard to handle – logistics get tricky at times!! • Study Abroad for UM: need more
stream-lined practices. How about international students at UM? Hardest part is
communication to the student that he/she needs to hit the button to register. Even
third-party payment – students still need to pay fees… • Struggle with UM students
going abroad – because it’s handled by the department. Get requests for 1098T for tax
purposes. Only find out if students have financial aid. Communication is totally lacking
between BS and the SAPs. Reporting issues with tuition and fees. Always in the dark.
So many different programs – hard to have a policy that is applicable to all campus
programs?? How well are they working? • Need to give Business Services access to
info about study abroad programs or send them periodic reports about those
programs. Information that business services needs about study abroad programs
includes: the name of the program, dates of program, credits, cost, detailed budget,
participant list. • Business services needs information about study abroad programs
because it impacts student bills and student financial aid packages. • If there is an
emergency that might impact a study abroad program let business services know –
that information might be necessary to modify a student’s financial aid package and
refunds. • Business needs to know how faculty are supported to administer the
program – how program fees and/or tuition are redirected to pay for faculty
administration of the program • Business services needs to receive detailed
information about study abroad programs – detailed budgets with all the budget lines
(tuition, fees, etc.). Budget services needs this information because they have a
fiduciary responsibility to provide students with detailed information about how their
payments are being applied at the University. • There does not seem to be any
coordination between what students are paying for in regard to study abroad
programs and registration. • There doesn’t seem to be any standardization of how
study abroad is administered – it seems to be very reactionary/rushed. • Students
sometimes come to business services to pay their bills but there is little context about
the specific bill that they’re paying for. • There needs to be some sort of standardized
mechanism to provide business services with detailed information about study abroad
programs on a regular basis and not immediately before a program is scheduled to
start. • Business services should not receive information about study abroad programs
immediately before the program starts when a student comes in to pay their bill – they
need to have that information far in advance. • There are significant tax implications
for students in regard to their participation in study abroad programs – paid tuition
can be counted towards a tax credit. This information is reflected in the 1098T form.
• The study abroad office or faculty leading study abroad trips should tell students to
contact business services prior to their trip – not immediately before but weeks
50
UM
Foundation
Office of
Planning,
Budgeting and
Analysis
before. This is important to make sure their bills are paid and their financial aid
packages are updated. • There seems to be a lack of clarity of direction about the
ability for students participating in study abroad to receive financial aid support and/or
modify their financial aid package. • Another reason why business services needs
detailed information about study abroad in general and faculty led study abroad
specifically is because they need to know when and how to distribute funds. They
don’t want students, staff or faculty to get into a situation in which they don’t have
access to funds needed to participate in a program.
• Motor pool policy that doesn’t allow children in UM vehicles - excludes foreign
scholars and students with family members from participating in FSSS field trips. It
should be noted that FSSS is required by J-1 regulations to expose its exchange visitors
to opportunities where they can learn and appreciate American culture and
society. Many who are here with family members wish to include them in
educational fieldtrips; yet, the lack of easy access to larger vehicles that can include
family members (children) makes this requirement cost prohibitive, as hiring a bus for
the day costs a minimum of $700 and there is no budget for this. This is an example
of how a rule based on saving money for potential tort claims against the University
has had an undue negative impact on one population we serve. • Residence Life and
Dining Services schedules at the beginning and end of each semester need to better
accommodate foreign students in their transition to the University and at departure
times. For example, for Spring Semester the new international students arrive seven to
ten days before the start of the semester in order to attend new foreign student
orientation, but there are very limited dining options, especially in the evening. At the
end of spring semester, many international students , especially exchange students,
are stressed trying to depart the day after finals since they must vacate their dorm
rooms. • Limited financial aid and lack of an on-campus work-study program for
foreign students . Such financial constraints hinder us in the recruitment and
retention of high caliber foreign students. • All UM international students and J-1
scholars are required to carry health insurance. However, the cost of UM’s Blue
Cross- Blue Shield student health insurance of $1,508 per semester is prohibitive.
Coming up with official definitions – data analysis and collection relies on official,
established definitions to ensure integrity. A number might be published but it might
not match with how offices define and report students #s • Efforts to standardize
reporting and provide training (about reporting) are underway by the Office –
4committees have been established, each with specific areas of focus. Similar to the
‘mod’ squad, which is a committee for ‘functional uses’ of banner • A data governance
policy will help colleagues follow the same policies • Processes in regard to the
collection of data about study abroad have not been determined – the data collection
and analysis model being launched for international students will be a helpful model
for study abroad students • Processes in regard to the collection of data about
international faculty have not been determined – the data collection and analysis
model being launched for international students will be a helpful model for
international faculty• ‘international’ is the 1st official (student) designation being
tested…it will include information about ‘country of origin’, ‘visa’, and ‘country of
citizenship’ – this is getting finalized for AY 15/16• There are significant differences
51
between what OPBA publishes and what others (e.g. FSSS)publish • Need to determine
processes to capture students in special programs, such as summer program students.
ALSS Question 6: Does the institution gather information on the attitudes of staff (all
non-faculty employees) toward international learning? If so, how is this information
used?
Mansfield
Center
Office of
International
Programs
Campus-wide
faculty
meeting
4.24.15
Campus-wide
faculty
meeting
4.29.15
Office of the
Provost
Office for
Academic
Enrichment
Human
Resource
Services
Enrollment
Services
Global
Leadership
Initiative
Graduate
School
School of
Extended &
Lifelong
Learning
Student Affairs
Officers
Academic
• Not until today
• No, but it should. If it did, we could use this information to create a strategic plan for
the future.
No.
• High priority for Academic Enrichment (and OIP, GLI, FSSS), but not necessarily for
other units o Who have other specialized missions, priorities and funding o Endless
data collection, imposing burden on other units o Rarely communicated how it helps
students
• Not really. There are lots of (opt-in) databases on campus and it is unclear how
successful these efforts are. Few of us now have time for yet another memo, yet
another email asking us to provide our data – we just don’t have time we need to be
attending to our current duties and compile our input for others’ efforts. • Big
question of who has the staff time (and expense) to manage and keep it up to date.
• No – that type of information is not collected. • Staff and faculty can participate but
sometimes that’s the committees “of the interested” – the usual suspects always
participate. • If internationalization is a priority those concepts need to be built into
different departmental policies.
• No. •Survey – read like it was for faculty. Poor design of survey. • Stephanie
Anderson (MCLL) surveyed staff a few years ago to determine staff’s interest in
international activity. Short term staff funding is discontinued now…
52
Officers
Undergraduate
Advising
Center
International
Committee
Faculty-led
Program
Directors
5.4.15
Faculty-led
Program
Directors
5.6.15
Financial Aid
Business
Services
UM
Foundation
Foreign
Student and
Scholar
Services
• Not really. There’s iTeam (advocates for international students).
• No.
• Prior to iLab, had never been asked • Probably typical of universities elsewhere
Currently the institution does not gather such information from staff.
ALSS Question 7: To what extent does staff (all non-faculty employees) perceive
international learning as an important element of the educational process at the
institution? What is the evidence?
Mansfield
Center
Office of
International
Programs
• Mansfield Ctr staff all value international learning because it is so integral to MC
misson/programs. There is a disconnect when reaching out to the rest of campus - this
is not shared all over campus. • In particular, UM’s support offices (business services,
HRS, travel) do not seem to understand or value international learning/travel.
o International travel procedures and related paperwork very onerous, discouraging.
Designed by people who are not international travelers and don’t understand how
hard bureaucracy related to intl travel is (per diems, receipts, etc.) o Conversely,
bringing people to UM from abroad (and paying for it) is very costly - more costly than
it should be because of time and effort involved due to bureaucracy. o Example of one
grant program in which MC is preferring to have non UM-faculty participate because
there is less work involved than if a UM faculty member participated. (Receipts
requested by Business Services)
• In general, UM overlooks its staff when staff are the face of UM and the people
international students interact with the most frequently. • Before it was eliminated,
the short-term staff exchange program received very few applications. (P. Baker please
provide numbers on short-term staff exchange since the program’s inception) • iTEAM
is an effort to retain international students by creating a group of informed staff
people to support international students. The idea to create iTEAM came from
international student feedback abut general ignorance among staff and faculty about
53
Campus-wide
faculty
meeting
4.24.15
Campus-wide
faculty
meeting
4.29.15
Office of the
Provost
Office for
Academic
Enrichment
Human
Resource
Services
Enrollment
Services
Global
Leadership
Initiative
Graduate
School
School of
Extended &
Lifelong
Learning
Student Affairs
customer service for intl students • Conversely, not enough assistance is given to UM
students who want to study abroad on the following levels: o Advising, credit transfer,
how to study abroad without falling behind and still being able to graduate as planned
o Financial aid - will scholarships transfer, what are the implications of study abroad
for an individual student’s financial aid? o Each student should get an “Individual Study
Abroad Plan” - a comprehensive plan that is specific to each individual’s degree path
and financial aid situation, with a single point of contact who continues to support the
student over email when they are abroad.
• Need to prioritize so that student think they can do it, creates a spark of interest
• It’s ‘hit and miss’ – some view it as important some don’t. • Departments that have
direct contact with international students might view it as more important. • Unless
there is contact with international students departments don’t necessarily view it as
important. • Some departments don’t want to deal with them “international
students”, maybe because they don’t’ know enough about their educational
background. • Students are sometimes not clear why academic departments make the
decisions they do, in regard to items such as the transferability of credit.
• International learning is strongly supported by many units and offices on
campus. Staff are responsive when the needs are brought to their attention. • Outgoing students (study abroad programs, exchange programs, etc.) are often quite
difficult for staff – there are so many pieces that students need to attend to and they
could benefit from more help. Each College and School should have a person
dedicated to this support, but with a good level of training and expertise (as wrong
information / guidance is potentially devastating for students).
• International learning exposes learners to different ways which helps to “break the
mold.” • Funding for students to go abroad to conferences is helpful. • Conferences
and research are a core part of the graduate education experience • Dual and joint
degrees are good ways to enhance collaboration
• Critical. • Health Center – challenge: training staff to have cultural competencies to
54
Officers
Academic
Officers
Undergraduate
Advising
Center
International
Committee
Faculty-led
Program
Directors
5.4.15
Faculty-led
Program
Directors
5.6.15
Financial Aid
Business
Services
UM
Foundation
Foreign
Student and
Scholar
Services
address needs of international students (Saudis, Brazilians...)
• About half and half. Many don’t have training, cultural sensitivity (eg. very low
linguistic abilities), nor much experience working with international students. As a
result, incoming students don’t feel as though their concerns are being heard or
addressed. Too many wrong answers.
• No/don’t know. Staff in Admissions, OSS, OIP, Mansfield Center, GLI, individual
colleges and schools and FSSS are obviously interested and invested
• Generally supportive, generally seen as worthwhile • More supportive of outgoing
students than increasing numbers of incoming students • Seems like we need to
institutionalize the norm of an international experience o At the moment, it is a
disjointed message (or a silent one) o Could be the ‘cornerstone’ of the UM
undergraduate experience
• More and more UM students won’t stay to work in Montana – they’ll go on to work
overseas. • If we don’t offer good academic programs and effective administration
then we’ll “cut ourselves off” and won’t have a well-rounded workforce
• From UMF standpoint SG would like to send development officers on international
experiences / rotation of outreach to different regions. Would be helpful for staff to
understand value of experience and export that to donor base. • Budgets are
restrictive.
• Staff need to be brought more into the picture of comprehensive
internationalization. Those goals and programs should be a required part of new
employee training. It should also be integrally incorporated into such ongoing staff
professional development programs such as the Staff Ambassador Program. The
current curriculum for that program devotes entire days to certain topics, such as
Athletics (including a huge focus on the student athlete), but barely touches on the big
picture of UM’s internationalization. Individual units, such as FSSS and OIP are briefly
mentioned, but there is no sense of this being a leading university priority or
commitment. • A joint committee comprised of FSSS, OIP, and Enrollment Service Staff
have developed a new training program for UM Staff and Faculty called
UM iTEAM, which stands for Teaching, Empowering, Advising, and Mentoring
international students. The program is modeled after the UM Allies program. Its
mission is to provide training to allow faculty and staff to better support international
students at UM and includes such topics as foreign student enrollment trends at UM in
the context of global student mobility, cross-cultural communication and skills,
financial impact , issues facing the students, and an overview of UM resources and
offices serving international students. The program was launched in Spring 2015 with
two well-received training seminars, and the goal is to offer a minimum of one training
55
session per semester. Human Resources has collaborated with the iTEAM to promote
the workshop to faculty and staff. Future challenges anticipated include how to
effective reach staff and faculty that are not self-motivated to sign up for this class.
Office of
Planning,
Budgeting and
Analysis
OPBA tries to stay objective and responds to demands of leadership. If leadership
designatesinternational education as a priority it will respond accordingly.
ALSS Other points recorded
Mansfield
Center
Office of
International
Programs
Campus-wide
faculty
meeting
4.24.15
Campus-wide
faculty
meeting
4.29.15
Office of the
Provost
Office for
Academic
Enrichment
Human
Resource
Services
Enrollment
Services
Global
Leadership
Initiative
UM is not structured to support internationalization; it is structured by function.
Navigating silos costs time and money; it is hard to work across the lines; therefore
broad initiatives like internationalization are difficult to implement: culture shift.
Many do not understand what it means to internationalize the campus.
Internationalization is perceived as idiosyncratic, usually with one faculty member
pushing for a particular program. When that faculty member leaves so does the
program -- it is a moving target.
Shelley Hiniker represented HRS at the meeting conducted by Liz
Ametsbichler. Shelley explained that every UM employee, including visiting scholars
and international student employees, need to submit paperwork to HRS in order to
establish their eligibility for employment. HRS collects visa and passport information,
and reviews tax treaties to determine the level of compensation. HRS also collects
pertinent information from those applying for an H-1B work visa who are
subsequently referred to an immigration lawyer. The lines of communication and
coordination between HRS and FSSS are very effective. Since FSSS is the only unit on
campus that deals with immigration related issues, a good working relationship
between HRS and FSSS is essential.
• How do we get more people on campus involved – to buy into this process? Maybe
a crisis – like having so many international students that people are looking for help
about how to work with them. And personal interest.
• Money trail shows true University commitment. Self-funding programs are seen as
less important, and can currently exist only with strong faculty commitment/
leadership. The lack of state funds and/or permanent funding is very telling. • It is
hard to know where the international content is in some courses. This is similar to
service learning courses, where students are confused as to what they are getting even
56
Graduate
School
School of
Extended &
Lifelong
Learning
when there is a service learning designation. • Unclear how AAIP (and other similar
campus-wide strategic planning activities) are focusing on international learning. • Is
there a difference between “Global” and “International” – they’re different terms and
have different pedagogical imperatives.
• International education is essential. • Effective internationalization is a leadership
issue. • The fact that the most recent correspondences about internationalization have
been a series of surveys implies that there isn’t a plan. It’s in its formative stage. • A
lot of things are being asked by leadership without any committed resources. More
and more commitments without additional resources. • If additional activities
(related to internationalization) are constantly asked for it doesn’t help to clarify what
the priorities are. • How are activities supported? • There have been Evaluation
process after evaluation process – these have happened in the past, but what will
come of these? Priorities are identified (for online or internationalization efforts) but
they don’t go anywhere… • There are no “institutional statements” made. • Barriers
are put in place for things not to happen. • “Flavor of the day” – constantly creating
models. • Fund travel abroad for faculty. If you want to internationalize your campus
you can’t pull the plug on those activities. • Needs to have long-term
commitment. Because financial resources can’t be committed we’re looped in an
endless evaluation process. • We need to update policies – they hold us back. • 940.2
has to do with tuition levels for out of state students. A minimum of 200% tuition has
to be charged – finally that was changed to 125% for online education. This is an
example of the type of changes that need to happen. • There doesn’t seem to be a
way for policies at OCHE to be reviewed in a timely manner – what’s the process used
to update those policies. • How influence is exerted on a strategic perspective. • GLI is
a title that’s confusing. How much global learning is actually happening? After the
1st year the drop out rate was significant. Does the reality of the program meet the
expectations of how it was advertised. • Whenever opportunities to participate in
international activities were made availability to SELL staff they did respond
accordingly. • There is no systematic process to getting information and opportunities
out.
• Short term language immersion opportunities would greatly benefit disabled
students (more than semester-long beginning language courses)
Student Affairs
Officers
Academic
Officers
Undergraduate
Advising
Center
International
• Could OSS and then college/faculty advisors plant the seeds for study abroad in
Committee
students and ensure that they grow? Many freshmen express interest in studying
abroad but don’t end up doing it because of wanting to graduate in 4 years, etc.
Faculty-led
• Historically, FLSAPs developed separately from OIP programs (ISEP, partner
Program
universities). Today, OIP asks for information that in the past, faculty leading FLSAPs
Directors
didn’t have to provide. • Now, OIP requests that faculty leading FLSAPs have oversight
5.4.15
about all logistical aspects related to their trips is very onerous for the faculty leading
the trips. Examples include student and faculty insurance, risk management,
57
Faculty-led
Program
Directors
5.6.15
Financial Aid
Business
Services
disability/accessibility matters, etc. • The University’s target for study abroad (75% by
2020) is very unrealistic. [this is not exactly what is stated in the strategic plans, but it’s
interesting to note that this is the perception]. o General US average is 25% of
undergrads studying abroad. o Even 25% would be very high for UM. There are not
enough language majors, so MCLL couldn’t “pull it off”. o Other departments need to
recognize the importance of study abroad (for majors beyond languages). o Advising
could be improved, so students know their options o Some departments dissuade their
students from taking language courses in their first year, saying they’ll need to focus
on hard science courses, for example. This leads students away from studying
languages/thinking study abroad is possible for them. o UM faculty are unaware that
you can study abroad AND take courses in English. • Accommodating disability abroad
o Student on FLSAP in wheelchair dependent on the group’s willingness to help
o Meeting with DSS prior to departure didn’t prepare faculty member for all that
disabled student faced while abroad
• Significant bias against short-term study abroad experiences vs. semester-long study
abroad. • Funding via GLI has been very helpful to support students going abroad.
• Right now, travel contributes to UM’s carbon footprint. Our flights make up the bulk
of our carbon footprint. Sustainability a UM value. Right now there is no requirement
for faculty/students to account for their emissions when they travel abroad. Think
about ways to offset those footprints (Vietnam course). Students should be aware of
impact of travel and we should work out as a university how we are accountable for
that. How can UM offset that? Part of the education of travel abroad. • Experience
doesn’t have to require a flight across the ocean. There are ways to get an
international experience without leaving the US. • Alcohol consumption during study
abroad experiences? A policy is needed for this so that there is consistency across the
board. • Training for faculty taking groups of students abroad? • STF – unclear
deadlines, no one believes it’s a lottery, the thing changes every time you look at the
website. • Difficult for students to find information about funding resources online.
Laure has a list of resources across the country she can share. • Financial aid
increasingly restrictive for study abroad. FinAid “doesn’t understand” “is not willing to
do this”… Presidential Loans used to exist to help students pay their study abroad fees
on time – this doesn’t exist anymore… • IF UM had a healthy faculty-directed study
abroad program here it would be a great recruiting tool. What is Academic Enrichment
was tasked with this?
• Not clear if the real and full costs of Study Abroad are being disclosed to students
(more a problem with exchanges than faculty-led programs) • Not clear if international
students should be eligible for scholarships o Has the President’s Cabinet made a
recent decision? Will it become policy?
• within the last year, Business Services learned that they had not been processing
travel requests and reimbursements according to Montana State policy. The
procedures have recently changed, which brings UM in compliance and we are now
doing things the same way as the other state institutions. These reporting
requirements for the state are more stringent than for federal. The only way these
procedures can change is through the Montana State Legislature • The State of
Montana sometimes has more stringent regulations than the U.S. Dept. of State. An
example of this includes the new travel policy – that the State requires travelers to
keep all of their receipts. • Business Services basic request is “just let us know what is
58
UM
Foundation
Foreign
Student and
Scholar
Services
going on” – send them detailed updates. • Business services has the ability to wire
funds at a much lower rate than through a bank.
59
Appendix F2: Articulated Institutional Commitment Subcommittee Report
104
University of Montana Internationalization Lab
Articulated Institutional Commitment Subcommittee Final Report
Subcommittee Members:
Brian French, Subcommittee Chair, Executive Director of Office for Student Success
John Matt, Chair of Department of Educational Leadership (also member of Task Force)
Liz Putnam, Interim Dean of Davidson Honors College
G.G. Weix, Anthropology
Paulo Zagalo-Melo, Associate Provost for Global Century Education and Director of Office of
International Programs (also Steering Committee Co-chair)
I.
Data Collection - SWOT Analysis
Strengths
The University of Montana clearly has a strong commitment to internationalization as
articulated in foundational documents such as the Strategic Plan, Mission, Vision, and
Institutional Core Values. Institutional commitment to internationalization is also articulated in
the University's curriculum, through degree, non-degree, and minor programs, areas of interest,
global/thematic programs, robust offerings of foreign language courses and world regional
courses, and the general education program. In addition to these curricular offerings, UM's
Defense Critical Language and Culture Program is one of the top language and culture training
centers in the nation for the U.S. military.
One of the most significant areas of institutional commitment to internationalization is UM's
human resource base devoted to different aspects of internationalization, including but not
limited to: the Global Leadership Initiative, Global Gateway, Undergraduate Pathways Program,
English Language Institute, Study Abroad, International Student Exchanges, International
Student Recruitment, Foreign Student and Scholar Services, and University faculty and staff
members with ethnically and culturally diverse backgrounds and varied areas of expertise, the
Maureen and Mike Mansfield Center, and academic advisors and program specialists in the
Office for Student Success devoted to serving international students.
Weaknesses
By far the greatest weakness impeding the enhancement and expansion of internationalization
efforts at UM is a lack of financial resources. Funding for internationalization efforts at UM has
shifted to external sources, aside from positions that are state supported. The primary revenue
source for UM's general funds budget, which comprises the majority of the internal funding
available for internationalization efforts and related positions, is student tuition and fees.
Student enrollment has declined in recent years, creating general funds budget decreases and
making collaboration and progress for programs, services, and efforts germane to
internationalization increasingly difficult.
Another major weakness is the apparent lack of an institutional internationalization strategic
plan that can guide the different academic and administrative units. The clear presence of a
strong commitment to internationalization as articulated in foundational documents does not
translate into a strategic orientation to the structure and programs that compose the
internationalization at UM. The Office of International Programs has a strategic plan focused
exclusively on internationalization; however this encompasses only the services and programs
administered by this office.
UM iLab Articulated Institutional Commitment Subcommittee | Final Report
1
Fragmented communication and operational "silos" are other areas of weakness at UM in the
context of internationalization efforts. In the absence of an institutional strategy for
internationalization, programs and services often appear insular. International students, faculty
and staff often struggle to find appropriate resources and services as a result of the institution's
lack of a unified infrastructure of support. International student recruitment is an area that has
greatly improved and efforts are underway to improve retention-oriented services such as
academic advising, but international student support services could benefit from increased
collaboration among relevant UM programs and services.
Opportunities
Operational efficiencies could be realized with strategic consolidation of internationalizationrelated services. Most notably, the Office of International Programs and Foreign Student and
Scholar Services could be consolidated to improve internal communication and administrative
efficiency related to internationalization efforts. According to various constituent groups the
AIC Subcommittee contacted, this idea has been discussed at UM for several years, but no
meaningful action has been taken on this consolidation opportunity.
While innovative programs such as the Global Leadership Initiative have thrived at UM in recent
years, numerous opportunities exist to expand internationalization-related efforts. Increased
fundraising for study abroad experiences, continued and improved marketing of UM's various
possibilities for institutional constituents to engage in internationalization-related activities, and
expanded promotion of internationalization through the curriculum - both program-specific and
general education - are all areas of opportunity.
The Mansfield Center's Defense Critical Language and Culture Program offerings present an
opportunity to link UM students through technology with a range of lesser taught languages.
This would strengthen language and area studies such as East Asian Studies, Central and
Southwest Asian Studies, Persian, Arabic, Chinese, South and Southeast Asian Studies,
Indonesian, Korean, Tagalog, and Thai. Only a handful of research institutions currently offer
these languages through Title VI Resource Center funding and UM has a unique opportunity to
capitalize on distance learning for expanded instruction in these areas. Due to the nature of the
funding received by DCLCP (federal Defense funds earmarked for military training) , UM would
have to find a way to try to extend these learning opportunities to UM students.
Threats/Challenges
As previously mentioned, lack of institutional financial resources dedicated to
internationalization efforts is the largest challenge. Other challenges include a somewhat
insular culture in the Montana legislature, which provides state support to UM, and fragmented
operations and communications related to internationalization on campus.
UM iLab Articulated Institutional Commitment Subcommittee | Final Report
2
Recommendations
The AIC Subcommittee recommends the following actions to expand and improve
internationalization efforts at UM, in no order of importance or priority:

