Florida International University
QEP Proposal: Adding an International Component to the Curriculum
External Consultant’s Report
Susan Buck Sutton, Associate Vice President of International Affairs
Indiana University
February 19, 2008
Executive Summary
The proposed QEP is fully appropriate both for the upcoming SACS review and as a means of
renewing and advancing Florida International University’s historical commitment to
international learning. The proposal is bold: requiring two international courses for ALL
undergraduates, not just those in Arts and Sciences. It is nevertheless doable because it is
predicated on reworking existing courses and fitting them into existing requirements. The broad
outline of the QEP is set, and FIU is now initiating the university-wide conversations that will
turn this outline into an effective, innovative program of curricular transformation that advances
all undergraduate programs at FIU. This report provides comments and suggestions to guide
that discussion.
Consultant’s Visit to FIU
This report is based on my visit to FIU from February 10-12, 2008, during which time I was
hosted by Susan Himburg, FIU’s SACS Director. I examined various QEP documents, toured
FIU facilities, and met with the Vice Presidents of Academic Affairs, Student Affairs, and
Research, the QEP Development Team, the Vice Provost for International Studies, members of
the Department of International Relations, Chair of the Core Curriculum Oversight Committee,
Associate Vice President of Undergraduate Education, Dean and Associate Deans of the College
of Arts and Sciences, and directors of the centers and programs within International Studies.
FIU and International Education
With this QEP, FIU will reclaim and re-invigorate the “international” in its name. FIU has an
historical commitment to international education, captured by a 1972 plaque now on the Perry
Building. The FIU mission engraved on the plaque identifies three defining goals for the
institution:

Education of Students: To Provide a University education for qualified students which
(A) Prepares them for useful careers in education, social services, business, industry, and
the professions; (B) Furnishes them with the opportunity to become effective members of
the society; and (C) Offers them an appreciation of their relation to their cultural,
aesthetic and technological environments.

Service to the Community: To service the greater community, with a primary emphasis
on serving the greater Miami and South Florida area, in a manner which enhances the
metropolitan area's capability to meet the ecological, cultural, social and urban
challenges which it faces.
1

Greater International Understanding: To become a major International Education Center
with a primary emphasis on creating greater mutual understanding among the Americas
and throughout the world.
There are few institutions with such a long-standing and focused commitment to international
learning. This has been one of the most distinctive characteristics of FIU and is reflected in its
International Studies programs, area studies centers, International Relations degree, and language
offerings, among other curricular features. It is also reflected in (and advanced by) the
international diversity of its student body and surrounding community. What many U.S. colleges
and universities are only just now discovering has been a fact of life at FIU since its inception:
that universities have a critical role to play in preparing students for the global dimensions of
citizenship.
The Nature of the QEP.
The QEP aims at making international learning a significant part of all undergraduate education
at FIU. My understanding of the QEP follows.
Goals of the QEP: to “provide an international educational experience for all FIU students,
native and transfer” so as to “bring about meaningful change in undergraduate education.”
More specifically:
 To “serve the international community”
 To “produce graduates with global awareness”
 To produce graduates with a “desire to increase their knowledge of other cultures, values
and mores”
 To produce graduates “able to articulate and communicate in the international
community”
 To produce graduates who are “global citizens with increased problem solving and
communication skills related to international issues at home and abroad”
 To enhance “critical thinking, writing, and oral skills”
 To “create a unifying experience for undergraduate students”
 To “provide FIU with increased engagement with global issues”
 To “strengthen the university’s international ties”
Fundamental Approach of the QEP: to provide “exposure to international ideas, cultures, and
values both within and outside of a student’s major course of study.”
More specifically:
 All students, both native and transfer, will take an “International Core” course
“introducing them to the international theme and learning objectives.”
 All students, both native and transfer, will also take at least one “internationally themed
course in their field of study.”
 Each major will “identify a ‘global issues’ student learning outcome to be tracked within
its Academic Learning Compact.”
 The development of “communication skills, oral and written” will also be part of
international learning.
2