Develop an institutional internationalization strategy incorporating relevant programs,
services, and personnel to serve as a blueprint to guide institutional investment of resources
and commitment to internationalization-related efforts.

Develop a capital fundraising campaign to promote study abroad experiences, especially for
Montana residents with high financial need. If feasible, consider requiring study abroad
experience as a component of the general education curriculum, or through a study abroad
scholarship program available to all juniors and seniors (similar to the GLI Beyond the
Classroom Experience). Use this as an opportunity to expand existing study abroad
opportunities for students.

Consolidate the Office of International Programs and Foreign Student and Scholar Services
in order to improve internal communication and operational efficiency and to provide a
clear support infrastructure for international students studying at UM.

Increase institutional investment in international student recruitment and programs and
services that promote international student retention.

Expand the Mansfield Center's Defense and Critical Language and Culture Program to meet
the evolving needs of the U.S. military.
UM iLab Articulated Institutional Commitment Subcommittee | Final Report
3
II.
Data Collection
1. Is global/international learning articulated as part of the institution’s vision,
mission, or goals? If so, where (for example, in the mission statement, strategic
plan, or recruiting materials)?
Yes, global/international learning is articulated in the University of Montana’s (UM) Mission,
Vision, Core Values, Strategic Plan, and recruiting materials.
As articulated in the UM Mission (2014), “the University…educates competent and humane
professionals and informed, ethical, and engaged citizens of local and global communities; and
provides…cultural outreach, and service benefitting the local community, region, state, nation
and the world” (p.5).
As articulated in the UM Vision (2014):
UM will lead as a globally focused public research university that serves the state, nation
and world. Intrinsic to mission are the underlying values of leadership, engagement,
diversity, and sustainability. These essential values underpin our preparation of
graduates and contributions to society in the 21st century through high-impact teaching,
research, creative scholarship, and service. UM will be a place of vitality through its
academic, cultural, and athletic performance… [and] will drive economic, cultural, and
social development of Montana and the Central Rockies. (p. 5)
As articulated in UM’s Core Values within the UM Strategic Plan (2014):
Leadership: UM aims to produce graduates with leadership skills and potential, with the
anticipation that they will become local, state, regional, national, and international
leaders appropriate to their aspirations and experience.
Engagement: UM is committed to instilling a passion for discovery, learning, and service
in its students and faculty, connecting curricular content, student life, and experiential
learning opportunities with the principles and aspirations of societal and cultural
contributions.
Diversity: UM seeks to enhance diversity by recognizing and embracing the differences
in age, ideas and perspectives, disabilities, abilities, creed, ethnicity, gender identity,
gender expression, veteran status, national origin, race, religious and spiritual beliefs,
sex, sexual orientation, and the socioeconomic and geographic composition of its
faculty, administrative professionals, staff, and students.
UM iLab Articulated Institutional Commitment Subcommittee | Final Report
4
Sustainability: UM models a pathway to economic, financial, environmental, and
cultural sustainability in every aspect of mission fulfillment…consistent with the broader
concept of sustainability, the University’s initiatives ultimately seek to enhance
students’ understanding of the interconnectedness of ecological, social, and economic
issues. (pp. 5-6)
With regard to UM’s institutional commitment to internationalization as articulated in
recruitment materials, international students are eligible for admission to UM by way of three
pathways: conditional admission, undergraduate pathway (UP) admission, and full admission.
Conditional admission is for students who want to enroll in a UM bachelor degree program but
do not meet the minimum requirement for fall admission or UP admission or do not have an
English language test score. Students begin their studies at the English Language Institute (ELI)
for intensive English language and pre-academic training after they reach the required English
language proficiency level for admission. The UP Program provides a clear pathway for
international students seeking an undergraduate degree and with an English language
proficiency close enough to the admission level but who still require additional preparation in
the areas of English language proficiency, study skills, and content knowledge preparation in
their chosen discipline. UP allows for these students to integrate language and introductory
coursework, allowing them a smooth transition into their undergraduate degree. Students who
have met the English language proficiency admission requirements may begin their degree
program at UM. Fully admitted students can pursue a full-degree course load. All new
international undergraduate students are considered for a variety of general scholarships based
on the information provided in the International Undergraduate Application (International
Brochure, 2015).
UM also hosts an International UM Day each year, which is a special day of programming for
high school foreign exchange students currently studying in U.S. high schools. Students are
invited to explore the UM campus, meet current UM international students, sample a university
class and visit residence halls (Admissions website, 2015).
2. What are the goals for internationalization (for example, preparing students for
work in a global society or connecting international and multicultural agendas)?
Where are those goals articulated?
Entities contacted: Academic Officers, Foreign Student and Scholar Services, Office of
International Programs

Summary of Academic Officers (AO) responses:
UM iLab Articulated Institutional Commitment Subcommittee | Final Report
5
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

UM is about providing an education for the global century. Not international, but
truly global in information and communication and analytical aspects of society. Our
goal for having a dynamic learning environment is clear, and is articulated through
diversity in the classroom. Diversity of world views is necessary for a dynamic
learning environment. Research and creative scholarship for Montana and the
world… overall global, international focus for UM. See language in UM’s strategic
plan and vision statement
Given our location and history, important to keep in mind our place and history.
Inclusion of Native American issues. Connections b/w Native American issues and
international issues. Indigenous peoples’ issues are found all over the world. UM
connections with Norway and Australia. Connections between Montana and
Canadian tribes.
Area Studies programs; minor in international development, minor in global public
health
Co-curricular activities: DiverseU, student organization events
We teach 10 world languages (MCLL) on campus. Many universities of our size have
cut back to 2-3 languages. The fact that we still have 10 speaks to our aspirations for
multiculturalism. (This doesn’t include the languages taught by the DCLCP)
Formal partnerships for clinical placements abroad – in Education there are 14 in
China, India, and Australia.
SOBA accreditation process requires “globalization” in business programs. AACSB
changed its headquarters from St. Louis MO to Tampa FL – greater access to other
countries.
Another area to support internationalization is the library. Collections actively
support curriculum. Ex. Materials to support Arabic language, Irish studies
programs.
Summary of Foreign Student and Scholar Services (FSSS) responses:
The goals are articulated in UM’s mission statement and strategic plan. FSSS addresses the
goals through programs. Teaching, education, research, and services shape institutional values
and we attempt to coordinate efforts to ensure we have a unified approach to
internationalization. FSSS also addresses the goals through the many interactions of their office
with the foreign students, for example: by providing opportunities to students to interact with
the community through the MIFP program, International Festival, fieldtrips and workshops. FSSS
is also the primary office handling immigration for the campus. They are certified to issue
documents and verify students are complying with immigration standards that they must
maintain. Because they are authorized by SEVIS, Dept. of Homeland Security, they must
maintain knowledge of regulations through ongoing training. Some of this training is obtained
through attendance at NAFSA Conferences and Town Hall Presentations.

Summary of Office of International Programs (OIP) responses:
Internationalization doesn’t necessarily mean outside the U.S. It means how we prepare our
own students and campus to be globally competent.
UM iLab Articulated Institutional Commitment Subcommittee | Final Report
6
Staff (non-faculty) – those not in the classroom interact with people who aren’t from this culture
all the time. They need to be included in this effort as well. We can train people here, through
increased training offerings and open communication, to be adequately prepared to deal with
an increasingly culturally diverse student body and employee base.
Through internationalizing our campus, we can improve our programs and services to support
both international students’ success at UM and better prepare our domestic students to
succeed in an increasingly global society.
The services and curricula that a university provides are the most meaningful ways to articulate
our commitment to internationalization. That is, how do we make our campus community a
more culturally and globally competent place? Through trainings, modifying our curriculum and
programs, and other strategies previously discussed. Think about individual classes or trainings
that are offered to help students better prepare to be successful here and gain the knowledge
and skills to thrive in the global century.
3. Does the immediate environment from which the institution draws its students
suggest a special approach to internationalization (for example, do local
immigrant populations encourage ties to other countries and regions)?
The AIC Subcommittee recommends to the iLab Steering Committee that additional data on
external environments should be collected from entities such as the Montana Business and
Economic Development Office, Missoula Economic Development Council, Chamber of
Commerce, Trade Center, and the Salish and Kootenai Confederated Tribes, among other
entities. Perhaps an additional subcommittee could take the lead on this.
4. What opportunities exist in the state and local environments to enhance the
institution’s internationalization efforts? To what extent has the institution
taken advantage of those opportunities?
The AIC Subcommittee recommends to the iLab Steering Committee that additional data on
external environments and economic development should be collected from entities such as the
Montana Business and Economic Development Office, Missoula Economic Development Council,
Chamber of Commerce, Trade Center, and the Salish and Kootenai Confederated Tribes, among
other entities. Perhaps an additional subcommittee could take the lead on this.
5. Does the institution have a strategic plan? Where does internationalization fit
into the plan? If internationalization is not part of the strategic plan, where else
is it outlined?
UM iLab Articulated Institutional Commitment Subcommittee | Final Report
7
Yes, UM has a strategic plan. The title of the strategic plan - UM 2020, Building a University for
the Global Century - highlights UM's focus on global issues. Aspects of internationalization such
as preparing students to become global leaders and ensuring cultural diversity and engagement
are referenced in the strategic plan. As stated in question 1, global/international learning is
articulated in the University of Montana’s (UM) Mission, Vision, Core Values, Strategic Plan, and
recruiting materials.
Internationalization is also articulated in the mission statement and strategic goals of the Office
of International Programs (OIP) (2015):
The mission of OIP is to promote and provide international life-changing experiences
and related educational opportunities, serving as a resource that contributes to the
culture of a globally-minded community.
The strategic goals of OIP are to: enhance the quality of international activities and
experiences provided by the university; develop sustainable interdisciplinary campus
and community collaborations which promote mutual understanding and intellectual
diversity; and promote the integration of global competence into the UM curriculum
and academic experience.
Perhaps UM's most meaningful articulation of institutional commitment to internationalization
is within the curriculum. As stated on the OIP website (2015), UM offers a diverse array of
international degree and non-degree programming, including but not limited to: the study of
foreign languages - [UM currently offers instruction in ten languages] - area studies,
professional, thematic programs with an international emphasis, and non-degree bearing
programs that enrich an academic program globally. As the 21st century is truly a global one,
these programs are an excellent focus and compliment to any student's academic career.
Examples of these programs are listed below:
Undergraduate Major Programs:
International Business
International Field Geosciences
Area Studies:
Central and Southwest Asian Studies
Liberal Studies with Asian Studies Option
East Asian Studies
Foreign Languages:
Arabic
Chinese
French
German
Greek
UM iLab Articulated Institutional Commitment Subcommittee | Final Report
8
Hindi - to be offered beginning fall 2015 semester through Fulbright funding
Irish
Italian
Japanese
Russian
Spanish
Undergraduate Minor Programs:
Global Public Health
International Development Studies
Area Studies:
Central and Southwest Asian Studies
Irish Studies
Latin American Studies
Russian Studies
South and Southeast Asian Studies
Graduate Programs:
International Conservation and Development, MS
Global Youth Development, MA
Non-Degree Programs:
Italian
Irish
International/Global Thematic Programs:
International Conservation and Development
International Development Studies
Global Youth Development
International Field Geosciences
International Business
Global Public Health
Internationalization is also referenced in the General Education section of the UM Catalog
(2015):
In accordance with the mission of the University of Montana- Missoula, these [general
education] objectives are to develop competent and humane individuals who are
informed, ethical, literate, and engaged citizens of local and global communities.
Students should become acquainted with issues facing contemporary society,
participate in the creative arts, develop an understanding of science and technology,
cultivate an appreciation of the humanities, and examine the history of different
American and global cultures.
UM iLab Articulated Institutional Commitment Subcommittee | Final Report
9
6. Does the institution have an institutional internationalization strategy? If so,
what are its main components?
No information on an institutional internationalization strategy was identified.
7. How does this strategy take into account the institution’s mission, history, and
nature of the student body?
N/A
8. How does the institution assess its progress in achieving its goals?
Entities contacted: Academic Officers

Summary of AO responses:
o
o
o
Institutional Assessment Report reports progress on a few campus-wide goals based
on data collected from the Office for Academic Enrichment, the Global Leadership
Initiative, and the Office for International Programs
Departmental newsletters are a good source of information for what has been done
over the past year
OIP, FSSS newsletters
In general, the 2014 Institutional Assessment Report does not include sufficient information to
display the progress of UM’s internationalization efforts, but related details of the report are
below.
2014 Institutional Assessment Report:
Partnering for student success: study abroad experiences, faculty participation in
international exchanges
Education for the global century: new faculty in political science, 85% retention rate for
students in the GLI program, high rankings in Peace Corps volunteers
Dynamic learning environment: students received Critical Language Scholarships,
Fulbright awards, intercultural interest sections in residence halls
9. What financial resources does the institution provide for internationalization?
Examples include support for curriculum development; faculty international
travel and research; students’ study- or work-abroad opportunities;
UM iLab Articulated Institutional Commitment Subcommittee | Final Report
10
infrastructure (such as library holdings, technology, or language labs); and cocurricular programs.
Entities contacted: Academic Officers, Administration and Finance, FSSS, UM Foundation

Summary of AO responses:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

Summary of Administration and Finance responses:
o
o

Student recruitment and support activities are funded through UM – OSS has 2
academic advisors who work with international students; last year responsibility for
international recruitment (and budget) transferred from Admissions to OIP.
FSSS, HRS, and OIP support international activity on campus
Faculty exchanges funding
CHS has an endowed fund for student international experiences. Goal is to make it
grow substantially, allowing faculty to develop more experiences for students.
GLI has donor funds to support student travel.
DHC has donor funds to support student travel.
Student travel funds; faculty professional enhancement program
Faculty and staff can learn languages on campus (UM employees can take classes
inexpensively)
Library covers registration fee for library staff and faculty. Hosted the Montana
Academic Symposium this year with a number of international speakers from China,
Belgium, Canada, Mexico, who paid their own way to come here.
Since last July, search platform implemented amongst Montana libraries – when
travelling abroad they can search for library materials from abroad. Library provides
technology infrastructure to support learning and research abroad.
UM has affiliate faculty in other countries who work on joint projects with UM
faculty who have access to our library resources.
Connections to UM library resources is very important for our international partners
(e.g. Ethiopia)
Language labs: LA building is going to be renovated with technology such that real
time distance learning with international partners will be possible.
The instructional piece of the budget involves most international-related efforts and
involves general funds (tuition and fees), state support, and fees assessed to
enhance internationalization efforts. State funds go to core instruction.
Faculty-led abroad programs are very costly and, in a sense, are subsidized by other
programs of the institution.
Summary of FSSS responses:
We do a lot of programming and collaboration in addition to immigration tasks – these are core
to our mission.
UM iLab Articulated Institutional Commitment Subcommittee | Final Report
11
International student fee proposal – integration of students on the campus could benefit from
this.
Cuts in fee waivers – there are 12 partial fee waivers for degree-seeking international students,
these have been instrumental to international student retention. First reaction of the President
was to do away with all the waivers. A letter from the International Coordinating Committee
was written to the President opposing this idea and some waivers will be retained, but not sure
which ones yet. This combats the notion that “all international students have money.”
Study abroad opportunities – lack of funds for these. When faculty lines cease, we don’t have
the people power to support robust study abroad.
Our office issues International Student Identification Cards (ISIC) and International Teacher
Identification Cards (ITIC). These cards carry an insurance component, phone card capabilities,
debit card ability, and discounts nationally and internationally. The ISIC main office also offers
group travel air discounts for teachers that would want to take a group of students abroad. I
have had a hard time getting this info out to faculty.
As the primary office handling immigration for the campus, we are certified to issue documents
and verify students are complying with immigration standards that they must maintain. Because
we are authorized by SEVIS, Dept. of Homeland Security, we need to maintain training and
knowledge in regulations. Some of this training is obtained through attendance at NAFSA
Conferences and Town Hall Presentations.

Summary of UM Foundation responses:
Funding from external sources that has come through the Foundation for international activity
over the last three years All but one of the funds is endowed so there haven’t been many
contributions over the past 3 years: FY 15 = $2, 750 ; FY 14 = $13,120 ; FY 13 = $100. The 3
year average is $5,323. Over the past 5 years, the total of contributions to these scholarship
funds is $124,436. Over the past 10 years it is $171,821
10. Does the institution have a fund-raising strategy for internationalization? How
is it aligned with the overall institutional fund-raising strategy?
Entities contacted: UM Foundation

Summary of UM Foundation responses:
UM Foundation does try to fundraise for GLI – mixed results. Time will tell.
Short term international experiences seem to UMF CEO to be lacking in what a semester abroad,
alone, can be. Harder to get donors enthused about 2 wk vacation to Italy with the same kids
and teacher from UM vs. immersion in Italian university/society.
UM iLab Articulated Institutional Commitment Subcommittee | Final Report
12
11. What is the balance between internal and external funding sources for
internationalization? Has this funding increased, decreased, or remained the
same during the last five years? 10 years?
Entities contacted: Academic Officers, Administration and Finance, Provost's Office

Summary of AO responses:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Difficult to answer that question without quantifying question 9.
No question that external funding has increased. New scholarship opportunities and
money coming in from external sources.
Internal is mixed bag. Some areas have decreased but there are some new initiatives.
Five years ago the GPH program began. Before that there was no money put into it and
now we spend money on that program. Other programs are down, so I don’t know
where we come out internally.
CHPBS has put a fair amount of designated funds into internationalization – organic,
faculty who want to lead student groups abroad. Have put about $15-20K per year to
student, faculty development support. Would be hesitant to start specific fund for
international travel, it would be gone fast. Internationalization can be promoted without
doing this –structure and assessment for internationalization need to be developed. If
we have the money, and we sometimes do, then we fund student travel abroad because
they are great experiences. E.g. physical therapy students going to Southeast Asia to
learn eastern techniques.
Do faculty apply for external federal support to develop international
programs/curriculum? Last year Library got $50K National Leadership Grant for
electronic research to document Irish-American experience in Rocky Mountain Region.
Library continues to shift from print to electronic resources – greater access. W. Walker
and ScholarWorks (UM’s open access repository) promotes and makes accessible UM
faculty and student publications to people everywhere. Internationalization through
digitalization?
5-year grant for exchange between Law faculty and Kyrgyzstan – Law has applied for
more and hasn’t gotten them. You have to have someone who has the time to find and
apply for the grants. There is no money for that right now.
Continuing flow of money for programs from outside – CFC programs in ZA, Brazil and
Bhutan have been continually supported by the USFS. MacArthur grants. CoEHS is doing
far more international activity too – how to quantify faculty and staff time invested in
this?
Identifying most meaningful partnerships and focusing on those
Cross-college partnerships? Ed and CHS, International Development program brings
together people from multiple colleges; Climate Change studies, Global Public Health as
well.
Should we be able to quantify these things?
o Yes, but you’ll have to make a lots of estimates. There’s nothing wrong with
guessing, but make informed guesses. Count easy metrics and then estimate the
rest.
UM iLab Articulated Institutional Commitment Subcommittee | Final Report
13
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

We could do a better job of quantifying sabbaticals and faculty professional
enhancement program activity abroad
Chairs know the answer to that – (CHPBS)
Without being centralized, it’s a scavenger hunt. We need systematic gathering
of this information. Is there a way to automatically send this information to OIP?
How to measure increases or decreases if we don’t do this?
It’s definitely grown. Numbers easy to get (SOBA)
Responsibility for internationalization is among all of us. Precursor was “travel”.
Many examples of increase. Curriculum and scholarship have grown
Anecdotal: Irish-American studies project in the library. Our partner at U Cork,
Ireland, contribute archival materials, at no cost. Irish Scholar – the time
contributed beyond travel is not taken into acct.
Direct investment/indirect investment.
More international faculty are hired. This is a great contribution to UM over
time.
Law school China program is entirely student funded (out of student tuition). No
question that there is an increase in students who want to do that. Cork
students have visited UMSL – UMSL looking for ways to increase students sent
to Cork.
Baucus institute under development will contribute to internationalization.
Instead of trying to go back, just enumerate what’s been initiated in the last 5
years that is international. Track things forward rather than backwards.
We need to take into account what we subtract as well as additions.
Perry mentioned growth of programs in Chile
Summary of A&F responses:
There is a heavy margin on external funding vs. state funding. Resources have changed
drastically over the past 20 years - we're much more welcoming (e.g. the International House;
UM pays the bill for the House). Evolution takes time, but we're moving in the right direction as
resources and services have improved.
International student tuition waivers have a place - mostly need-based situations - but waivers
are essentially a supply and demand driven issue. They are used as recruiting tools. We should
consider a tuition rate for international students and use waivers to return to normal nonresident rates.

Summary of Provost's Office responses:
o
o
o
o
We don’t account for money in terms of internationalization. For international
activities, we haven’t seen substantial increases.
Over 5 years or so, there have been some increases, such as various positions. [The
lack of more positions and position expansions is] largely a result of the general
budget situation.
GLI funding is entirely external funding. Other external funding examples: southern
Africa, Brazil, Bhutan, etc.
External funding for international-related efforts has definitely increased.
UM iLab Articulated Institutional Commitment Subcommittee | Final Report
14
o
o
o
o
o
o
As a proportion of the whole, internal funding has decreased.
Sabbaticals – full year paid at 75%, half-year paid at 50%, plus backfill costs. Pairing
sabbaticals with external funding sources is common (Fulbright, etc.).
It’s difficult to get through administrative functions pertaining to international
efforts (registry for travel, purchasing, travel agreements, Visas, etc.). These are
often dictated by federal and/or state policy. Get foreign nationals to work here can
also be challenging. Delays in hiring often occur resulting in frustration.
One of the reasons we chose to discuss Education for the Global Century [in the UM
Strategic Plan] was to purposefully be more holistic than “international” alone
because “international” is only a part of broader global concepts (disease, economy,
etc.).
Courses offered, both through UM and MOLLI, are other articulated commitments
of sorts.
If we had greater state support to fund efforts internally, we could do a lot more.
12. How well do institutional resources align with institutional goals? What are the
most important targets for future investment?
Entities contacted: Academic Officers, Administration and Finance

Summary of AO responses:
o
o

Without quantifying resources it is difficult to answer these questions.
Important targets: Languages, International and Global Studies major, study abroad,
admin support to manage programs, revisit the cultural approach within Gen Ed.,
hiring international faculty.
Summary of A&F responses:
Institutional resources align very well with institutional values, not necessarily goals. Our goals
are additive. That is, our top priority seems to be to maintain status quo of programs, but if we
receive additional funding, we can invest in new efforts. Perhaps a more meaningful question is
do our goals reflect our values. Institutional values haven't caught up with the Strategic Plan
and its underlying goals.
13. What policies or practices (related to this subcommittee) hinder
internationalization efforts at this institution?
Entities contacted: Academic Officers, Administration and Finance

Summary of AO responses:
UM iLab Articulated Institutional Commitment Subcommittee | Final Report
15
Policies and process to hire an international faculty member. Communication and collaboration
among different departments and units (Perry). Physical geography of faculty causes fractions
(Chris); it is a problem of all university campuses in the US.

Summary of A&F responses:
The resource base in general hinders internationalization efforts. The culture is somewhat of a
hindrance. Some people really value internationalization and multicultural competence. Some
folks just aren't interested and see it as a resource drain (e.g. Montana Legislature).
UM iLab Articulated Institutional Commitment Subcommittee | Final Report
16
References
International Student Brochure. Retrieved from
http://issuu.com/umtinternationalprograms/docs/umt_international_programs_internat
Mansfield Center Defense Critical Language and Culture Program website. Retrieved from
http://www.umt.edu/mansfield/dclcp/default.php
Office of International Programs website. Retrieved from
http://www.umt.edu/international-programs/about-oip.php
University of Montana Admissions website. Retrieved from
http://admissions.umt.edu/experience-um/um-days.php
University of Montana Strategic Plan. UM 2020: Building a University for the Global Century.
Retrieved from
http://www.umt.edu/planningassessmentcontinuum/docs/UM_Strategic_Plan.pdf
UM iLab Articulated Institutional Commitment Subcommittee | Final Report
17
Appendix F3: Collaboration and Partnerships Subcommittee Report
123
PARTNERSHIPS AND
COLLABORATIONS
F
FINAL REPORT TO
STEERING COMMITTEE
During spring semester 2015, the Collaboration and Partnership
Subcommittee collected information about internationalization efforts at
UM. These questions were guided by the document, “Questions to Guide
the Internationalization Review.”
6/30/2015
Collaboration and Partnerships
Collaboration and Partnerships
FINAL REPORT TO STEERING COMMITTEE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Collaboration and Partnerships subcommittee began its assessment by gathering relevant
data and by collecting information from all constituent programs. The executive summary
concisely summarizes the methods and results of the review, and a more thorough description of
the methods and results follow under “Data Collection Methods and Results” (pg4). A key element
of the review was to identify the strengths, challenges, and opportunities associated with
collaboration and partnerships at UM. That analysis follows:
Current strengths of collaboration and partnerships include:
• A university mission which focuses on providing unique educational experiences through
the integration of the liberal arts, graduate study, and professional training with international
and interdisciplinary emphases.
• A motivated, entrepreneurial, research-oriented faculty with recognized research expertise
and facilities, established scholarly reputations and research networks that can be
leveraged in the development of complex global partnerships. UM faculty members have
significant international experiences: traveling/presenting at international conferences,
participating in a myriad of scholarly activities, and hosting international guests.
• UM provides a structure, the Office of International Programs, for students to experience
varied study abroad opportunities.
• A designated Associate Provost for Global Century Education who has experience
developing complex partnerships.
Page 1
Collaboration and Partnerships
Challenges to the development of partnerships and collaborations
include:
• Lack of an articulated strategy for internationalization linked to university strategic goals.
• Narrow Understanding/Expectations of Partnerships and Collaborations. Most
stakeholders hold a relatively narrow understanding and definition of “global engagement”
that rarely extends beyond student mobility. There is a lack of awareness of the potential
outcomes of an intentional, coordinated strategy for global partnerships.
• Culture of the State, region and institution. Montana is still a relatively homogenous state
with a similarly inward focused culture. UM’s institutional culture continues to focus on its
public research mission and its strong commitment to the students, with very limited
recognition of global engagement as a contribution to that endeavor.
• Lack of institutional recognition for international activities and the development of
partnerships. Little is done to incentivize or recognize faculty or administrators for their
accomplishments in this area. Faculty perceive conflicting messages related to
international collaborations from the administration, being encouraged to engage in
activities like developing and leading study abroad programs and hosting scholars, but
these activities are not rewarded in merit pay, promotion, or counted toward tenure.
• Administrative obstacles. Faculty encounter obstacles to travel internationally for research
purposes, as do their students and visitors they would like to host.
• Limited resources to support international partnerships. Financial constraints are an
objective limitation to the expansion of international programming at UM. While some
limited funding is available for faculty exchange programs, short-term faculty and staff
exchange programs, study abroad programs, and other programs that aide in the
development and expansion of our collaborative global efforts remain unfunded. Resources
are scarce, and are hardly adequate to support international expansion for UM. The major
source of funding for faculty exchanges is derived from general funds to the Provost’s
Office. This model stresses that the effort to build partnerships has no adequate source of
Page 2
Collaboration and Partnerships
funding, other than the general budget allowed to the Provost’s Office, which has been
declining every year.
Opportunities to further UM’s international collaborative efforts
include:
• Expand current study abroad programming to diversify geographic destination and
increase participation from underrepresented populations.
• Intentionally integrate study abroad experiences into student learning, thus increasing the
percentage of students who study abroad. These students can then return to UM and
enrich the experiences of students who are unable to study in another country.
•A limited number of carefully identified international partnerships could help UM focus its
resources on partnerships that offer the best opportunities to enhance the teaching,
research, and service components of UM’s mission.
In summary, existing partnership activities at UM while relatively widespread do not represent any
complex, coordinated strategies. International and institutional partnerships have to date been
motivated by narrowly defined objectives and the outcomes or impact of these have been limited.
These types of partnerships do not meet the University of Montana’s potential.
The University of Montana is positioned to build meaningful and transformational partnerships and
initiatives that would have an impact across all aspects of the university and to build foundations
for faculty to engage with partners around the globe in mutually beneficial teaching, research, and
service activities.
The Collaboration and Partnership subcommittee recommends:
• Developing an institutional approach to partnerships and collaborations: The University’s
approach to partnerships should be one that serves the collective strategies of the
University, promotes synergies, shares best practices, and leverages more powerful
outcomes.
Page 3
Collaboration and Partnerships
• Fund, incentivize and recognize efforts and successes in developing partnerships, and
global research and teaching initiatives. In addition to UM’s limited general funding of faculty
exchanges, alternative tracks should be explored to bring private financial support to these
international activities, developing philanthropic relationships to support international
partnerships and activities, such as International Alumni Network, corporate research
funding, joint international grants or EB5 Investment Treaty visas.
• Creating faculty incentives for leadership in internationalization, such as revising faculty
promotion and tenure guidelines.
• Establish a long-term engagement strategy which details UM’s countries of strategic
priority for future partnerships and university collaborations.
• Create and maintain a comprehensive inventory and database on the international
activities of faculty and staff, including its alumni.
DATA COLLECTION METHODS AND GENERAL RESULTS
The Collaboration and Partnership Subcommittee collected existing information in the
Collaboration and Partnerships portion of the internationalization review. Once this aspect of the
review was completed, members of the Collaboration and Partnership Subcommittee collected
new information from academic officers, faculty, and staff to supplement and complement the
information that was currently available. The results from these groups are summarized in
subsequent sections of this report. The Collaboration and Partnership Subcommittee was unable
to review the complete an analysis of the employee and student survey; however, this report does
contain a summary of responses from the two student focus groups that were completed during
spring semester 2015.
This section of the internationalization review contains only the most pertinent information collected
by the Collaboration and Partnership Subcommittee. This information is organized within the major
categories from the “Questions to Guide the Internationalization Review” for Collaboration and
Partnerships.
Page 4
Collaboration and Partnerships
The Local, State, and Broader Environments for Internationalization
1. Question: Does the institutions location facilitate certain kinds of international interactions
with a particular region or region? What local organizations or businesses have strong
international ties? Are they focused on a particular part of the globe?
Data collection: Missoula Area Chamber of Commerce; City of Missoula – Mayor’s Office;
City of Missoula – Development Services, Business Licensing; Sustainable Business
Council of Montana; Missoula Economic Partnership; Missoula Cultural Council.
Summary of Findings: In order to best understand the international interactions that the
University of Montana has with particular regions and the depth of its international ties to the
community, one must understand the history of Missoula.
Missoula began as a trading post in the 1860s, situated along the Mullan Military Road as
the first route across the Bitterroot Mountains to the plains of Eastern Washington. Missoula
received county seat designation in 1866 and the construction of Fort Missoula in 1877
ensured Missoula's status as a regional commercial center. This status was further united
in 1883 with the arrival of the Northern Pacific Railway. When the railway began expanding
again in 1898, increased freight shipments came through the city, and with the arrival of
the Milwaukee Road and regional office for the U.S. Forest Service.
Lumber mills profited from an increase in demand from railroad expansion and the nation at
large. The Bonner Mill, partly owned by both the Northern Pacific Railroad and Copper
King Marcus Daly grew to become the largest producer of lumber in the northwest. In 1908,
Missoula helped land the city the regional office for the newly establish U.S. Forest Service,
created to help manage the nation's timber supply. Over the next century, Missoula's
various lumber industries would be consolidated under various entities such as
the Anaconda Company and Champion International Paper through the 1980s until most
were under control of Plum Creek Timber. In 2007 a downward spiral of Missoula's lumber
industry began with the closure of a plywood plant in Bonner, followed by the closure of
Page 5
Collaboration and Partnerships
Bonner's sawmill the next year, and finally the closing of the Smurfit-Stone Container pulp
mill in early 2010.
Since opening in 1895, the University of Montana has had a major impact on the
development of Missoula's economy. In addition to the economic advantage from
accommodating the student body it gave the city an educated workforce that was not
available in most of the state. The university today has a very close relationship with the
city as Missoula's largest employer and with the millions of dollars the school brings into the
city through visitor of school-sponsored sporting and cultural events. The university also
houses Missoula's only business incubator, the Montana Technology Enterprise Center
(MonTEC), and several start-up businesses.
Beyond timber and education, Missoula's economic mainstay has been of one as a regional
trade center. Key businesses sectors serving the area include health care, retail shopping,
transportation, financial services, government/social services, education, events, arts and
culture. Health care in particular is one of Missoula's fastest growing industries
with Providence Health Services - St. Patrick Hospital and the Community Medical Center.
Overall, 55% of employment in Missoula is made up of the service and retail sectors. Export
industries are concentrated in forestry/logging/wood related industries, civil engineering,
construction, beverage production, technical services, and truck transportation.
Additionally, with nearly 4 million out-of-state visitors annually, tourism makes up a
significant aspect of the Missoula economy.
Missoula has two sister cities, Neckargemünd, Germany, and Palmerston North, New
Zealand. Informally, the Missoula Cultural Council also fosters international connections
with: St. Malo, France; Beaune, France; Date City, Japan; Kumamoto, Japan; and South
Armagh, Northern Ireland.
UM’s immediate environment from which it draws its students suggests strong connections
with Japan, Brazil, China, and Saudi Arabia. UM’s location facilitates certain kinds of
international connections, with copper and precious metals in drawing international mining
interests, and the U.S. Forest Service provides international opportunities for forestry and
conservation research.
Page 6
Collaboration and Partnerships
The University of Montana is home to a number of internationally recognized centers that
have strong international ties and connections, including Bolle' Center (Forestry);Maureen
and Mike Mansfield Center (Asia & the Pacific Rim);Center for the Rocky Mountain
West (Regional Studies); Montana World Trade Center (Global Trade & Business);
Wilderness Institute (Wilderness Research & Education); Forest and Conservation
Experiment Station (Forestry); Biotechnology Center (Biological Research); Numerical
Terra-dynamic Simulation Group (Global Climate Change); Rural Institute (Disability
Education, Research & Service); Center for Biomolecular Structure and Dynamics (basic
and biomedical sciences); Center for Environmental Health Sciences (Biomedical and
Pharmaceutical Science); The National Center for Landscape Fire Analysis (Forestry).
Engagement with Institutions Abroad
1. Question: Does the institution have an overall strategy for international partnerships? If so,
what does it address? How well is it working?
Data collection: Maureen and Mike Mansfield Center; International Committee; Foreign
Student and Scholar Services; International Programs; Office for University Planning,
Budgeting and Analysis
Summary of Findings: International Partnerships are part of UM’s vision, mission, and
goals. The University of Montana- Missoula’s Strategic Goal “Education for the Global
Century” includes general wording about partnerships, but there is no overall strategy. The
strategic goal states:
“UM will offer an educational experience at all degree levels that provide graduates
the foundation to make positive impacts on a world that is increasingly
interconnected. The University’s Academic Strategic Plan, endorsed by the Faculty
Senate in 2009, identified the need to create a gateway-to-discovery experience
focused on the challenges of the global century for all incoming students at each
level of postsecondary education. At the same time, the University recognizes the
need to support and strengthen foundational academic programs. For all students,
curricula will focus on producing workers and leaders who make a difference in the
cultural and economic fabric of Montana and the world.”
Page 7
Collaboration and Partnerships
Additionally, the Strategic Plan of the University of Montana, “UM 2020: Building a
University for the Global Century” also details the strategic issue of a dynamic learning
environment that engages partnerships locally and worldwide by gauging the value through
review of distinctive programs, including outstanding athletic, cultural and entertainment
opportunities, as well as engage local to worldwide partnerships and connect programs to
UM’s unique location.
2. Question: Does the institution regularly evaluate its partnerships? If so, what criteria are
used? What have recent evaluations revealed? What actions have been taken as a result?
Data collection: Maureen and Mike Mansfield Center; International Committee; Foreign
Student and Scholar Services; International Programs;
Summary of Findings: Yes, partnership agreements are signed for 3 to 5 years and are
reviewed in advance to their agreement expiration. Prior to 2014, UM did not regularly or
systematically evaluate its partnerships and other agreements were informally evaluated.
In 2014 the International Committee began reviewing and modifying the partnership
agreements with overseas universities and has concentrated its effort to clarify and
streamline the Memorandum of Understanding and overseas partnership process. A
thorough evaluation by the International Committee reveals whether the partnership falls
short of the expectations set forth in the initial agreement and the proposal. If failure is
identified, one of the following courses of action is taken:
(1) In the event that unforeseen problems or other circumstances have arisen which
dictate that continuing the institutional relationship is not likely to be productive or
sustainable, the relationship will not be renewed. (2) If there is a reasonable
expectation that the situation can be improved, the program advocate(s) from the
UM campus community will be invited to an International Committee meeting to
discuss and support the case for continuation of the partnership. If renewed by the
International Committee, these partnerships will be evaluated again in three years.
Page 8
Collaboration and Partnerships
In concentrating its efforts in this regard, the goal is to create beneficial and rigorous
partnerships for the University, thus eliminating partnerships that are ineffective and have
no benefits to UM. Too many partnerships reduce the ability to focus on and support more
productive relationships. Recent evaluation of UM’s partnerships have revealed a lack of
activity with the institution (students, faculty, research), an imbalance with student
exchanges, the inability of the institution to deal with a student support situation, and unsafe
conditions in the host country. As a result of these revelations, agreements have either
been terminated or recommended for renewal every three years (as opposed to a five year
agreement).
3. Question: Does the institution have an inventory of partnerships throughout the institution?
In what form? To whom is it available? How is it used?
Data collection: Maureen and Mike Mansfield Center; International Committee;
International Programs; Office for University Planning, Budgeting and Analysis
Summary of Findings: An inventory of partnerships throughout the institution is housed in
the Office of International Programs using Access but is a simple collection of data. This
database is located in the shared files drive of the Office of International Programs (OIP).
All OIP employees have access to the database and this information can be used to
prepare and obtain reports on partnerships for the International Committee, and allows for
the sharing of information with university faculty and staff when inquiring about the activities
of a specific partnership. None of UM’s schools/colleges report having an overall strategy
for partnerships, but all have international connections. No other institutional data exists or
is compiled regarding university partnerships.
Additionally, the Office of International Programs website also contains a list of UM’s
institutional partnerships. General information on criteria for partnerships can also be found
on this the Office of International Programs website about how to pursue partnerships, but
there is no UM specific strategy for doing so.
Page 9
Collaboration and Partnerships
4. Question: Does the institution have criteria for deciding whether to pursue potential
partnerships? How well do they work?
Data collection: International Programs
Summary of Findings: Yes, proposed partnerships must have at least one advocate who is
a University of Montana full-time tenured or tenured-track faculty member or administrator
at the level of dean, director, or higher. The advocate must have a working knowledge of
the candidate partner institution and must agree to serve as the point of contact for
questions regarding the proposed partnership.
Faculty members or administrators who are interested in exploring the possibility of an
overseas institutional relationship are requested to consult with the Office of International
Programs to discuss their ideas and draft a proposal that will be submitted to the
International Committee. The proposals must address the following criteria:
1. The units on campus that would benefit from the establishment of a formal
partnership. The advocate must demonstrate that the significant academic merit and
institutional compatibility exist to establish a formal long-term relationship;
2. A clear endorsement of the proposal by affected units at the level of Dean or
Director;
3. A list of expected outcomes from the partnership and timeline for activity involving
students or faculty or both;
4. Evidence that the partnership will strengthen research, teaching, or other scholastic
activity and will substantially enhance existing student and/or faculty opportunities at
UM. Proposed partnership should provide significant new opportunities to UM
faculty and students, particularly if UM already has agreements in place with other
universities from the same country of the same region;
5. A discussion of the financial ramifications of establishing a formal agreement.
The International Committee also looks at the overall reputation (university ranking),
language of instruction (classes offered in English?), student/faculty housing, safety, and
international student support.
Page 10
Collaboration and Partnerships
By instituting the above criteria, the International Committee is able to identify whether a
partnership is worth pursuing. This is a huge improvement over earlier criteria, which was
largely conducted on an individual basis by faculty and staff, and has provided for a
coordinated strategy for this activity.
5. Question: To what extent does the institution engage in student, faculty, and staff
exchange? Do the institution's study-abroad programs facilitate such exchanges?
Data collection: Maureen and Mike Mansfield Center; International Committee; Foreign
Student and Scholar Services; International Programs;
Summary of Findings: UM offers study abroad, internships, fieldwork, research and service
learning in a variety of capacities.
Student Exchanges: Though its own programs, and affiliate campuses, the Office of
International Programs offers students two exchange program opportunities – Partner
Exchange University Program and the International Student Exchange Program (ISEP).
With the Partner Exchange Program, there are 60 universities in 26 countries that students
can choose from and 162 universities in 55 countries through ISEP), but students are not
limited to these programs and may elect other options.
Faculty Exchanges: Each year the Provost’s Office announces a Call for Proposals for
faculty long-term international activity program funding (formerly faculty exchange).
Prospective applicants complete a comprehensive application and are asked to indicate if
the requested exchange will be carried out in conjunction with a sabbatical. Proposals are
evaluated on the following criteria:
1. Anticipated impact upon teaching and/or UM curricular development as
measured by pedagogical enrichment, course proposals, syllabi changes, thesis
or dissertation supervision, and related outputs.
2. Anticipated impact upon scholarship, research and/or creative activities at UM as
measured by refereed publications, grant proposals, contracts, presentations, or
opportunities for collaboration with and mentoring of undergraduate and graduate
students.
Page 11
Collaboration and Partnerships
3. Anticipated service to the UM campus community as measure by local articles,
speeches, presentations, performances, guest lectures, and related public
outreach contributions as well as the potential for the exchange to enhance
institutional partnerships for UM.
4. Anticipated impact on the host community (or communities) as measured by
teaching, local, articles, speeches, presentations, performances, guest lectures,
and related public outreach contributions as well as the potential for the
exchange to enhance institutional partnerships for UM in the host county (or
countries).
5. If relevant, articulation of impacts, outcomes and products generated by previous
Long-Term International Activity Awards/Faculty Exchange Awards.
Once evaluated by the International Committee, a recommendation report is made to the
Provost. The Provost’s Office has explicit approval in awarding faculty exchange awards.
Staff Exchanges: Almost all of UM’s exchange agreements include a staff exchange
component and the process to apply is the same as that for faculty, including the review by
the International Committee. Funding for staff exchanges was discontinued in FY14;
however, funding to staff exchanges has always been a challenge and institutional funding
for staff exchanges has always been very limited.
As a result of UM’s exchange efforts, several faculty members have taken advantage of
UM’s institutional contracts and have hosted their faculty directed program at our partner
institutions, including, Modern and Classical Languages and Literatures (Mexico & Chile),
School of Journalism (Chile). There is significant potential to increase exchange
opportunities and promote programs that are mutually beneficial to UM faculty.
6. Question: To what extent do faculty members engage in collaborative research and
development cooperation with faculty at institutions in other countries?
Data collection: Maureen and Mike Mansfield Center; International Committee; Foreign
Student and Scholar Services; International Programs; Provost’s Office
Page 12
Collaboration and Partnerships
Summary of Findings: The level of faculty engagement abroad varies widely across
campus and often depends on its program. Math, Forestry and Conservation, Humanities
and Sciences, and Visual and Performing Arts tend to have high levels of research and
collaboration. The number of applications for faculty long-term international activity
increases each year, however, the funding and award amount has decreased yearly for the
past five years, with AY2007-2008 being at its height of funding (11 awardees funded a total
of $148,000).
Furthermore, there is a significant amount of research and cooperation by UM’s faculty and
colleges in other countries. A distinction was made between collaborations that are
institutional versus individual. A significant number of individual collaborations exist on
UM’s campus, especially in the regions of Asia, Latin America, and Africa, as field site
research occurs more frequently in these locations than in academic institutions. While no
concrete data exists, it was suggested that 75% of the current collaborations that exist at
UM are based on individual collaborations that are short term/temporary and are based one
joint research project/publication. 25% was offered as the rough estimate for the
percentage of institutional collaborations outside the US. (Data from the employee survey
was not available at the time to completely analyze this question.)
7. Question: What effect do partnerships have on student international learning on campus?
Data collection: Maureen and Mike Mansfield Center; International Committee; Foreign
Student and Scholar Services; International Programs; Provost’s Office
Summary of Findings: Exchange Programs and Partnerships have an indirect effect on
student international and intercultural learning on campus, however they do enhance study
abroad and faculty exchange opportunities. UM students and faculty returning to campus
help to internationalize the curriculum by sharing experiences, incorporating international
perspectives in the classroom and in the campus community, and through international
students and faculty interactions with UM students and faculty. Many students who arrive at
UM and hope to study abroad do not do so. There is a perception that the cost of study
abroad is high and that studying leads to added time to graduation.
Page 13
Collaboration and Partnerships
Partnerships help students think beyond the borders of the classroom and the local
community. The Provost’s Office funds exchange program operations through general
funds; these partnerships are generally sustainable because there is the commitment from
the institution to continue the collaborations. Individual departments, collegiate units and
faculty partnerships are largely dependent for funding the individuals initiating them and the
support that the academic unit provides for them.
8. Question: How does the institution fund its partnerships? How sustainable are the existing
partnerships?
Data collection: Foreign Student and Scholar Services; International Programs; Provost’s
Office Summary of Findings: Currently, there is no funding allocated for partnerships and
they are largely determined by a faculty’s interest in a particular region, country, or
university. The sustainability of UM partnerships remains a concern. Currently, UM has 90
partnerships, of which 60 have a student exchange component added to them. The
partnerships that include student exchanges are sustainable as student interest remains
high and there are no institutional funding commitments tied to them. UM needs to
restructure its partnership process to ensure that all of UM’s partnerships are not solely
student or research focused. Additionally, UM could build on a foundation of supporting
visiting scholars by inviting more scholars to campus and including a residency component.
Structure, Policies and Practices, Resources
1. Question: What policies or practices related to collaboration and partnerships hinder
internationalization efforts as this institution?
Data collection: Missoula Area Chamber of Commerce; City of Missoula – Mayor’s Office;
City of Missoula – Development Services, Business Licensing; Sustainable Business
Council of Montana; Missoula Economic Partnership; Missoula Cultural Council; Maureen
and Mike Mansfield Center; International Committee; Foreign Student and Scholar
Services; International Programs; Office for University Planning, Budgeting and Analysis
Page 14
Collaboration and Partnerships
Summary of Findings: Overwhelming, the consensus from each data collection group was
that there was a significant lack of funding to develop, support, and formalize institutional
and individuals partnerships (joint conferences, joint degrees, joint research, campus visits,
seed funding for faculty directed programs, etc.).
Collaboration and Partnerships Subcommittee report submitted by:
□
□
□
□
□
□
Nancy Gass, Subcommittee Chair, Associate Director for Comprehensive Internationalization, Office of
International Programs (also Task Force Co-chair)
Keith Bosak, College of Forestry and Conservation
Jillian Campana, College of Visual and Performing Arts
Abraham Kim, Director, Maureen and Mike Mansfield Center (also member of Steering Committee)
Samuel Panarella, Assistant Professor, School of Law (also member of Task Force)
Sandy Ross, Graduate School
Page 15
Appendix F4: Curriculum, Co-Curriculum, and Learning Outcomes Subcommittee
Report
140
Curriculum, Co-Curriculum and Learning Outcomes
Final Report to Steering Committee
I.
Data Analysis
Strengths
 There has been a significant increase in UM international student population, especially since 2012
as indicated in (International Students at the University of Montana, 2013 Report). This provides
potential for greater domestic student exposure to their international peer, enhancing their
educational experience. It also has the added benefit of higher tuition dollars per international
student for UM.
 UM does a good job of engaging the community in international events, programs and activities.
 UM has a number of units with a successful record of international activities and engagement,
including the Global Leadership Initiative and Mansfield Center. We should look for ways to foster
similar program success in other areas.
 UM’s foreign language offerings are impressive but underutilized as a source of strength for moving
curriculum internationalization forward on our campus.
Weaknesses:
 Limited strategies are in place to help domestic students learn from international students e.g.,
Global Partners and Conversation Partners.
 Institutional learning outcomes have not been identified for internationalization / what skills,
knowledge, and abilities should we teach our future “global citizens” (e.g., intercultural
competence).
 UM has quite a few academic minors/certificates programs that relate to the international area but
lacks a major in international or global studies, and there is not good collaboration among the
existing programs.
 Transferability of credits is a challenge and a problem both for UM students studying abroad and for
foreign students wishing to transfer credits to UM. It is not clear how to go through that process
with the registrar’s office. At some other schools, there is in the registrar’s office an interdisciplinary
liaison that provides support with study abroad requirements and transfer of credits. Currently,
every department does it in a different way. A lot of time is invested in advising the students in
terms of transferability of credits – not clear what the guidelines are, if they should be uniform or
department-specific.
 Collaboration is not always expected, rewarded, or practiced among various programs on campus.
Opportunities:
 Be the “go to” MUS institution for an international experience (here and abroad). UM could be the
most diverse community in Montana / creating opportunities for MT students to learn to be “global
citizens”.
 We can increase attendance and engagement at international events, by connecting these event(s)
to the curriculum. For example, GLI requires attendance at certain events.
1