All of this will be done “in a manner that does not increase overall student course
requirements.”
Conversations with members of the Leadership Team that developed the basic QEP idea from
the proposals that had been submitted revealed the following additional points. Students may
choose from among multiple courses to satisfy the Core International course requirement. These
courses may be in different disciplines and cover different topics, but all will share one particular
book as a common reading assignment. This book will be interpreted and elaborated in different
ways by each course but will nevertheless create a common point of discussion across the
university that semester.
Also, many of the courses to be approved for the international sequence will be existing courses
that have been focused to fit the QEP. The goal is to embed international learning into the
existing curriculum and requirements, rather than to develop an entirely new set of courses.
Overall evaluation of the QEP
Requiring a minimal two-course international sequence across all undergraduate majors is a bold
step, rarely if ever taken by large, public research universities. Most have no dedicated
international requirement, and those that do generally have a one-course requirement for students
in the Arts and Sciences, but not beyond. By enacting a two-course, university-wide
requirement, FIU can be a leader in the movement toward international learning for all.
Events and processes of the 21st century have made increasingly clear the importance of
international competencies and connections for all students, not just a few. They have also made
clear that universities, as institutions, must re-align themselves to function within global
networks of research, learning, and engagement. As indicated above, FIU is well positioned to
play a distinctive role in such efforts. Indeed it was founded to do so. It is located in one of the
most cosmopolitan cities of the U.S., with geographical proximity to the rest of the Americas. Its
student body is highly diverse, with a majority of students coming from families with recent
immigration histories. FIU also has substantial resources for international learning already
developed, prime among which are the International Studies program (with its university-wide
area and global studies centers), the Department of International Relations, the language
program, the international initiatives under way in various professional schools, and FIU’s many
active partnerships with institutions outside the U.S.
The QEP proposes to direct these considerable international resources toward all undergraduates,
not just those in a few disciplines. This will distinguish FIU from many of its institutional peers,
thus serving as a means to recruit students (who are increasingly interested in international
learning), attract strong faculty, meet the international needs of its region, and garner external
funding for further international initiatives. It will spread responsibility for international learning
across the university, with the likely result that new disciplines, faculty, and staff will become
engaged in international work. By its very nature, the QEP will breed interdisciplinarity. It will
create a common experience for all undergraduates, both native and transfer. It will advance
“international” as part of the branding of FIU that is already inherent it is name. And above all,
the QEP will enhance undergraduate learning by providing students with the international
perspectives, knowledge, and skills needed for their increasingly globalized lives.
3
Recommendations for developing the QEP: broad themes
Several broad themes overarch the specific recommendations presented in the next section.
First, the most transformative kinds of international learning are those that ask students to think
about the familiar in new ways, to venture into new and unknown territory, to engage in direct
dialogue and collaboration with people unlike themselves, and to use such experiences to reflect
upon their own beliefs, identities, and roles in the world. Such direct, experiential, dialogical
learning develops intercultural competencies and enables students to find their voices. It furthers
communication skills. And it seems particularly appropriate for FIU’s internationally diverse
students who are already juggling what must sometimes be a confusing array of identities,
cultural frameworks, and international/transnational forces.
Second, the two-course sequence will have greatest impact if it is carefully and intentionally
developed, if university-wide guidelines precede the designation of any course as part of the
sequence, and if the sequence is revised and reworked in response to a continuous assessment
mechanism. A cafeteria-style listing of eligible courses, essentially unchanged from their present
form, will not work as well as an integrated set of courses that have been purposefully tailored
and directed toward university-wide goals.
Third, from here out, the QEP must be developed through broad, university-wide conversations
among many different constituencies. These discussions should be led by the QEP Development
Team but reach far beyond it. Departments and faculty must take ownership of this initiative,
exploring the international aspects of their disciplines and then translating these into student
learning outcomes. Student affairs and campus life units must be brought into the discussion and
their creative energies used to develop the advising and co-curricular programs that support the
courses. The International Studies office and the College of Arts and Sciences must be central
players in developing FIU’s capacity to deliver these courses and experiences – across all
disciplines. Both should work with other units and schools to enhance their capacity for
international teaching and to develop courses appropriate across a variety of disciplines.
International Studies is also critical to developing the study abroad opportunities and
international partnerships that can fuel the experiential learning suggested below. And the Core
Curriculum Oversight Committee must play a key role in determining how these two courses
will intersect with other FIU curricular requirements.
Recommendations for developing the QEP: specific suggestions
1.Develop a set of International Learning Outcomes (ILOs). The first step in developing these
courses should be to identify clearly what it is that FIU wants students to learn internationally. I
recommend developing a university-wide set of ILOs, but if this proves too unwieldy, each
school should be asked to develop its own school-specific set. A university-wide set, however,
would help students integrate their undergraduate learning (much of which is outside the major),
ease the transition when students change majors, and create a university-wide ethos on
international learning.
4
The best place to start in developing the ILOs is with the most recent ACE (American Council
on Education) publications and the material posted on the ACE website just this week. This
material outlines a methodology for developing ILOs through conversations with many different
constituencies. It also presents various examples and identifies different kinds of ILOs. Each
school (perhaps even each major) might be provided with some of this material and then asked to
identify what is most important for their students in terms of international learning. This will
move the QEP process out to the school level, stimulate thinking, and produce creative and
thoughtful results, which the QEP Development Team can then integrate into a university-wide
list. This list, in turn, should be widely circulated across the university and then winnowed down
as a result of new discussions. Indeed FIU may wish to repeat this discussion and winnowing
process several times until a focused, widely supported set of ILOs is developed. I recommend
no more than a dozen ILOs in the final list, and they should be ones with which all schools are
comfortable.
2.Develop a set of pedagogical principles and methods to be used and stressed in the approved
international courses. The courses approved for the two-course sequence will have greater
impact if they share common pedagogical theories and practices, particularly if these course are
intended to help students find their voices and apply international learning to their lives and
careers. As indicated in the preceding section, the most meaningful international learning comes
from direct experience and dialogue that is framed by scholarly theories and knowledge. The
QEP Development Team could work with International Studies, Arts and Sciences, and support
units engaged in promoting teaching and learning to develop pedagogical requirements (or at
least strong recommendations) for the courses. The following come immediately to my mind as
possible candidates, but I am sure others will emerge as the campus discussion moves forward.