There is greater potential for growth in study-abroad participation by UM students. These programs
are preferred by many students, and especially by their parents, due to the apparent greater sense
of oversight and safety of students in foreign lands compared to the usual ‘exchange’ or studentinitiated study abroad programs.
Challenges:
 Resource scarcity both real and perceived, are hampering internationalization efforts. The
continuing erosion of our resource base and funding limitation make it difficult to move forward and
also endanger the programs we already have in place in the international area.
 Study-abroad courses are expensive, requiring at a minimum airfares and extra room/board
expenses, in addition to possible tuition differentials. Without other sources of funds, many
(especially Montana) students will not opt for such programs. Second, the relationship of contact
hours to course credits typically imposed for on-campus courses does not work well for short,
intensive-immersion courses like most faculty-led study abroad courses. The result is that students
are asked to pay a significant premium (see above) for what often turns out to be relatively few
credits, further discouraging participation. Third, legal and safety concerns have prompted recent
growth in the bureaucratic processes required to gain approval for faculty-led courses. While these
regulations can be justified on several grounds (liability, health insurance and risk management), the
rationale for each of them is not always made clear and some consider them insufficient even as
they stand. In any case, the burden of conforming to them is currently placed on individual faculty
members, and the increased workload of these regulations, on top of the already-high additional
non-contact-hour investment in such courses, have some faculty seriously considering dropping
existing courses in the near future.
 For international students, there is a significant dependence on a small number of academic
disciplines. Five areas accounted for 76% of enrollments in 2013 (International Students at the
University of Montana, 2013 Report).
Recommendations:
 Create a central clearing house for all the international activities and events that take place on
campus. We need to have better communication, coordination and integration of such activities so
everyone can take advantage of the events. The challenge is how all the activities are communicated
to students, members of the campus and surrounding community. If these folks do not know about
them they won’t attend or participate, or if there are several competing international events
attendance will be low as numbers are spilt up. We have somewhat of information overload and,
even, opportunity overload. By having a centralized clearing house for international opportunities
and activities at UM we can do a better job of coordinating and streamlining all the international
opportunities.
 Audit and inventory existing international activities and prioritize various programs with regard to
resources/allocate based on strategic priorities established.
 UM has a number of feeder programs and majors that are very attractive to incoming students,
especially international students. Many of these programs are at or near capacity and it is a
2










question and a challenge for our campus as to whether and how to increase their capacity to
accommodate increased enrollment.
Efforts must be made to increase the enrollment and critical mass of international /
underrepresented students at UM.
Hire internationally qualified faculty to help build and strengthen international programs and
activities and significantly boost UM internationalization efforts and to attract more international
students to pursue their education at our campus. There is great potential to recruit international
students (where enrollment growth is expected) and we need to be better positioned to attract
these students.
UM should implement the recommendations of the Academic Alignment and Innovation Program
(AAIP), which identified programs that have proposed the “most impactful new international
activities.” These are outlined in the AAIP report, which is forthcoming this summer.
To increase attendance and engagement at international events, the event(s) should be connected
to the curriculum. For example, GLI requires attendance at certain events. Provide incentives for
engaging in international / diversity-related programs important to students.
After students participate in Study Abroad, a re-entry workshop could be provided during
International Month on the topic of “Incorporating Study Abroad into Your Career Plan”.
The university could develop more opportunities for intercultural conversations, and outline
learning outcomes for these conversations.
Learning experiences between domestic and international students must be designed intentionally;
they must be designed to achieve predetermined learning outcomes; and the learning experiences
must be assessed regularly to determine if our strategies are effective.
Have each department (or major) develop some general guidelines as to what courses are likely to
transfer from other (non-Montana) Universities to UM (e.g., none, or only upper-division, or only as
electives, etc.); these could then be placed in the current course catalog to guide students and
departmental advisors. Even in this case, transferability of non-major credits and GenEd courses
would remain a significant challenge that would ideally be met in the registrar’s or student advising
office.
UM could do a lot more to encourage incoming students to incorporate study abroad into their
plans right away. More first-year students need to be advised to consider beginning study of a
foreign language that pairs well with their interests or likely major. Study abroad should be an early
priority and so should study of a foreign language. One of the main reasons UM students do not
participate in study abroad is that many do not think about it until sophomore or junior year, and by
then other requirements that they need for a declared major interfere and the students end up
staying in the US to finish their degree.
With regard to study-abroad courses, create a single point of contact on campus be designated (and
given sufficient FTE) to help faculty navigate, fill out, and coordinate paperwork related to carrying
out faculty-led study-abroad courses.
3
II.
Data Collection
1. To what extent are students encouraged to take courses with international content? To take
language courses? To engage in education abroad? Who provides such encouragement? How do
advisers encourage or discourage students to pursue international learning and experiences?
Units: Undergraduate Advising Center, Academic Departments
 No rules or guidance exists in regard to how international students who study at UM receive
credit for their work, such as specific benchmarks to measure and develop transferability.
Every department does it in a different way. Administration of dual degrees is a particular
challenge.
 A lot of time is invested in advising the students in terms of transferability of credits – not clear
what the guidelines are.
 It would be very helpful if clear rules were provided – there is a European model that’s
particularly helpful. It designates certain amounts of time to be spent at different institutions in
order to achieve a dual degree. That sort of specific guidance would be greatly appreciated.
 Other challenges in regard to faculty led study abroad programs include increased bureaucracy –
more and more paperwork to address liability, health insurance and risk management topics
2. To what extent is education abroad integrated into the academic major, minor, and general
education requirements? How do departmental requirements and practices encourage or
discourage international learning?
Units: Academic Departments, ASCRC, Undergraduate Advising Center
 Education abroad is integrated into several majors and minors across campus. It is particularly
prevalent in MCLL, but many other programs have study abroad as well. The internship
requirements in several disciplines encourage international learning.
3. What policies or practices (related to this subcommittee) hinder internationalization efforts at this
institution?
Units: GLI, OIP, FSSS, Student and Faculty Survey
 Get interdisciplinary courses off the ground as General Education (GE) courses. ASCRC has been
reluctant to approve them so GLI has stopped requiring that GLI course proposals apply for GE
designation.
 One challenge is how information about opportunities for out-of-classroom experience is
communicated. GLI students are required to have at least one 3-credit upper division credit
course as an internship, study abroad or service learning class.
 Create centralize international opportunities and do a better job of coordinating and
streamlining the process.
4. To what extent does the institution’s general education curriculum include international or global
content, perspectives, and different ways of knowing? What is the evidence?
Units: ASCRC and Undergraduate Advising Center
4

The General Education requirement for Indigenous and Global Perspectives is 3 credits, and
there are also requirements for Historical and Cultural Studies, Ethics and Human Values, and
American and European Perspectives (see UM 2014-2015 Catalog).
5. To what extent do academic departments attempt to internationalize majors? To what extent do
they promote or impede study abroad for students? What is the evidence? To what extent is
study abroad integrated into the academic major, minor, and general education requirements?
Units: Academic Departments, ASCRC, Student Survey
 This is somewhat repetitive of Question 1 above. One example though is that the School of
Business offers an International Business major. A second major is required in another business
functional area. Study abroad is encouraged for all business majors.
6. How rich are the opportunities for students to take courses with an international or global focus?
What international majors, minors, concentrations, certificates, and courses are offered? What do
enrollment patterns in these courses indicate about student interest over time?
Units: Registrar, Academic Enrichment, OPBA,ORCS, Peace Corps
 No response
7. Does the institution have a language requirement (for some or for all students)? Why or why not?
Is this requirement articulated in seat time or proficiency? What do enrollment patterns in
language courses reveal? What qualitative data exist about language learning at this institution?
What quantitative data?
Units: ASCRC, Registrar, MCLL
 Students at UM are required to complete a second semester of foreign language, or equivalent
“symbolic systems” requirements (see UM 2014-2015 Catalog). Language requirements differ by
major. For example, in the School of Business, the IB major has a four semester language
requirement.
 Yes, a one-year language requirement (articulated in seat time and a passing grade) was passed
and will take effect beginning in fall 2015, but it passed only after great resistance from certain
sections of the UM campus (esp natural sciences) and it is rather weak, even for a one-year
minimal requirement. This language requirement will not include any majors with a credit
requirement above 48 (thus, all the natural sciences are excluded, I think), so quite a few majors
across the UM campus will be exempt from even a one-year requirement. The somewhat
arbitrary figure of 48 credits also leaves the door open for majors to boost their respective
major requirement total in order to avoid the language requirement. Finally, a number of
entering students simply test out of this requirement and hence do not need to study a foreign
language at all. So it is a requirement, but a very weak one without teeth.
 Enrollment trends in foreign languages across the US are down at the moment (about 20% over
the last five years was what one person reported as a general trend). This trend toward lower
enrollment in foreign language classes in US colleges and universities arguably runs counter to
globalization and internationalization efforts in the US. The greater majority of students who do
5

study a foreign language opt to study Spanish (because it is easier and many students already
have some knowledge of Spanish due to their heritage); far fewer students opt to study other
foreign languages, especially those rated more difficult to learn, such as Chinese, Japanese,
Arabic and Russian. When asked why they do not study a foreign language, many students say
the class meets too frequently, interferes with other classes required for their majors, or that
the foreign language classes have far too much homework in comparison with their other
classes (many students list daily homework as a major reason for dropping their foreign
language—apparently, classes in many other majors on the UM campus do not assign
homework on a regular basis—or else, they must assign homework that can be avoided without
penalty).
Relatively little data exists about language learning at UM beyond the grades that students
receive in their classes. Apart from final exams, there are no exit tests to evaluate overall
language proficiency (nor do we feel that such tests could be objectively created—otherwise,
you would create a situation where instructors would be teaching to the test instead of teaching
to prepare students for future careers, etc). Testing is overrated and a US obsession that
arguably does more damage than help.
8. Has the institution gathered information about alumni use of language skills after graduation?
Units: Alumni Assoc. and MCLL
 Language sections have primarily only kept track of students who go on to graduate school in a
related field after graduation. For example, the Japanese and Russian section keep up a
webpage with information about recent graduates and what they are doing after graduation.
German also collects such information.
9. To what extent does pedagogy take advantage of the differing perspectives that domestic and
international students bring to campus?
Units: Faculty and Student Survey
 TBA
10. To what extent does the curriculum integrate U.S. multicultural issues with international/global
perspectives and issues
Units: OIP, FSSS, MCLL, NAS
 Yes, there are courses that integrate an international perspective. The most obvious example is
Dr. Greymorning’s 231 Indigenous World View Perspectives course and Dave’s 260 Sustainable
Indigenous Community Development class—both of which are electives. Dr. Greymorning also
teaches one of our required course, 306 Contemporary Global Issues of Indigenous Peoples
class. All three of those are international in scope. Most of our other classes are multicultural
and/or international in some sense given that they explore diverse tribal traditions and usually
include groups throughout North America.
 If by curriculum you mean Ged Ed, then there is some attempt but it is more of a grab bag than
a coherent effort at our institution
 In terms of MCLL in particular, our department mission speaks to this goal and these goals are
central to many of the courses that are offered within MCLL. Courses are generally taught
6

directly in the native language at the upper division and they often involve substantial
multicultural and international/global content, but such courses are only open to those who
have attained a high degree of language skill. It would be better if our institution made it easier
and/or offered incentives for MCLL faculty to work collaboratively across departments. MCLL
has the sense that little is done in other departments to promote the study of foreign languages
on our campus. Much more could be done if MCLL faculty could work together with their
colleagues in history, political science, creative writing, anthropology, etc. Right now it is even
quite difficult for faculty within MCLL to offer collaboratively created courses, so the system
stifles collaborative, international efforts before they can begin. But MCLL course offerings are
generally multicultural and often involve substantial international and global content.
All the courses that I teach at UM and have taught since 2005, for that matter, have always
integrated multicultural issues with international/global perspectives and issues. I developed on
average one new 3-credit, semester-long course per year, based on my pedagogical approach. In
addition, one two-week, 3-credit course offered summer/winter and one 1-credit, graduate
weekend course.
11. How is internationalization manifested in the co-curriculum (e.g., international events, festivals,
lectures, films)? To what extent do students, faculty, and staff attend these events? To what
extent does the campus host international scholars, performers, and lectures?
Units: GLI, OIP, Mansfield Center, FSSS, Academic Enrichment, Student Affairs, UC
 Student Affairs offers a diverse variety of international opportunities in the co-curriculum from
Campus Rec offering a trip to Peru through their Outdoor Program, UM Dining’s international
cuisine selections to Living Learning Communities in Residence Life and Curry Health Center
offering their staff training on cultural competency; international travel; health, immunizations,
political perspectives.
 It all depends on how well these events / lectures, etc. are communicated to students and what
incentives/encouragement are provided to them to attend (e.g., require students to attend
certain events, bonus points, etc.). International Food Festival is generally very well attended.
International week not very well attended. We may be doing too much with regard to having
too many activities and events. We do quite a bit but the challenge is how they are
communicated to students and members of the campus community. We need grassroots efforts
to consider all activities and prioritize them based on some strategic plan. We need to have
better coordination and integration.
 Speakers Bureau, International Culture & Food Festival, Global Partners Program, Field trips,
Orientation Events, International House, Volunteer opportunities and Workshops. Very few
attendees unless by invitation. Every nationality club has a faculty member advisor.
 We actually have quite a few events on our campus; one may argue perhaps too many. We
have somewhat of information overload and even opportunity overload. The challenge is to get
people to attend. To increase attendance/engagement, the event(s) have to be connected to
the curriculum. Students will not go to events they do not have to. GLI requires attendance at
certain events. Compared to students and faculty, staff have the least flexibility to attend
campus events. We have quite a few visiting/international scholars and students but many
faculty and students do not take the time to engage with them.
7



Mansfield Center (MC) has five to six brown bags per semester where outside speakers; UM
professors discuss Asia-related topics. We also organizes the Asia Leadership Forum where
Ambassadors, leading scholars make public presentations, meet with faculty and students and
provide class lectures on Asia-related topics. MC offers a winter session study abroad class to
Vietnam. The Wilderness Forum during this period on campus brings leadership delegations
from China, Korea, and Japan. Faculty and students and staff connected to the program attend
but the general staff members usually do not attend these events. MC is a conduit for a number
of State Department programs and Fulbright fellows that are sent to Asia who provide lectures
at universities, similar venues. Economic Empowerment Training Programs (usually six weeks) to
Lower Mekong countries under the Lower Mekong Initiative (State Department: U.S. Agency for
International Development). MC also manages the Critical Language Program of the Department
of Defense which funds helps with tuition for a dozen graduate students who teach/help out
with the program.
OIP hosts a myriad of events, lectures and films every year. During international week in
November and International Month in March guest lectures, events and seminars are hosted for
not only the campus community but the wider Missoula community as well.
Throughout the year OIP hosts many university delegations from UM’s partner universities,
educational partners and various other entities. Just this spring OIP hosted Kumamoto
Prefecture Educational Division, Waseda University and Isabel Capeloa Gil, Associate Professor
of Cultural Theory at the Catholic University of Portugal and Honorary Fellow at the Institute of
Germanic and Romance Studies. The Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship Program brings young
and mid-career professionals from designated countries to the United States for a year of nondegree graduate-level study, leadership development, and professional collaboration with U.S.
counterparts.
12. What opportunities exist in the local environment to enhance internationalization efforts? To
what extent has this institution taken advantage of them? To what extent are the co-curricular
activities open to and attended by members of the local community?
Units: Academic Departments, OIP, Mansfield Center, FSSS, Student Survey, Student Affairs. MCLL
 UM has created a speakers bureau, who talk at high schools or other schools Families take in
international students, which is growing; there is lots of involvement by UM staff, faculty, and
the Missoula community. There are many internship opportunities.
 The Mansfield Center engages with a multitude of private and nonprofit organizations in the
state as well as with state, federal and major cities such as Missoula, Bozeman, and Billings on
internationally related topics/events. Examples include the world Affairs Council, International
Film Festival, Chamber of Commerce, United Way, Missoula Economic Partnership, Montana
Ambassadors, Small Business Administration as well as the news media.
 Missoulians are generally very interested in international and global issues and many attend the
International Food and Culture Festival, internationally oriented conferences and talks, film
screenings, etc. The success of the recent series of TED talks speaks to a fairly high level of local
interest in international and global issues within the community. But much more could be done
8


to build on this interest and to build on the success of the Int. Food and Cult Festival, which is
only one day out of the year. The university should host more large events such as this. Many
events are open but the U could do a better job of promoting talks and conferences in the
greater community.
In terms of the foreign languages offered within MCLL, there is not a great deal of opportunity
locally to engage with native speakers of the languages taught, so this makes it important
periodically to invite guests from the host countries represented within MCLL. When guests
from foreign countries are invited by organizations not directly affiliated with MCLL, often MCLL
does not find out about these opportunities until it is too late to try to take advantage of them.
Partnership with Missoula County Public Schools to develop pathways for IB students and the
Kumamoto Prefecture high school exchange program. Jeannette Rankin Peace Center hosts the
Humphrey Fellows lecture series which is open and free to the public. Study Abroad hires
interns who are international students (we had one from Greece and from UK last year). Also,
small group discussions are part of the Pre-departure course, and we invite many international
students. Finally, we invite international students participate in events arranged by the study
abroad office (for example a game night or a movie night)
13. To what extent does the co-curriculum seek to integrate U.S. multicultural issues and
international perspectives and issues?
Units: Student Affairs
 No response
14. What strategies are in place to help domestic students learn from international students?
Units: GLI, OIP, FSSS, Student Affairs
 FSSS / Global Partners program Domestic students intentionally paired with international
students in RL Intercultural living learning community and GLI living learning community Classes
with intercultural focus often match domestic students with international students Activity
classes, like yoga, students get to know each other and talk to each other; also Intramurals,
outdoor trips, Blackfoot River clean up (draws iStudents); billiards, table tennis Student
employment is a big one for Student Affairs, for example, UM Dining targets international
students intentionally, they work with FSSS to do so; they have positions that are non-work
study positions and know this is a necessary condition for international students to work on
campus UM Dining hosts food events where international students engage, which engages other
(domestic) students.
 FSSS provides internship opportunities for domestic students in their office. All nationality clubs
host programs and events that are inclusive of domestic students but the funding is very limited.
Global Partners program is a service program to provide a personal "buddy" to help out new
foreign students during their first semester on campus. The International Student Association
allows domestic students to participate in all levels of the organization. The International House
on campus is a center for intercultural activities and programs. Foreign students, scholars,
campus, and community groups can reserve the facility free of charge by calling and reserving
9



the International House. Community groups wishing to reserve the I-House should have some
international connection/reason for using the house,
FSSS has the Global Partners Program where they pair American and International students in
the fall semester to serve as a resource, help with transition, make friends and do things
together. ELI provides the Conversation Partner Program where international students have an
opportunity to practice their English in conversation with American students. Classroom
engagement of international students would be a great opportunity for them and for American
students to learn about their countries and ways of doing things within the context of specific
courses but the question is to what extent is this taking place?
All OIP internships are open to both domestic and international students. The ELI Conversation
Partner Program offers students the unique opportunity to interact with native English speaking
volunteers from the Missoula community. By its very definition Study Abroad is about helping
domestic students learn from international students and experiences whether abroad or at UM.
One of the strategies I implement to help domestic students learn from international students,
are interviews that my domestic students conduct with international students, in many of my
courses. The goal is for those domestic students to learn about foreign issues and gain
perspectives and connect many of our local concerns to a global environment and vice versa.
For the international students it is incredibly rewarding to be “cultural ambassador” and to
share their home culture with others and to contribute to a greater, worldwide understanding.
15. To what extent has the institution developed student learning goals associated with the global
and international dimensions of undergraduate education? What are they? Where are they
articulated? Who knows about them? How consistent are goals for different programs or
colleges?
Units: ASCRC, Provost’s Office
 The learning goals for Indigenous and Global Perspectives are as follows: Upon completion of an
Indigenous and Global Perspective course, students will be able to:
1. Place human behavior and cultural ideas into a wider (global/indigenous) framework, and
enhance their understanding of the complex interdependence of nations and societies and their
physical environments; 2. demonstrate an awareness of the diverse ways humans structure
their social, political, and cultural lives; and 3. analyze and compare the rights and
responsibilities of citizenship in the 21st century including those of their own societies and
cultures.
In the School of Business, international/global components of education are required by their
accrediting body. For AACSB, it is Learning Goal 7: SoBA graduates will understand the global
business environment in which they operate.
16. How do faculty members assess student achievement of those goals?
Units: OIP, Academic Enrichment, Student Affairs, Provost’s Office
 The number of cases where misunderstandings have occurred has decreased.
10

Students are evaluated every two weeks for international internship projects. In other cases
evaluation method decided by individual instructors so they are not standardized or sometimes
they are not evaluated.
11
Appendix F5: Faculty Policies and Practices Subcommittee Report
152
Faculty Policies and Practices
Final Report to Steering Committee
Subcommittee Members:
Liz Ametsbichler (MCLL), Steve Lodmell (DBS), Amy Kinch (FDO), Beckie Christiaens (Provost’s Office)
I.
Report on Data Analysis
Strengths:
The high interest in internationalization across campus was evident by the turnout of faculty members
and staff who participated in the various meetings and surveys that were conducted this spring. The
lively and engaged dialogue among members of the UM campus community that was elicited by iLAB
meetings showed great enthusiasm, generally, for international activities. Overall, faculty are highly
supportive of their peers’ efforts in international activities.. There are some mechanisms and some
infrastructure already in place on campus to help facilitate international pursuits. It was noted that
communication between offices dealing with international issues has begun to improve. The Mansfield
Center and the School of Forestry were praised for the administrative support that they offer the faculty
of faculty-led study abroad programs (SAPs), and it was noted that these would serve as good models
for organizing and administering all campus SAPs. The high number of successful sabbatical applications
at UM is also a strength. Even though not all sabbaticals include an international component, this is one
mechanism that can be used to facilitate international work.
Weaknesses:
While, as stated above, there is some infrastructure for the international mission of the university in
place on campus, it is often inadequate, and even when it exists, there is a lack of articulation between
parts of the infrastructure. A frequent comment was that communication among campus units needed
improvement, particularly among units and offices dealing with international issues. Another weakness
articulated by many faculty is the lack of support (specifically, administrative support) experienced by
most units and faculty members involved in study abroad programs. Because of changing policies and
regulations, faculty members leading SAPs have faced an increase in administrative burden, while also
being responsible for teaching, preparing for, and organizing their study abroad programs.
One barrier to engagement cited by almost every group we interviewed is a decrease in funding for
international faculty activity. UM has seen significant funding decreases in recent years for faculty
exchanges and the Faculty Professional Enhancement Program and an elimination of all funding for
short-term international activity. Another barrier seen by faculty was the paperwork required by
Business Services for international travel, especially as policies seem to change a lot – or are perceived
as inconsistent (which improved administrative support for faculty could help alleviate). Also, the
Human Resources office is understaffed for dealing with recruitment of international employees and the
1
accompanying paperwork. The weak language requirement to meet UM’s General Education metrics
inherently underscores an insincerity regarding UM’s internationalization efforts. In general, the faculty
perception is that the university talks a lot about the importance of and its commitment to
internationalization, yet there is little to back up this claim.
Opportunities:
We have a campus-wide opportunity to use the newly strengthened language requirement to generate
a lot of interest in internationalism. As stated above, the requirement is still weaker than it should be,
but even as it stands, it provides more opportunity. There is a great opportunity to provide centralized
administrative support for Study Abroad Program directors, using the Mansfield Center and Forestry
practice as a model. Departments and Programs could be encouraged to include international activities
as part of their Unit Standards. In this way, UM’s Strategic Plan would be reflected in the Unit Standards
for recognition and in promotion and merit decisions. UM could use the iLAB assessment as an
opportunity to think creatively about incentivizing faculty international activity; for example, UM could
strategically plan academic exchanges; this might include encouraging closer ties to targeted countries
(for faculty as well as students). We also have the opportunity to start tracking all international
activities, including sabbaticals, and centralizing this information.
Recommendations:
After reviewing all of our data and summarizing the strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities, we think
the following recommendations would greatly enhance internationalization efforts at UM:





Hire an expert in international travel and immigration issues in HR to ensure that UM is
compliant with state and federal policies regarding visa and employment requirements for
international staff and faculty. Also, better training (i.e., attending workshops and conferences)
is necessary in order to make sure that HR knows the most current policies.
Centralize administrative support for the recurring administrative requirements that
accompany all or most international activities. This would lessen the burden on individual
faculty and ensure that all programs follow the usual rules and best practices associated with
international programs.
Increase funding for faculty exchanges, short-term international activity, and FPEP. In addition,
UM could consider strategic incentive programs, as mentioned above in “opportunities,” to
enhance focused international activities to specific countries or regions. This could result in an
“International Research Opportunity Fund” out of the Provost’s office.
Make private fundraising for international activities a university priority.
Strengthen the language requirement for general education. This will underscore UM’s
prioritization of internationalization as stated in its Strategic Plan, will boost interest in
multiculturalism, and will emphasize UM’s mission as a Liberal Arts university.
2
II.
Faculty Policies and Practices Subcommittee Findings
The Faculty Policies and Practices Subcommittee collected information from ten different constituencies
on campus. Our findings are listed below each question.
How does the institution promote faculty engagement in internationalization?
The Maureen and Mike Mansfield Center connects UM faculty with international opportunities and
promotes their strengths through grants, fellowships, programs, initiatives, travel, state-to-state
meetings, etc. The Center bring international and national thought leaders to campus for conferences,
programs and classroom work and all Mansfield grants have a faculty representative. The Yamaguchi
fund is a small endowment within the Mansfield Center for supporting faculty research in Asia.
The Office of International Programs facilitates faculty exchange programs, called faculty long-term
international activity. OIP used to offer short-term international activity funding, which was often used
to develop faculty-led programs. OIP runs a speakers’ bureau and occasionally arranges for international
students to visit classes and faculty to introduce foreign films. Sabbaticals often facilitate faculty work
abroad through release from teaching and external research grants also fund some international work.
To what extent does the institution reward or penalize faculty for international activities
and internationalization of their courses, especially in the hiring, promotion, and tenure
processes?
Faculty from the focus groups reported that they feel encouraged to engage in international work but
do not feel supported to do so. There are no explicit rewards or compensation for the extra time
required to do international teaching and no incentive to take on faculty-led programs for students;
there is only support from their colleagues. Department chairs reported that faculty members are not
specifically rewarded for international activity, though it is incorporated in the faculty evaluation
process if activities enhance the international reputation of the faculty member or department. They
also reported that a lot of engagement is opportunistic, not strategic by the institution. Nothing in unit
standards points to internationalization. Business school faculty reported that they do get rewarded for
international work and entrepreneurship. In some departments, colleagues having to assume teaching
for traveling colleagues is a negative. Faculty reported that for exchanges, UM used to pay replacement
costs. HRS reported that ever-changing visa requirements can make hiring international faculty
challenging.
3
What are the barriers to faculty engagement? To what extent is the institution succeeding
in removing them? What is the evidence?
One barrier to engagement cited by almost every group we interviewed is a decrease in funding for
international faculty activity. Short-term international activity funding, which provided an average of 10
grants per semester to faculty between spring 2009 and fall 2013, was discontinued 1.5 years ago. The
number of faculty exchanges has dropped from a high of 11 in 2005-06 (supported by $149,000 in
funding) to only 3 funded for 2015-16 (supported by only $27,000). Portions of a few trips have been
funded through the Provost’s Faculty Professional Enhancement Program (FPEP) grants (3 of 10 funded
in spring 2015 were for international activity), but FPEP funding also decreased over the past few years.
Short Term International Activity Applications
and Grants 2009-2014
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall
'09
'09
'10
'10
'11
'11
'12
'12
'13
'13
'14
'14
# Applications
# Grants
Faculty Exchanges and Funding 2003-2016
$160,000
$150,000
$140,000
$130,000
$120,000
$110,000
$100,000
$90,000
$80,000
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
# Exchanges
Approx. Total Funding
4
The faculty participating in focus groups reported that the lack of short-term international funding has
had a big impact on units with no grant funding, effectively shutting down international trips.
Faculty reported that the paperwork for faculty-led study abroad programs has become increasingly
burdensome and declared that staff support should be provided consistently across campus to help with
the logistical side of study-abroad programs, so that faculty can focus on the instructional pieces.
Faculty members applauded support offered by the Mansfield Center and in the College of Forestry and
one faculty member suggested that the program coordinator from Forestry might be moved to OIP to
serve faculty from all departments. OIP should also track all possible sources of funding for study abroad
for students.
Other barriers include a lack of emphasis on the importance on international activity in the faculty
evaluation process and a lack of clarity on the tax consequences for faculty of long-term exchanges.
UM’s per diems and state policies are cumbersome and travel reimbursement forms are burdensome.
HRS could develop user friendly templates for travel expenses that allow for trips that are longer than 10
days.
Another faculty focus group identified ignorance in dealing with international colleagues as an obstacle
and suggested having more training for campus employees (citing Cornell as a good example of
professional development on this topic). HRS is lacking funding to train their payroll staff on changing
federal regulations regarding foreign nations; this creates a liability for the university. There is also a
lack of communication between HRS and OIP. Obtaining green cards can be an obstacle to hiring
international faculty.
Many groups of respondents pointed to the weak language requirement for undergraduates as a barrier
to promoting international engagement more generally. OIP staff reported that the ASCRC writing
requirement is a challenge for international students. And one faculty member mentioned that the
budget for the international development studies minor has been nearly eliminated. The faculty focus
group mentioned that another barrier is ASCRC’s resistance to giving gen. ed. credit for faculty-led study
abroad programs and student exchange courses. The international committee said that reductions in
faculty lines act as a barrier because it becomes harder for faculty to be off campus.
What policies or practices (related to this subcommittee) hinder internationalization
efforts at this institution?
Faculty focus groups reported that ASCRC policies regarding approving credit for student exchange
courses and faculty-led courses do not always support internationalization. They also said that the lack
of a clear, centralized process for faculty-led study abroad lowers the quality and number of these
programs. Faculty members reported differing views on GLI, mentioning both that more funding was
directed to this program than to other international efforts and that a commitment to globalization does
not seems to be represented in GLI, where few courses are international.
Department chairs reported that finding universities abroad that match our curricula is an obstacle for
student study abroad as is language capacity of UM students. Funds for summer international research
5
experiences for undergraduate students or programs to help UM attract foreign graduate students
would be a great addition. The proposed shortening of winter session may make international activity
more difficult.
Does the institution collect information on the faculty’s language capacity, international
background, interests, and experiences? If so, where is this information available and how
is it used? What is the faculty composition and experience? To what extent do faculty
come from other countries, have extensive international experience, speak multiple
languages, co-author with international colleagues, and take international sabbaticals?
We found out that UM is starting to collect such data (a joint effort of the Mansfield Center and OIP) and
that this database eventually will be available on the OIP website. A second effort is the “UM Experts
List,” compiled by UM Relations. However, as both are “opt-in,” there is no guarantee of complete data.
At the moment, there is no data on international sabbaticals, but this could be tracked in the future.
One suggestion was for better coordination of due dates for international sabbaticals and international
exchange applications.
Does the institution gather information on the attitudes of faculty toward international
learning? If so, how is this information used?
None of the entities surveyed indicated that this information had been gathered or used. Responses
from the International Committee and from GLI indicated that some additional information may be
forthcoming with the results of a survey of faculty (from International Committee) and from the iLab
survey.
To what extent does the institution invite visiting faculty/scholars from abroad? To what
extent and how does their presence contribute to institutional internationalization?
The consensus was that visiting international faculty are a great plus for campus, though they often are
not well integrated into campus life, and there are not very many of them. Scholars participate in a lot
of FSSS programming (e.g., workshops, field trips). They present a goldmine of opportunity, but get
“lost,” thus their presence isn’t taken advantage of – sometimes due to language skills. UM needs to do
more with this opportunity.
Sometimes, a visitor is invited by an individual faculty member or department, which is not coordinated
by the institution. This means that certain, pertinent units might not even know about someone’s
presence on campus. Or, scholars are sometimes placed into a unit without prior consultation with the
unit. Visiting faculty presence is very important, but we need better coordination and communication
for the benefit of all. In general, visiting scholars are underutilized.
UM should provide better support to international scholars. Short-term housing for international
faculty is standard at other institutions (one-month apartments, etc.).
6
The organization and separation of different offices (e.g., OIP, FSSS) creates duplication and challenges
in communication and creates a lot of confusion for students and faculty alike about which office does
what.
Does the institution consider international experience in hiring faculty or in the promotion
and tenure process?
It is our collective sense that the University of Montana gives some credit to international experience in
hiring, promoting and tenuring faculty. However, there is no solid evidence for this or specifically
written guiding principles/rules. The two Collective Bargaining Agreements (UFA & MC FA) and the Law
School Faculty Handbook are silent on valuing international experience for any of these processes. In
our research, there was no mention of how this topic is addressed in various department unit standards.
In a survey to department chairs and directors, we learned that within their department cultures some
units consider international activities as part of the faculty evaluation process as it applies to teaching,
research and service. Departments tend to value collaborations with colleagues at universities outside
of the US that lead to publication in peer-reviewed journals, presentations at international conferences,
teaching abroad, designing special research lab courses and organizing international conferences. These
activities are viewed as enhancing the department's international reputation, which may be reflected in
the faculty evaluation assessment. Other departments expressed neutrality on rewarding international
activities.
To what extent do faculty and staff perceive international learning as an important
element of the educational process at the institution? What is the evidence?
Although responses were anecdotal and did not represent a comprehensive survey, the overall
perception among faculty is that international learning is an important component of the educational
process. For obvious reasons, international learning was perceived as more important in some
disciplines for which international experience is not only important, but essential. Some departments
have established roles for faculty to facilitate and maintain well-functioning international programs,
others do not. Representatives from FSSS indicated that some faculty they work with fully embraced
international learning, while others from different departments saw international learning as something
that required them to perform more (administrative) work.
***iLab Taskforce co-chairs have this subcommittee’s meeting notes and survey responses on file.
7
Appendix F6: Student Mobility Subcommittee Report
160
Student Mobility Final Report to Steering Committee
Subcommittee Members: Larry Abramson, School of Journalism (subcommittee chair); Trey Hill, School
of Art; Jeanne Loftus, Global Leadership Initiative; Mary Nellis, Foreign Student and Scholar Services; and
Marja Unkuri-Chaudhry, Office of International Programs.
Table of Contents
I.
Data Analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 2
Strengths ........................................................................................................................................... 2
Weaknesses ...................................................................................................................................... 2
Opportunities .................................................................................................................................... 3
Challenges ......................................................................................................................................... 3
Recommendations ........................................................................................................................... 3
II.
Data Collection ...................................................................................................................................... 5
Appendix A .................................................................................................................................................. 22
Appendix B .................................................................................................................................................. 31
Appendix C .................................................................................................................................................. 33
1
I.
Data Analysis
Strengths