Approved courses should include direct engagement and dialogue with international
communities or individuals. The QEP Team could develop a list of ways this can be
done and encourage faculty to think of still others. Examples include: inviting
international students or faculty to speak, having students work with internationally
oriented community organizations, asking students to interview immigrants or
international visitors, videoconferencing with classes in other parts of the world, and
various forms of study abroad (both short and long-term).

Approved courses should ask students to reflect on what they are learning and how this
affects their understanding of their own circumstances, identities, families, communities,
career plans, etc. Reflection advances international learning and stimulates
communicative abilities, which are connected to self-awareness. Examples of possible
strategies include: reflective journals or blogs (with clear criteria for what constitutes
meaningful reflection), and production of video clips or photo essays concerning
something international in their lives.

Approved courses should contain explicit discussion of general principles of intercultural
learning, interaction, and analysis. In other words, the course should enhance student
competencies in understanding and working with those unlike themselves, whether in the
workplace, their neighborhoods, a science lab, an overseas experience, or other settings.
5

Approved courses should ask students to apply what they are learning to current events
and global forces that are reshaping their lives. Toward this end, students might be asked
to analyze various forms of news reporting, to take the perspective of different parties in
various current events, to engage in model UN or other simulations, to consider how
science and engineering are shaped by world events, and so forth.