UM has sent 1487 students abroad over the past 5 years. Every year, flexible funding through
financial aid and external scholarships help students go abroad for short and long trips. Our
participation in international education is growing, and is strong relative to other states (NAFSA
Study Abroad Participation by State).
We have strong faculty commitment to international education. Faculty-led programs have enabled
990 students to go abroad over the past 5 years. These programs offer unique experiences keyed
to the interests of individual faculty members and their departments.
Faculty and students consistently report that their international education experiences are very
meaningful. Faculty report that students gain knowledge and enrichment abroad that is simply not
available in the U.S.
Many students report the structures and support services in place at UM successfully facilitate
international education efforts. These offices help students access funds, transfer credits and set up
exchanges with partner institutions all over the world.
UM’s population of international students is growing rapidly. UM census data shows a 200-student
increase between fall 2012 and fall 2014.
UM offers full immersion study abroad opportunities at little additional cost to students (i.e., same
UM tuition/fee rates).
The risk management strategy that UM is currently developing has been very successful in reducing
risk to the university from international study efforts.
Weaknesses





The university lacks sufficient funding to realize our own ambitions for international education (e.g.,
staff support, student scholarships, recruiting international students, faculty-led programs).
There is a clear disconnect between how faculty and staff see international education functioning.
Faculty often voiced concern about processes not working well, while staff perceived processes
functioning well.
UM does not have clear data definitions for international and education abroad students. Data is
not collected centrally, is often haphazardly collected based on different units’ individual files and
varying parameters, or isn’t collected at all due to a lack of response from units.
UM has a decentralized administrative structure for education abroad. Faculty-led programs and
international internships/service are all administered thought different units. Students have
difficulty navigating this structure, as do support units, such as Business Services.
Credit transfer policies and challenges can discourage students from studying abroad and prevents
faculty from promoting long-term education abroad experiences.
2
Opportunities




Many constituencies stress that UM is losing recruiting opportunities when it comes to international
education. Many other universities use their international prowess as a tool to lure ambitious
students, and advertise foreign travel as a key feature of the educational experience.
There was praise for many existing efforts to involve international students in campus life, but more
could be done. Faculty advocate requiring all students to have a conversation partner, or participate
in the global partner program. At the same time, UM students should be encouraged to interact
more with foreign students and scholars.
UM should develop meaningful data to report education abroad student and international student
numbers. If UM creates clear definitions for these populations, then we could increase our reported
numbers.
UM should reward faculty initiative. The work that goes into faculty-led initiatives is neither
recognized nor rewarded. Faculty also say they often spend hours helping long-term study abroad
students navigate foreign universities’ websites as they search for classes that will fulfill UM
requirements.
Challenges






UM could lose competition with other schools for international students. There is currently little
recruitment budget for international recruiting.
There are certain situations that are out of UM’s control, such as attaining visas for both incoming
international students and outgoing study abroad students.
UM risks focusing on numbers and ignoring the quality of our programing. If student numbers
increase, then staff support should increase as well.
Pressure to graduate in four years could erode study abroad numbers. Students are concerned
about a delayed graduation date due to course offering accessibility at foreign institutions and
challenges with credit transfer.
Full-immersion study abroad could be seen as a threat to under enrolled courses. Faculty may be
reluctant to encourage study abroad if they feel it undermines enrollment for their courses and
could lead to sections being cut.
Faculty and students struggle to find acceptable courses for study abroad students due to the
unpredictability of course offerings as foreign institutions.
Recommendations
Improve UM’s data collection related to student mobility.
UM needs to create better definitions for and processes to collect data on international students and
education abroad students. By making these improvements UM could capture data that is not currently
being collected, thereby increasing our reported numbers. This would streamline annual data collection
processes and establish data integrity.
Gather more information on the role of international students in internationalization.
The majority of questions addressed in this review were focused on education abroad and related
academic processes. Likewise, the answers reflected this focus. There is, consequently, little discussion
3
about the role of international students with regard to services, academics, recruitment, and financial
aid.
Establish a working group to examine faculty-led processes.
The responses from faculty and staff clearly indicate a need to overhaul processes related to faculty-led
study abroad programs. This should be examined and addressed further in a more focused way, utilizing
the data from this report.
Investigate creation of a one-stop shop for all education abroad and related services.
In order to mitigate the confusion among faculty, staff and students with regard to education abroad, it
would be advantageous to put all related services in one location and to create streamlined processes.
Revisit credit-transfer issues.
Credit transfer for study abroad was discussed widely among faculty and students. Academic
departments and administrative units should work together to create a database that allows students to
find pre-approved courses in their field of study at UM’s exchange universities. UM should also examine
national best practices for traditional versus pass/fail grading for study abroad transfer credits.
Provide more training for faulty on integrating international students into the classroom.
Create training modules which provide faculty with resources to help them integrate international
students more effectively into their classrooms.
Create need-based scholarships for education abroad.
These scholarships would help serve a number of students who would not otherwise take advantage of
education abroad opportunities.
Build upon existing student integration programs.
UM’s Global Partners and Conversation Partners programs were widely cited as existing programs that
do a great job at integrating domestic and international students, but both programs struggle with
domestic student participation. UM should focus on strategies to increase domestic student
participation in these programs.
4
II.
Data Collection
How are students financing their education abroad? Is financial aid portable? Can
students tap into additional sources of aid? What issues, if any, surround the
recognition of credit for study abroad? How effective are the administrative policies
and procedures pertaining to education abroad, with regard to financial aid
portability and credit transfer?
Units: Enrollment Services (ES), UM Foundation (FOUN), Office of International Programs (OIP),
Graduate School (GRAD), Financial Aid (FA), Faculty Open Forums (FAC), Faculty-led Program
Directors (FPD), Academic Enrichment (AE), Internship Services (IS)
Summary of findings:
Financing and Financial Aid
 See Appendix A: Focus Group Report for iLab (Domestic Students with Study Abroad)
 Students can use financial aid (loans and scholarships), UM scholarships and external
scholarships to finance education abroad. Other funding sources are parents, college fund,
earnings from work. Students need to stay enrolled in at least 12 credits to keep their financial
aid. Problems arise when they fail a class and drop below 12. (OIP)
 UM Scholarships: Presidential Scholarship, WUE, LAS leadership scholarship, Scott & Farrell
Scholarship, Missoula Rotary Scholarship, Jenna Ness scholarship, ISEP scholarships, GLI
scholarships, and Dailey Scholarship. Some do not work for IE3 Global Internships. MCLL has
some scholarships, but very little. (OIP)
 External scholarships: Gilman scholarships for students receiving a Pell Grant, Boren scholarship,
Japanese government scholarships, Bridging scholarships for study in Japan (OIP)
 Partner & ISEP Exchange: Students pay regular UM tuition and fees, UM room and board rates
for ISEP programs, and host institution room and board rates for Partner programs. Most UM
student loans and scholarships, except work study can be applied. (OIP)
 Partner & ISEP Direct: Students pay the tuition, room, & board costs directly to the institution
abroad, rather than UM. Most student loans and scholarships that are real money can be
applied to this program type. Work study, tuition waivers, LAS Awards, Cal Murphy Scholarships,
and WUE waivers cannot be applied. (OIP)
 Faculty Directed programs: Students pay a specific program fee that includes UM tuition if it is
state supported. For winter-session state-supported programs tuition is part of the spring
semester. Students pay a program fee if it’s run through SELL. Students pay summer tuition for
state-supported programs run during the summer. (OIP)
 Graduate School provides a list of scholarships and students have to research opportunities. The
Dean’s Merit award is a new opportunity. Financial aid can be awarded to graduate
students. However, they must have been admitted into a graduate program, must be in a
minimum of 6 credits & their only option would be an unsub Stafford loan or a grad plus
loan. Need to find external funding to assist domestic graduate students to go abroad. National
5











Science Foundation has funding. Dual or joint degrees or research collaborations could provide
opportunities. (GRAD)
Federal law allows students to use reasonable costs of study abroad as part of their financial aid
such as airline ticket, passport and visa application. OIP prepares a budget for each student who
is selected to study abroad though OIP for the financial aid office. Faculty directed program
leaders should also be sending their program cost and list of participants to financial aid office.
The Study Abroad office often helps the faculty leaders with this. (OIP)
Many students are unable to increase their financial aid award in order to pay for plane tickets
or other expenses. Once they have used the maximum amount of their award, they have to find
support on their own. For many students, this means they cannot travel overseas. (FA)
The Financial Aid office also said that many students cannot give up their apartments in
Missoula, so they must pay double rent while they are overseas. The Office cannot pay out
additional support for this expense, or for the cost of entertainment and enrichment
experiences students incur while studying overseas. The office pointed out that other schools
do cover these expenses, and use this fact as a marketing tool to integrate study abroad into
their other offerings. (FA)
The Provost’s lottery for awards does not take need into account, so some students receive
support from the lottery even if they are not eligible for financial aid, while others go wanting.
They also pointed out that many students must turn to student loans for overseas travel, which
adds to the debt burden they carry after graduation. (FA)
Provost’s Office funding changes each year and they don’t post when the money is no longer
available. (FPD)
Funding through GLI has significantly helped a lot of students. (FPD)
The UM Foundation has the ability to set up scholarships so they have total portability. This
portability needs to be defined within the gift agreement. Most scholarships have broad
parameters. Some can be donor specific and pertain only to students studying in specific
countries or regions. (FOUN)
More scholarship money is needed. Foundation should make it a priority to raise scholarships
for out-of-classroom experiences. We need a good plan on how to communicate/market this to
donors. Need to show donors that we are organized in how students get access to these
activities. We need to identify potential donors who have had international experiences. (AE)
Financial Aid is very difficult to navigate and to obtain. There’s a separate process for getting
financial aid for study abroad programs. It’s becoming more difficult. It’s difficult to find
resources; needs to be more coordinated. (FPD)
Financial Aid personnel said that there are many departments and agencies that provide support
to students, but there is no coordination of those benefits. As a result, some students miss out
on the opportunity to do international work, while others receive multiple awards. (FA)
There is no centralized place for students to find funding to go abroad. Some scholarships seem
to be “hidden” or not well advertised. OIP should house (centrally advertise) all scholarships for
abroad opportunities. (FAC)
6

Students aren’t applying for scholarships now – need to identify key people (advisors/faculty) in
depts/schools/colleges who could be trained on scholarship opportunities. Students don’t know
about them and don’t feel they can get funding. (AE, IS)
Credit Transfer
 See Appendix A: Focus Group Report for iLab (Domestic Students with Study Abroad)
 Credit transfer only affects exchange programs. It’s not an issue for faculty-led programs. (OIP)
 Faculty aren’t aware of any central place for students/faculty to get assistance with credit
transfer issues. (FAC)
 Faculty feel that it’s very time consuming to work with students who want to study abroad for a
semester or a year. There are credit transfer issues. The guidelines aren’t clear. Often times
credits get preapproved and then the students can’t actually enroll in those classes so the
approval process has to happen all over again. (FAC)
 Faculty encourage students to go abroad, but it requires hours of time to navigate foreign
universities’ websites trying to help them identify classes that will fulfill UM requirements. There
is too little information for making decision and they often have to redo the whole thing when
they come back. Some of this is out of OIP’s control, but some things could be done to help
streamline this process. (FAC)
 Students often have to do independent study work at UM while they are abroad to have credits
that count towards their major/graduation. Some faculty are not supportive of this because
independent study credits are more work for faculty without the recognition. (FAC)
 Faculty don’t encourage students to go abroad because the credit process is a nightmare. It
shouldn’t be so difficult. The Admissions/Registrar’s offices should make it easier and should
trust faculty to determine the number of credits. (FAC)
 Some U.S. universities accept study abroad credits as pass/fail. UM may want to consider this
method. (OIP)
 Study Abroad Office does a great job giving students clear directions regarding credit transfer.
(ES)
 Enrollment Services gets involved to approve the classes and sign off on Gen. Ed and
departmental classes. (ES)
 Students’ classes are approved before they go and paper work is signed stating the credits will
transfer. (ES)
 Students need to stay enrolled in at least 12 credits to keep their financial aid. Problems arise
when they fail a class and drop below 12. (ES)
 Different cultures have different ways of evaluating students. Sometimes our students struggle
with this change. Grading can be a lot harsher in some countries (e.g., France and Spain). There
are inconsistencies in workloads between US and, for example, ECTS credits system. One option
is to take courses as pass/no pass. UM should revisit this and research what the best practice is.
(ES, OIP)
7


Students transfer credits appear on their transcript. Foreign grades are converted into U.S.
grading system based on the conversion tables that have been created jointly by OIP and
Enrollment Services. In order for students to meet their major, minor, or general education
requirements with courses taken at a foreign institution, they need to take the courses for a
letter grade and earn a minimum of C-. Elective courses can be taken on a pass/fail basis. Grades
will appear on their transcript, although they won't be calculated into students’ GPA, except
when applying to graduate with honors or when applying for professional programs (Journalism,
Pharmacy). (OIP)
Graduate School has a procedure in place for credit transfer. Nine credits can be transferred
back. A petition can be filed for the Graduate School to accept additional credits. Petition is
discussed with the student’s graduate committee. (GRAD)
What policies or practices related to student mobility hinder internationalization
efforts at this institution?
Units: Enrollment Services (ES), Student Affairs (SA), Mansfield Center (MC), Business Services (BS),
Office of International Programs (OIP), Administration & Finance (AF), Graduate School (GRAD),
School of Extended and Lifelong Learning (SELL), Financial Aid (FA), Faculty Open Forums (FAC),
Faculty-led Program Directors (FPD), Academic Enrichment (AE), Internship Services (IS)
Summary of findings:
General
 Technology can be a hindrance because students do not have access to live streaming
throughout campus. (SA)
 There are many strategic “silos” on campus based on department strategy. This creates
independence and flexibility and some units support that independence. (MC)
 Lack of resources as well as the culture at the institution. Some people really value international
experiences and others think there is nothing beyond Missoula Montana. (AF)
 Lack of funding impacts staffing and scholarships. (AE, IS)
 Faculty perceptions on importance of international education create a lack of interest in
promoting more opportunities. (AE, IS)
 Perception that OIP is only study abroad. Campus isn’t well informed OIP’s other functions. (AE,
IS)
 There should be a central location for ALL education abroad experiences (exchanges, faculty-led,
internships, service, research), which could serve as a resource for faculty and students.
Student ambassador program could have a wider focus. (AE, IS)
Study abroad
 The Financial Aid Office said that UM’s bureaucracy makes it confusing for students and faculty
trying to navigate an international experience. They pointed in particular to the fact that FSSS
reports to student affairs, but OIP reports to the provost. One financial aid officer who had
worked at other schools said, in his experience, UM has a very disjointed message when it
8












comes to internationalization. He said other schools make the experience easier, and are
consistent in their efforts to encourage students to study abroad. (FA)
Enrollment Services believes that UM does not struggle with outgoing student policies or
practices. Study Abroad Office has created a smooth procedure. (ES)
There are significant tax implications for students in regard to their participation in study abroad
programs – paid tuition can be counted towards a tax credit. This information is reflected in the
1098T form. (BS)
Financial Aid personnel spoke in favor of having all overseas opportunities go through one
office, such as OIP, to ensure consistency and to make sure all students are aware of these
options. (FA)
For some majors it is difficult for students to meet their degree requirements if they participate
in full-immersion study abroad programs. (OIP)
Representatives from SELL said that OIP’s risk management plan was helpful because this area is
outside the expertise of most members of the faculty. (SELL)
Members of SELL said that many students choose to go to English speaking countries. UM needs
to encourage students to look to other countries where English is not the primary language.
(SELL)
Not that many graduate students go abroad. It is hard for graduate students to go abroad
because of research. There can be specific field research or field camps. It is specific to
department and field such as Forestry and Global Youth Development program. Some
departments have a collaboration. Graduate students will often register for research credits.
Nature of graduate education depends on the details of the program, transferring credits are
not a problem. Another impediment is being unaware of the leave of absence
program/enrollment: students have to have one credit to continue registration or otherwise
they are dropped. (GRAD)
If there is an emergency that might impact a study abroad program let Business Services know
as that information might be necessary to modify a student’s financial aid package and refunds.
(BS)
Faculty pointed specifically to the huge challenge of getting general education credits for
overseas work, saying they told students to assume their requests for a waiver would be turned
down. Study abroad, faculty said, will almost never be counted for fulfillment of gen ed
requirements. Many wished that students could submit their study plan in advance, and get
their courses recognized. Instead, they said that students had to battle for recognition after the
fact, and that they usually lose that battle. (FAC)
Faculty complained that students find the same confusion when they look for overseas
opportunities. (FAC)
Travel contributes to carbon footprint in a huge way. As an institution we should take
responsibility for how to address that. (FPD)
When students go abroad the course enrollment numbers decrease and this creates issues with
the budget cuts. This creates disincentive for faculty to encourage students. (FPD)
9



ISEP and Partner are options, but many departments don’t encourage students to go abroad for
a semester or year. (FPD)
A lot of students use ISEP which takes away from the enrollment back at UM. This isn’t being
acknowledged in dean’s office. (FPD)
Faculty-led Study Abroad Programs have a unique set of challenges, including:
o ASCRC creates barriers for faculty-led programs ( e.g., not allowing cross-listing for these
courses, making the credit calculation and contact hours difficult, trying to apply for
permanent course numbers, only allowed to use bag numbers). There is a lack of
embracing the value of these experiences. (FPD)
o Faculty said the ASCRC creates a lot of resistance and has very rigid templates for
counting credit hours. One professor said he had to document every hour of a fourweek course to receive credit, and finished by saying he “won’t do it any more” because
of the onerous requirements. (FAC)
o There has been so much resistance at ASCRC related to credits. Experimental is fine, but
once permanent it becomes difficult. Rules for time make no sense for study abroad.
(FAC)
o Recruitment is a big issue for faculty-led programs. It takes a lot of effort to go to
classes, etc. Programs like the Vietnam trip support the Climate Change Studies minor
and that helps with recruitment. This get back to the course numbering (course title is
important). Institutionally the university could find a better way to showcase these
opportunities. These programs could be a big recruitment tool for UM. (FLD)
o Business Services needs access to or periodic reports on information related to study
abroad programs. Information should include: program name, program dates, credits,
cost, detailed budget, participant list. Business Services has a fiduciary responsibility to
students. These programs can impact students’ bills and financial aid packages. (BS)
o Business Services needs to know how faculty are supported to administer the program –
how program fees and/or tuition are redirected to pay for faculty administration of the
program (BS)
o There does not seem to be any coordination between what students are paying for in
regard to study abroad programs and registration. (BS)
o Students sometimes come to Business Services to pay their bills but there is little
context about the specific bill that they’re paying for. (BS)
o Business Services has the ability to wire funds at a lower rate than through a bank. (BS)
o The study abroad office or faculty leading study abroad trips should tell students to
contact Business Services prior to their trip – not immediately before but weeks
before. This is important to make sure their bills are paid and their financial aid
packages are updated. (BS)
o Lack of seed funding for faculty to create and lead faculty directed programs (MC)
o Faculty directed programs are expensive programs to run. Winter session programs are
the best. In summer running through the SELL is the cleanest. However, if the course is
run through the SELL faculty does not get the FTE recognition for the course. (AF)
10
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
The challenge with the faculty directed study abroad programs is that a special study
abroad fee is charged on some programs but not on all of them (i.e., not
consistent). Also, there should be a process established to consistently assess a special
fee for students who participate in faculty directed programs, and that charge should
appear on the student registration bill. Currently, a special study abroad fee is not
charged to a student’s account through Banner. (AF)
Lack of salary structure for faculty leading study abroad programs. The entrepreneurial
aspect is great, but faculty need to be adequately compensated for running these
programs. Winter-session faculty are not allowed to get additional salary for directing
faculty-led programs, even though they are hugely demanding and require a lot of work
both ahead of time and during. Lack of consistency across campus on how faculty get
paid for these. (FPD)
The change in per diem receipt rules creates hardship and takes away the little incentive
that existed when faculty and staff don’t get a salary for running faculty-led programs.
(FPD)
Faculty-led programs have challenges with Business Services’ procedures, direction and
understanding. Very difficult to work with Business Services. Challenges with paying
providers, which can hurt relationships. Very bureaucratic instead of allowing for
entrepreneurial speeds. (FPD)
Incredible amount of sweat equity goes into faculty-led programs which aren’t
contracted out to a provider. It helps keep costs down for students, but it’s challenging.
(FPD)
The various ways of setting up accounts for faculty-led programs and the different
policies that go with each can create confusion and hardship in restricting how
programs can pragmatically be run. (FPD)
Support staffing is needed for faculty-led programs. It requires an enormous amount of
work (recruiting, application, funding for students, logistics for trip, paperwork for OIP,
teaching, etc.). The Mansfield Center has support staff for the Vietnam program and it
helps the faculty focus on teaching. OIP doesn’t provide that kind of support. (FAC)
Faculty-led programs are decentralized and students have a hard time with that. OIP
isn’t well informed about these programs. They have a lot of requirements, but provide
little support. (FAC)
UM has no administrative support for faculty-led programs. The faculty member does all
the logistical work from hotel booking to accounting to teaching. The lack of support
limits the number of students a professor can take. (FPD)
Lack of support staff for faculty-led programs (except in CFC and Mansfield Center)
(FPD)
Some faculty spoke positively of their experiences with the Mansfield Center, saying the
Center was the one place they could go for help with paperwork and planning for
faculty-led programs. They wished they could find the same support in other offices on
campus. (FAC)
11
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Faculty said that arranging overseas opportunities for students requires a lot of
additional advising work, for which they receive little support. In addition, they said
that the bureaucratic burden is growing because, in their view, the Office of
International Program is demanding more paperwork to guard against liability and
health issues. (FAC)
There doesn’t seem to be any standardization of how study abroad is administered – it
seems to be very reactionary/rushed. (BS)
No policy on faculty-directed programs (we have international travel policy). No policy
determining if the faculty directed programs should be run as state supported programs
or through SELL. (OIP)
Faculty directed programs have been very decentralized, which is not the best practice
nationwide. (OIP)
OIP has applications on the website and the Dean’s office in the College of Humanities
and Sciences requires that the applications are completed and approved by the Chair
and Dean before the program can be advertised. The applications include budget and
Risk Management Plan. OIP reviews the Risk Management Plan. Policies are needed on
the following topics: application process for leading a faculty directed programs,
budgets, orientation requirements for faculty and students on cultural preparation,
behavioral expectations, and most importantly, on health and safety (OIP)
Faculty directed program processes should be standardized. However, we have to be
careful that we do not kill the creativity through the standardization. All faculty directed
programs should be run through the Office of International Programs. (AF)
The amount of paperwork OIP requires is ridiculous. Faculty understand the risk
management issues, but the paperwork is cumbersome. Even registering for workrelated travel is really cumbersome. Too much bureaucracy. All the work is put on
faculty. (FAC)
Too much bureaucracy exists around faculty-led programs. Policies change often (esp.
Business Services). (FPD)
Historic background: faculty-led programs and OIP were completely separated, with OIP
often not being informed about programs. Now OIP asks faculty to give them
information (e.g., insurance forms, risk management plans). (FPD)
OIPs faculty-led forms have compatibility issues and have character limits so they are
difficult to complete electronically. (FPD)
UM doesn’t have a clear policy for student insurance and faculty are asked to interpret
coverage. We need a straightforward policy. (FPD)
It would be nice to have more cross-departmental collaborations for faculty-led study
abroad programs (e.g., MCLL and PSCI - Paul Haber to Mexico). When we take students
on our programs, they might want to do an independent study with a professor back at
UM while they are abroad and these students have not had a good reception from other
professors. (FPD)
Personnel issues are a huge issue for MCLL study abroad programs. MCLL needs to offer
long-term programs in order to offer real language immersion opportunities. (FPD)
12
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Winter-session being shortened will create a barrier for short-term programs. (FPD)
There has been a lot of resistance from UM faculty to have mandated policies from OIP,
Business Services, and/or the Administration. (FPD)
It is very challenging to accommodate students with disabilities. (FPD)
There’s a feeling that the University’s policies hamper what Business Services can do
(e.g., group travel) (FPD)
Recommendation that OIP be the central office for faculty-led programs when it comes
to creating or co-creating definitions, processes, policies, structures, and support. (FPD)
We need to have some flexibility within schools. If we have a set policy then it may tank
our opportunities to lead faculty-directed programs. (FPD)
Competition has cropped up with faculty-led programs. 3-4 trips to Ireland now,
multiple trips to India, etc. No coordination. (FPD)
Faculty-led program directors provide OIP with information, OIP helps coordinate 2
study abroad fairs and provides risk management follow up. Marja’s job is the exchange
programs. There needs to be someone at the university level that coordinates study
abroad programs. Other institutions have a staff member in OIP who walks a faculty
member through the whole process. OIP needs additional staffing for this. The
StudioAbroad database is costly and clunky. It is challenges for faculty to access. It’s not
set up for faculty-led programs. OIP is oriented toward exchange programs and UM has
a huge number of faculty-led programs which need coordination. (FPD)
There is a high burnout rate for running faculty-led programs because they are so much
work. It works well to take turns with other faculty so you don’t have to lead a program
every year. (FPD)
Faculty who have been doing study abroad programs for years have decided not to
continue because it’s too much work and bureaucracy and not enough support. They
find the experience fulfilling, but it’s the teaching they care most about and the other
issues take over. (FPD, FAC)
Incoming students and scholars
 Training needs to be initiated on cultural sensitivity. (SA)
 UM could do a much better job reaching out to foreign students. The university should try
harder to connect these students with the campus community at large. (SELL)
 UM needs to work on outreach to attract international students. UM attends the International
Transfer Fair in Seattle, but is not well known. (ES)
 When students go to ELI they have to get a certain score and prove they can perform at a
specific level before they can take certain classes. This is frustrating for the students many of
whom feel they should be able to take said classes. Students generally want to get into the
classes before they are ready. (SA)
 Financial aid is limited. (SA)
 Crossover for curriculum sometimes does not work. Often they can’t bring credits home. (SA)
 2+2 does not equal four. Meaning they might have taken a class at their home institution that
does not transfer here so they have to repeat similar course material. (SA)
13












Students have limited language immersion. (SA)
Ensuring places are available for students to pray and having gender specific restrooms. (SA)
It’s problematic when international students get denied their F1 Visa, but it’s not something UM
can control. (ES)
Business Services believes there is good coordination between FSSS and OIP in regard to
incoming international students. (BS)
Shelly Hiniker is recognized as the most appropriate point-of-contact in regard to immigration
issues and related tax implications. (BS)
Business Services needs to have more information about the particular visas that international
students and scholars are coming in on – that information will help to determine things like an
individual’s eligibility to work, withholding rates, and which tax treaties the University needs to
follow. (BS)
Business Services believes 3rd party billing works pretty smoothly, communication with FSSS and
OIP is good. (BS)
It is important to communicate to students to hit the “pay” button in Cyberbear! (BS(
Fee Waivers for international students: fee waivers have a place at UM. They come into play as a
recruiting tool. Maybe UM should have an international tuition rate which is higher than out of
state but then fee waivers come into play. Maybe we can give $ 1000 waiver. Challenge is that
UM is still one of the low cost institutions. (AF)
If more resources were made available (to the graduate school) they’d be used for purposes
such as enhancing collaboration for international student recruitment. The graduate school is
understaffed for any duties other than admission and graduation. (GRAD)
Some graduate programs are more efficient than others in regard to making admissions
decisions. There is a “low acceptance rate” of international students even though there are a lot
of applications from international students. Finances are a challenge since there are only a
limited number of assistantships that are available. (GRAD)
Business Services indicated that it would be helpful to submit sponsored programs’ billing
information upfront (BS)
What opportunities exist for education abroad (study abroad, internships, field work,
research, service learning)?
Units: Faculty-led Program Directors (FPD), Academic Enrichment (AE), Internship Services (IS),
Office of International Programs (OIP)
Summary of findings:

MCLL faculty-led study abroad programs: Spanish (every other year, semester-long program);
German (had a semester-long program for 40 years, but spring 2014 was last program because
the section doesn’t have enough faculty now. This will impact the numbers of German majors. A
summer program is going to be attempted in future.); Classics (short winter-session open to all
majors); Italian (program hasn’t been offered for at least 6 years.); French (used to offer a
semester-long study abroad, winter-session was just offered this year.); Russian (short-term
14






program with some language, but it’s mostly culture); Japanese (no faculty-led. In past they
have helped coordinate internships.) (FPD)
UM has a partnership with IE3 Global Internships (IS)
Academic Enrichment and Internship Services helps students identify non-UM opportunities.
(AE)
Study abroad (year, semester, summer) in over 50 countries through 2 different programs:
Partner Universities Programs and International Student Exchange Programs (ISEP). (OIP)
o 60 UM partner universities 55 countries. Partner Exchange: students pay tuition to UM
and room & board usually to the host institution. Partner Direct: students pay tuition,
room, & board all to the host institution.
o 162 ISEP member institutions in 55 countries. ISEP is a worldwide organization UM
works with to offer international education opportunities at over. ISEP Exchange:
students pay tuition and room & board costs to UM. ISEP Direct: students pay tuition,
room, & board costs set by the host institution.
UM also offers many faculty directed programs. UM Faculty take groups of students to explore
specific topics while earning credit. Program costs and lengths vary depending on the location
and time of year of each program. (OIP)
Student Teaching Abroad; UM Office of Field Experiences offers International Student Teaching
Opportunities through partnerships with the following: Kodaikanal International School in India;
HANGZHOU NEW CENTURY FOREIGN LANGUAGE SCHOOL IN CHINA; GUIYANG NO. 4
EXPERIMENTAL PRIMARY SCHOOL IN CHINA; Indiana University Global Gateway for Teachers;
Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA). (OIP)
Global Grizzlies; An ASUM student organization based in the Davidson Honors College. The
purpose of this organization is to bring aid to developing countries of the world as humanitarian
ambassadors from the University of Montana. Every summer Global Grizzlies have embark on an
international service learning program in which students have the opportunity to combine their
classroom education with the real-world experience of a lifetime. (OIP)
What are the trends for student participation in these programs during the past five to
10 years? How many students participate? What are their destinations? How much
time do they spend abroad—two weeks? A summer? A semester? A year? What is the
distribution of students who engage in education abroad by gender and
race/ethnicity? What is the distribution of students by discipline?
Units: Graduate School (GRAD); Office of International Programs (OIP); Faculty-led program
directors (FPD), Office of Planning, Budget and Analysis (OPBA)
Summary of findings:


Graduate School indicated that this information is not currently centrally tracked at the
graduate student level. However, this is something that should be worked on in the future.
(Marja’s note: Travel registration can help with this.) (GRAD)
See Appendix B. Note: there are discrepancies between these total numbers and the numbers
that were reported to OPBA in past years. The large discrepancies are mostly due to different
15

response patterns from faculty-led program directors and in how international internships are
defined and reported.. The SRAS and Student Teaching data were not included in this report.
(OIP, AE, OPBA)
See **Data Concerns section below. (AE, OPBA)
How are students prepared for education abroad experiences—a pre-departure
orientation? A specific orientation course?
Units: Faculty-led Program Directors (FPD), Internship Services (IS), Office of International
Programs (OIP)
Summary of findings:






See Appendix A: Focus Group Report for iLab (Domestic Students with Study Abroad)
Faculty-led programs have a variety of pre-departure structures: culture shock preparation,
build group dynamics, content preparation, UM policies, risk management paperwork. This
ranges from 1 meeting to a full credit-bearing course. (FPD)
Returning: dinners, presentations, sustainability fellows have course (FPD)
IE3 students receive an online orientation (in person if there are enough students). Non IE3
internships typically receive an orientation if they go through an organization. Orientations are
extremely important to set them up for success, but there is no way to do it centrally for
international internships because programs are so diverse. (IS)
OIP Exchange Programs. Every student who goes abroad through OIP for a semester or year is
required to take this course. Every student who goes abroad through OIP for summer is required
to participate in a 3-hour pre-departure orientation workshop. The course covers cultural
adjustment, student visas, health and safety, registration at UM and abroad, credit transfer. It
includes a panel discussion and small group discussions with UM returned study abroad
students and international students from those countries. The summer orientation is a
condensed version of the one credit course. (OIP)
Faculty Directed Programs: OIP conducts a health and safety orientation for most faculty
directed program participants. Normally cultural preparation done by the program director.
(OIP)
To what extent does the institution integrate students into the host country? To what
extent are students in “island” programs?
Units: Office of International Programs (OIP), Faculty-led Program Directors (FPD), Internship
Services (IS)
Summary of findings:

Partner University and ISEP programs are full immersion programs. Students are studying like
regular students on the campus of the host university. The level of students’ cultural integration
is very high. Students meet local students in classes, housing facilities, at orientations, and
through student activities. (OIP)
16



Faculty directed programs are island programs so students stay as a group. The integration level
to the host country is less and depends on how many opportunities has the program leader
created for integration. (OIP)
MCLL’s semester-long programs are well integrated and often have host family opportunities.
(FPD)
IE3 students are well integrated into the host country. (IS)
What effect do education abroad students have on the home campus upon their
return? Upon residence life? Upon curriculum content and classroom practice? To
what extent is education abroad integrated with the curriculum on campus?
Units: Student Affairs (SA), Office of International Programs (OIP), Faculty-led Program Directors
(FPD), Faculty Open Forums (FAC)
Summary of findings:









See Appendix A: Focus Group Report for iLab (Domestic Students with Study Abroad)
The Global Partnership Veterans Program and the Intercultural Living Learning Community are
two examples of integration. (SA)
Some classes lend more towards students being able to interact. This seems to happen more
often in activity-based classes or intramural sports. Identify classes in which students interact
more, as this is where students can get to know each other and truly engage. (SA)
Suggestion that schools and colleges have non-work study positions available which would
enable international students to be hired. (SA)
Students have an opportunity to become study abroad ambassadors or to intern for the Office
of International Programs for credit. OIP’s Study Abroad section has about 10-15 active study
abroad ambassadors and 5-6 interns per semester. Peer Advisor interns perform study abroad
advising and Marketing and Photo and Social Media interns market study abroad especially
through social media and create promotional materials. Outreach Intern arranges events to
connect local students with international students. Ambassadors and interns do presentations in
the dormitories about study abroad opportunities. Re-entry workshop shares how to get
involved with international students on campus, including the global partners program. Facultydirected program students are also invited to the re-entry program. (OIP)
Model for sustainability fellows: they participate in different programs and come together to
present and share about experiences. OIP could play a role in the post experience. Students are
great ambassadors. (FPD)
All faculty agreed the impact of overseas programs on the home campus is very positive.
Students came back with experiences they never could have achieved at UM or elsewhere in the
US. One example cited: seeing first-hand how IMF program are administered in Argentina. (FAC)
We received little input from our faculty meeting on the impact of international program on
curriculum content and classroom practice. (FAC)
There are no majors where study abroad is required. Many majors strongly encourage it such as
foreign language majors. (OIP)
17
What is the composition of the student body? To what extent does it affect the
institution’s internationalization strategy?
Units: Foreign Student and Scholar Services (FSSS), Office of International Programs (OIP), Office of
Budget, Planning and Analysis (OBPA)
Summary of findings:



See census reports in Appendix C: Fall2012 census; Fall 2013 int’l students at UM report;
Fall2014 census; Fall 14 International student report (OIP, FSSS)
See **Data Concerns section below. (AE, OPBA)
The internationalization strategy question wasn’t asked at any meetings. OPBA tries to stay
objective and responds to demands of leadership. If leadership designates international
education as a priority it will respond accordingly. (OPBA)
Does the institution collect information on the international interests, experiences,
and attitudes of students? If so, how is this information used?
Units: Foreign Student and Scholar Services (FSSS)
Summary of findings:


FSSS conducts a survey of foreign students every 2 years to determine needs and satisfaction of
services. Results are analyzed and recommendations are shared with pertinent service
providers. Upon completion of their studies at UM, international students complete an
Exit/Departure form and are asked about their experiences during their time here. Feedback
influences the type of activities and services FSSS offers to students: e.g., updating orientation
programs; consulting with phone and health insurance services; recommended fieldtrips; etc.
(FSSS)
FSSS also concludes each program they offer with a short evaluation. For instance, this year
FSSS revamped the whole tax return workshop. (FSSS)
What are the enrollment trends of international students? How are international
students distributed among schools and colleges? Between undergraduate and
graduate programs? How are international students integrated into campus life?
Units: Student Affairs (SA), Foreign Student and Scholar Services (FSSS), Office of International
Programs (OIP), Faculty Open Forum (FAC)
Summary of findings:




See census reports in Appendix C: Fall2012 census; Fall 2013 int’l students at UM report;
Fall2014 census; Fall 14 International student report (OIP, FSSS)
See **Data Concerns section below. (AE, OPBA)
International students are paired up with U.S. students for housing. (SA)
Events are held in dorms and throughout campus that celebrate holidays and cultural events.
Resident Assistants try to give the international students a role in these events. (SA)
18






Many international students work on campus. Dinning Services specifically hires international
students. (SA)
There should be a campus-wide mechanism or strategy to require all students to engage in
programs like the conversation partner and global partners programs. We should have an
Initiative to bring our students together with international students. Force students to interact.
(FAC)
When we talk about internationalization it goes in both directions – in the classroom no one
interacts with international students. We should respect our international students more and
integrate their cultural experiences into their courses more. Faculty could be educated on how
to integrate international students in class. (FAC)
OIP seems to only focus on outgoing students and incoming are important too. (FAC)
People in depts. are ignorant on how to deal with international students and faculty. (FAC)
FSSS provides support: (FSSS)
o Pre-Arrival and Arrival: visa information; temporary and permanent housing
information; travel information to Missoula; welcome and transportation to UM from
airport and bus depot; orientation programs to UM and Missoula; shuttle-van service
and assistance with banking, shopping, Social Security cards, tours and socials;
coordination with UM Residence Life and Curry Health Center for room check-in and
immunizations; Global Partners Program (peer mentoring for new foreign students with
American students); Missoula International Friendship Program (matches new foreign
students with community hosts)
o Personal Advising: academic and cultural adjustment; emergency situations; married
student and dependent needs; roommate concerns; liaison with UM services such as
counseling, career & academic advising etc.
o Financial: short-term emergency loans; sources of financial aid for foreign students;
budgeting and banking; financial certifications for foreign currency exchange.
o Immigration Regulations and Federal/State/Local Laws: tracking and reporting
scholar/student events through SEVIS; extension of stay; maintaining or changing visa
status; on-campus and off-campus employment benefits; exchange visitor program for
students and scholars; state and federal income tax laws and tax treaties;
landlord/tenant rights & responsibilities; state driver’s license requirements; Social
Security card application
o Community Connections: Speakers’ Bureau (foreign students as resources in classroom
and community organizations); community and cultural information (shopping,
recreation, community resources); medical/health insurance information; liaison with
Missoula International Friendship Program and other community organizations
o Programming: on-going orientation on relevant topics; educational field trips to local
points of interest; Winter and Summer break activities; International Culture and Food
Festival; direct and on-going coordination with campus departments and community
organizations or programs and activities; management of UM’s International House, an
intercultural activity center; co-sponsor events with ISA & nationality clubs
19
**Data Concerns:
Units: Academic Enrichment (AE), Office of Planning, Budget and Analysis (OPBA)
Summary of findings:









Study abroad data: 103 student ID numbers are missing from the data which means we were not
able to collect demographic data for these students. These missing numbers are mostly related to a
lack of records from faculty-directed programs. OPBA indicated that even with the 790 number,
there are some people they could only get partial information on. There were a very small handful
who don’t actually seem to have ever been enrolled. Then there was a somewhat larger collection
who appear to only ever have enrolled as CE students, and so they frequently will have registered at
times that made them miss our census extracts entirely. (OBPA)
Kevin Hood, International Internships: As Kevin visits with students who want to intern, work or
volunteer abroad, many students elect not to get credit. Two main reasons: 1) credit is too
expensive (tuition and program fee), and 2) students don’t need the credit. (AE)
There is currently not a way to capture service abroad, research abroad (unless it comes through as
an internship through the Online Learning Agreement process). We are capturing data for UM
students taking UM credit while interning abroad using the Online Learning Agreement process
through Internship Services. (AE)
Sometimes students go abroad taking Independent Study credit. Tracking and differentiating,
research, service, and internships, of independent study credit, can only be done through a manual
process at this time. We can track independent study credit courses through Banner. We cannot
track what the student has done in the independent study course through Banner. (AE)
o Student takes independent study credit to go abroad and do service
o Student takes independent study credit to go abroad and do research
o Student takes independent study credit to go abroad and do an internship
Students get credit from another university or college while doing an internship/service/research
abroad and then transfer those credits back to UM. We don’t capture that abroad experience data,
but we could, if we had a process and we decided we wanted that information. (AE)
We are not capturing all the data we could about how many students are going abroad and having
amazing experiences. We need to determine what data we want to collect and find the best way to
capture it. Some considerations include methodology for capturing non-credit abroad experiences;
abroad experiences that students bring credit back to UM with them; and abroad experiences within
independent study credits. (AE)
OBPA is official source on data, but they work closely with OIP and FSSS on internationally-related
data. These offices worked closely to create definitions for international students and have trained
Banner entry people to ensure Banner fields are being used in the correct way. (OPBA)
We need to work on data integrity by creating definitions that can be used to guide coding/values in
Banner. (OPBA)
OPBA can produce international data, but often doesn’t publish it because there might be a large
discrepancy in how units/depts. “count” numbers (i.e., using paper and e-files) and what OPBA can
“pull” data from Banner. In future, OBPA will produce the official census and then OIP/FSSS will
20




create a supplemental report which will include others who can’t be including in the official census
(e.g., permanent residents, affiliates, scholars). (OPBA)
International Student Affiliates aren’t in official census numbers because they aren’t necessarily
enrolled in credits. We can work with the Registrar’s Office (Bonnie) to see if there’s a way to ID
affiliates as international. (OPBA)
Other data categories that could be addressed (e.g., create definitions, define values) include: study
abroad, international faculty and employees, internationally-related curriculum and program/course
enrollment (OPBA)
Without a data governance system in place, data requests are prioritized as requests are submitted.
OPBA tries to stay objective and responds to demands of leadership. If leadership designates
international education as a priority it will respond accordingly. (OPBA)
Efforts are underway to create a “data governance process” and four committees have been
established (IT Senate site). The governance policy should be finished late summer or early fall.
(OPBA)
21
Appendix A
Focus Group Report for iLab (Domestic Students with Study Abroad)
(See following page)
22
ILab Focus Group Report: 2015
ILab Focus Group
Report:
Students with study abroad experience
Jake Jorgenson, M.S.
5/12/2015
ILab Focus Group Report: 2015
Theme 1: Study abroad is a positive experience and exceeds initial
expectations
The first emergent theme is related to the overall study abroad experience for students and
their motivations for participating. Overall, the experience is perceived as positive, despite the
destination of study. In addition, students tend to possess a variety of reasons for participating, but they
focus around personal growth and a want to see other places and cultures. Furthermore, the
experience as a whole surpassed many expectations students had prior to leaving. Some students had
high expectations that were met while others had no/low expectations that were exceeded. While this
theme is rather general, it is important to capture the overarching feeling regarding the focus group
discussion. This theme is important as participants stressed that their study abroad experience was
meaningful and added to their college career. There did not seem to be any difference between
countries visited and perception of the study abroad experience. All students expressed how their time
spent abroad seemed to encourage personal growth. A sample of the benefits received from study
abroad includes:
 Gaining new perspectives
 A sense of humility
 Expanding personal knowledge of the world
 A sense of independence
Example Quotes about their interest in study abroad:
“I wanted to become more a part of a global community.”
“I love to travel and wanted to gain a better understanding of the language.”
“I had never spent a lot of time living outside of the U.S., or Montana. I was looking to gain new
perspectives.”
“I didn’t expect to learn more about another culture, but it surpassed my expectations by a long ways.”
“The best way to do it is to have no expectations and then you’re pleasantly surprised at what you
learn.”
Theme 2: Perceptions vary between students on pre-trip and post-trip
experiences of study abroad programs
Pre-trip experience:
One area discussed in-depth during the focus group was the pre-trip planning process that
accompanies a student traveling to study abroad. Students were asked to describe their preparation
they received and how faculty members/student advisors influenced their choice of studying abroad.
ILab Focus Group Report: 2015
Pre-trip experiences include course registration, logistics, and overall preparation prior to leaving the
U.S. One emerging aspect was that the structure of the study abroad program appears to influence the
perception of the pre-trip experience. Students who participated in a faculty-led program perceive the
pre-trip experience as “easy” where logistics are taken care of for them. The only negative comment is
that students on faculty-led trips would have enjoyed more “freedom” in regards to the types of
activities they participated in.
Students who participated in self-led programs have divergent views. Overall, their pre-trip
experiences in relation to planning, course registration, and logistics took more effort by the students.
They discussed in detail about the additional steps necessary when a student is traveling by themselves
to a foreign country. While the study abroad office and institutions dedicated to study abroad were
indicated as “very helpful” by all, many students still ran into unexpected issues (finding their way once
in country; foreign visas; contacting host university) that were potentially stressful. Specifically,
obtaining visas to travel abroad was mentioned as a difficult task. One student had issues with obtaining
a student visa to their foreign country. These issues persisted until time of departure. This is reaffirmed
by at least two others who ran into similar problems prior to leaving, albeit separate countries.
Furthermore, some students feel a lack of support from their academic advisors to study abroad. One
student in pre-med stated their advisor was “discouraging” because they may not graduate on-time.
More examples of pre-trip experience include:
 Students felt the on-campus services were extremely helpful
 Many students ran into logistical problems (e.g. finding their university once in-country,
language barriers) upon entering the country
 Certain academic advisors in time-sensitive programs were discouraging for studying abroad
 Students felt it was easy to find a program that interested them
Example Quotes from faculty-led programs:
“We rented out a room where the students spoke English. We had classes at the university and it was
like being back at UM. It was nice.”
“My program was faculty-led so we had our activities and everything set up when we got there.”
“I didn’t really have to do anything before leaving. Our faculty member had quite a bit of it figured out
already.”
Example Quotes from non-faculty led programs:
“The biggest help for me was people at my host university because visas [this country] were very hard to
get. I had to have the embassy phone number and there were many issues trying to get them to issue
my visa on time.”
“These faculty-led programs, there are fliers all over the place. The faculty is the advocate for the
program! The ones where you chose the country and the school and you’re like “I’m going!” But there’s
a lot more that you have to do on your own end and then you’re the only advocate.”
“No professor along the way really helped me, but it was fine. My program was like “alright do what
you want”.”
Post-trip experiences:
ILab Focus Group Report: 2015
The format of the study abroad program does not seem to affect the post-trip experience. Posttrip experiences were discussed as participation in international events in Missoula, academic
readjustment, and credit transferring. The overall shared feeling is that students “wanted to go back” or
“stay longer than before”. In some cases, the students returned back to UM and soon after enrolled in
another study abroad program. Most students in the focus group had recently returned and were still in
the process of transitioning back to UM and the U.S. in general. In addition, many students shared that
they will return to their country of study at some point in the future. As for inclusion in local,
international events, many students feel a responsibility to advocate once they returned home. Thus,
they continually seek out international events that may relate to their country of study. They feel more
comfortable interacting with international students and want to help others who share the same
interests to study abroad.
Overall, the post-trip experience was overwhelmingly positive, except for one primary issue.
Credit transfers, for students that attended a university, appear to be a problem for many. One student
stated they completed a course at the foreign college that was worth five credits, whereas UM only
honored the course as 2.5 credits. Thus, this forced the student to attend an additional semester at UM
and ultimately delayed graduation. Similar stories were brought up by four to five other students as
well. In fact, almost all students who attempted to transfer credits ran into problems once they returned
to UM.
Additional examples of post-trip experience include:
 A desire to help new students find study abroad programs
 Share their experience with other potential study abroad participants
 Students felt a connection to the place they studied and wished to return
Example Quotes:
“I had met other international students that influenced me to want to study abroad where they were
from.”
“We have an expiration date (e.g. graduation) for when we leave. We have to become the advocate for
the entire country to study abroad at once we get back.”
“I wish I stayed longer. I wish I was still there.”
Theme 3: Becoming Globally Competent through Study Abroad
One desired outcome of many study abroad programs is to produce more “globally competent”
or internationally aware students. Becoming globally competent is stressed both in the classroom in the
U.S. and appears to be strengthened through a study abroad experience. Students were asked to
describe the traits of a “globally competent” university student. They were not given an official
definition of “globally competent” and were asked to define the term on their own. Student responses
generated the following traits:
 Open minded,
 Respectful of other cultures
 Willing to learn about other countries/traditions/ways of life
 Knowledge or initiative to learn a foreign language
ILab Focus Group Report: 2015
It appears as though the students may have possessed these traits before their trip. They note
that some students thought “they were there to party and have fun”, which is resented by those
interested in learning about the area. Although social gatherings are important for integration into local
culture, it’s stressed that it should not be the primary interest of abroad students.
Example Quotes:
“I think open mindedness is the best trait. When I got there, many of the American students were
somewhat cliquish and kept to themselves. They didn’t want to assimilate with the locals which kind of
annoyed me.”
“The ideal globally aware student would be respectful of all cultures. Not just being open-minded, but
being respectful of their traditions and their culture.”
“It’s great to be proud of your own country, but realize that other countries are great too and they are
just as proud.”
“I saw one student who went in with the opinion of “America’s the best”. He went on study abroad and
had a totally different perspective when he returned. He actually apologized once he came back and
said how he now saw how wrong he was.”
“Learning a language is an important part of being globally aware. We need to make a push to require
foreign languages even more. I think at a liberal arts institution that wants to create global leaders, we
need to have a mandatory foreign language requirement.”
Theme 4: Preparing students for global experiences
A final key theme revolves around a long discussion about the preparation students receive
prior to traveling abroad. This discussion was different than their “pre-trip experience”, but it is more so
related to orientation that the students are required to attend prior to leaving. Essentially, the focus
group had a split opinion on whether the orientation was too in-depth, lacking in some areas, or
necessary for all students. In part, there was debate whether required orientations decreased the
likelihood of becoming globally aware. Two viewpoints are presented: students who thought the
orientation was too much and those who thought it was needed and necessary for all students.
Roughly half of the students in the focus group thought that the orientation they received “took
the learning away” from the student. They state “on-the-ground experience” should be necessary for all
students. Many believe that students should take personal initiative to be aware of what is needed to
live and travel in a new country. They further stress that the orientation would better prepare them to
become globally competent if there was a more specialized focus on the country they were traveling to
at the time, instead of a broad general orientation. For instance, the students stated that they would
have been more prepared to adapt to cultural norms if more in-depth discussion was had with them
from either a native of the area or someone who visited the same region.
Example Quotes:
“I think it was overkill. Meeting once a week for a semester seems to be a bit much. When we did it was
a 5 hour meeting in the U.C. and two different sessions. I think that’s fine, but a lot of the things they
talk about, “this is what you should be aware of; this is what you shouldn’t eat.” That’s good, but I think
we need to focus on our specific countries instead of “don’t go into the world and get hurt.”
ILab Focus Group Report: 2015
One student said they “totally agreed” with this statement afterwards.
“If you have more an individualized approach (to orientation), that would be great. I googled my
university, turns out it wasn’t the right university. I walked around forever asking if they spoke English. I
wasn’t aware of these country-specific things.”
On the other hand, some students thought the required orientation is necessary and better
prepares all study abroad students, regardless of previous comfort levels. While they perceived
themselves as not needing this extra preparation, they saw the value it provided to the larger whole.
However, they still did note that having specialized sessions where the student gets an “in-depth” look
at the country they are visiting would be helpful.
Example Quotes:
“Our preparation (orientation) was kind of the perfect, happy medium.”
“People have varying levels of being able to deal with these things themselves. Some people maybe
need it.”
“Here’s what I found out about American students, we, on average, don’t know jack about other
countries. More importantly, we don’t take the initiative to learn it… No one takes their own initiative.”
Findings Discussion and Recommendations
The focus group of students who have study abroad experience provided useful and interesting
information regarding their experiences, the preparation they receive, and the outcomes upon
returning. I want to stress again that the group felt that the abroad experience was overwhelmingly
positive. There were a few key areas that may need some attention, but this cannot be generalized to
the entire study abroad population. The experience tends to differ between those who participated in a
faculty-led program versus those who chose to do a long-term stay, but only before traveling abroad. It
appears those who were abroad for at least one semester had to adapt to situations that they did not
expect, but felt these events encourage personal growth.
In regards to pre-trip planning, the study abroad office and program advocates appear to be
extremely useful for students looking to study abroad. Awareness of study abroad programs came from
multiple sources: in-class visits, UM websites, and other students. Those who were specialized in
assisting potential study abroad students are intricate in relieving stress and helping students. At the
same time, there are differences in the ways students perceive the orientation process. This may need
to be further looked at to understand if alternative orientation options are available for some students.
The post-trip experience is difficult to sum up in one phrase because many participants are just
beginning that process. Students feel a responsibility to become advocates for their specific program
and enjoy sharing their experiences with others who were interested. However, there are issues with
many who were in the process of transferring their credits back to UM. This may need to be an area that
needs to be considered on a campus-wide level and specific to certain programs.
Finally, study abroad experiences appear to help achieve the goal of global competency.
Students feel “humbled” by their time spent in foreign countries and found new respect for other
cultures. There may be a segment of the study abroad population that do not have these same goals and
ILab Focus Group Report: 2015
see the experience as a “long-term vacation”. It again was stressed that this did take away from their
experience to some degree.
Recommendations

Consider providing more specialized orientations for specific countries. Students want to talk
about the country they have chosen to visit.

Continue to encourage returning students to advocate for their program and share their stories
with potential participants.

Consider reevaluating credit transfers in order to avoid delayed graduation dates.

Streamline the planning process for students who may feel comfortable traveling to foreign
countries while still providing in-depth information for those who may need extra assistance.

Encourage faculty from departments that do not advocate for study abroad to become more
involved and accepting. Despite the student’s major degree program, benefits are found by
choosing to study abroad.

Continue to push foreign language programs as a necessary requirement as it benefits students
who wish to visit other countries.

Institutions that specialize in assisting study abroad participants are doing excellent work and
should continue to aid students who are in need of help.
Appendix B
5-YR OVERVIEW EDUCATION ABROAD STUDENT NUMBERS
(See following page)
31
5-YR OVERVIEW EDUCATION ABROAD STUDENT NUMBERS
2010-11
TOTAL NUMBER
PROGRAM TYPE
Faculty-led Programs
Faculty-led Students
Partner University
ISEP
Internships
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
5-YR TOTALS
212
293
285
328
369
1487
6
110
52
37
13
20
184
61
35
14
20
186
54
36
9
18
249
44
21
14
20
261
69
27
12
84
990
280
156
62
67%
19%
10%
4%
26
76
76
33
30
96
106
62
18
82
99
86
19
66
121
122
27
116
127
99
120
436
529
402
8%
29%
36%
27%
LENGTH
Academic Year
Semester
Summer
Winter
LANGUAGE REQUIREMENT
Yes
No
Unknown
48
163
1
65
212
16
37
197
51
37
282
9
58
302
9
245
1156
86
16%
78%
6%
Female
Male
Unknown
147
64
1
175
100
18
175
83
27
187
89
52
205
94
70
889
430
168
60%
29%
11%
124
58
26
4
157
79
40
17
157
59
42
27
178
78
39
33
197
70
49
53
813
344
196
134
55%
23%
13%
9%
188
0
10
3
247
25
6
7
232
27
9
7
257
50
9
7
266
70
7
14
1190
172
41
38
80%
12%
3%
3%
4
4
5
1
1
15
1%
5
1
3
0
2
2
0
3
2
7
12
13
1%
1%
1
1
1
1
1
5
0%
0
0
0
0
1
1
0%
GENDER
RESIDENCY
In State
Out of State
WUE
Unknown
ETHNICITY
White
Unknown
Hispanic
2+ Races
American Indian or
Alaska Native
Nonresident Alien
Asian
Black/African
American
Native Hawaiian or
Pacific Islander
TOP 10 DESTINATIONS OVER
5-YEAR PERIOD
Ireland
Mexico
New Zealand
India
Germany
Nicaragua
Australia
Belize
China
Chile
146
105
88
85
51
49
48
47
47
41
TOP 10 MAJORS OVER
5-YEAR PERIOD
Anthropology
Environmental Studies
Political Science
Business Administration
Law
Psychology
English
Management
Marketing
Journalism
136
72
72
52
41
41
39
35
33
32
Appendix C
Fall 2012 Census; Fall 2013 International Students at UM Report; Fall 2014
Census; Fall 2014 International Student Report
(See following page)
33