Courses approved for the International Core requirement must incorporate the common
reading as mandatory, connect the reading to course material, and encourage students to
engage in campus-wide events connected to the reading.
3.Decide on the placement of the two courses within the curriculum. As an outsider, I find the
following possibility appealing, but I know that this is a complex, philosophically and
politically-loaded decision for which I cannot know all the factors. The QEP asks the QEP
Development Team to find a way to require two international courses for graduation, without
lengthening the time that students spend obtaining their degrees. One of these courses is a Core
International course that is broad in nature. The other is a more focused course closely related to
or within the major, which focuses international learning toward the students’ future careers.
It seems to me that the simplest way to integrate these courses into the curriculum is to say that
all undergraduates must take them in the course of fulfilling their normal requirements, and that
no one can graduate without them. Thus the first of these courses could be part of the Core
Curriculum (if there are approved courses in the Core), the second could be part of the major,
and/or both could simply be general electives. Many students would take the first course as part
of the Core, but they would not absolutely have to, and transfer students who come to FIU with
the Core already fulfilled would still have to take such a course.
4.Develop an I-designation to be assigned to courses approved for the sequence. “I” stands for
“international,” and there might be sub-designations of I1 for International Core courses and I2
for the more focused courses. Such designations would make it easy for students to plan their
programs and for FIU to track whether or not students have fulfilled this requirement. These
designations would also make clear that courses must meet certain criteria and undergo a review
process. The QEP Development Team could establish the criteria for such designations, based
on the ILOs and pedagogical principles they also establish. The Team should work with units
involved in administering PeopleSoft to see if the designations can appear on transcripts. And
the Team should develop a process and committee structure for reviewing proposed courses.
The Core Curriculum Oversight Committee would still determine if a particular I-course might
also be included in the Core. In parallel fashion, academic departments would decide which I2
courses might count as in or related to the major.
Once procedures are in place, departments and faculty should be invited to adapt existing courses
or develop new courses to match the criteria and then submit these for consideration. FIU should
consider establishing a fund (perhaps for the next few years only, perhaps longer) to support
faculty in developing such courses, and also to encourage interdisciplinary collaboration,
especially for I1 course development. Some disciplines will find it more difficult to develop I2
courses than others, and the QEP Team might provide guidance and examples of what could be
6
done, such as videoconferencing with a science course in another country to understand different
approaches to that science, explore why different research questions might be prominent in
different nations, develop skills of international scientific collaboration, partner with students on
term projects, and so forth.
5.Develop modes of assessment for I-courses. The QEP Development Team should also identify
assessment procedures, both for courses and for the initiative as a whole. One of these might be
an instrument that assesses progress in terms of the ILOs for each I-course. (Faculty could, of
course, continue to administer additional course-specific evaluations as well as this more general
evaluation.) Another might be a broad survey of international knowledge, perspectives, and
abilities given to beginning students and then again at the time students graduate. Such a survey
could also be administered to samples of students before the QEP goes into effect, to enable FIU
to evaluate the overall impact of the QEP initiative. Finally, the QEP Team should support each
undergraduate degree program in identifying an international item to be added to its Academic
Learning Compact.
6.Develop a system for selecting and supporting the common reading. The QEP Development
Team should develop criteria and procedures for choosing the reading that will be common to all
I1 courses in a given semester. This includes determining the structure of the selection
committee and if it will have any charges in addition to selecting the reading (such as developing
support materials and programming connected to the reading, including such items as faculty
guides, discussion questions, relevant films, campus programming, etc.).
7.Consider adding a short, common international reading or experience to First Year
Experience courses. This might be a short article accessible across all disciplines, a newspaper
item relevant to events occurring that semester, a film, an on-campus event, etc. The purpose
would be to focus FIU students toward international learning early in their coursework, provide
yet another common experience, and begin the process of planning their I1 an I2 courses.
8.Develop a centralized coordinating structure. The QEP Development Team will initiate these
activities, but other structures must be established to carry the international course sequence
forward once the SACS review is finished. A central committee, perhaps housed in International
Studies and including representatives from all (or most) schools and relevant administrative
units, would seem to be a natural choice. This committee might be charged with overseeing and
approving courses, making sure sufficient offerings are available, supporting faculty
development, selecting the common reading, administering and analyzing various assessments of
the program, developing supportive infrastructure such as new study abroad offerings and library
resources, making community connections, and other such activities.
9.Provide a robust system for further international learning. The two-course sequence will have
maximum impact if it is framed by a robust set of other curricular resources for those students
who wish to go further with their international learning. The international resources already in
place at FIU (mentioned earlier in this report) figure here and should be widely publicized and
strongly supported. Schools and departments that are not already active in international learning
should be supported in adding international emphases or tracks to their degree programs. The
language program should be encouraged to develop such courses as Medical Spanish or Chinese
7
for business purposes. And, FIU should explore even greater collaboration with its significant
international partners, particularly in the realm of course exchange, study abroad, and curricular
development.
10.Provide a robust system for co-curricular international learning. The course sequence will
also have greater meaning if it articulates with internationally oriented exhibits, performances,
lectures, festivals, and similar activities. The office of Student Life should be supported in
developing these. Student Life and the coordinating committee mentioned in No. 8 above, might
pay special attention to programming connected to the common reading for the semester. There
could be films, lectures, and exhibits that spin off from the book, and serious consideration
should be given to inviting the author to campus to speak.
11.Inventory, keep track, and publicize FIU’s many international resources. International
Studies has already developed an extensive listing of these resources, which should be updated
and maintained. Particular attention should be paid to identifying gaps in these resources –
whether these be gaps in faculty expertise, connections with particular parts of the world, or
library resources, and then devising ways to fill these. Particular attention should be paid to
ways in which partner institutions in other parts of the world can share or trade resources with
FIU.
12.Connect this initiative to the international resources and needs of metropolitan Miami. The
international nature and connections of Miami should be integrated into FIU’s I-courses and
accompanying co-curricular programs. Miami provides a remarkable environment in which to
pursue what is sometimes referred to as “internationalization at home,” and the QEP
Development Team should look into the growing literature on this topic. The newly developed
International Studies International Careers fair, which drew a crowd of over 1000 last year, is a
prime example of what can be done to enable FIU students to connect their international learning
to their careers and communities.
13.Initiate a program of faculty development to support course development. Developing Icourses will be easier for some disciplines than others, but even for these fields, faculty will want
to explore incorporating new pedagogies and experiences. The QEP Development Team should
consider what forms of faculty development would be most effective and seek resources to
support this. Among the possibilities are videoconferences or trips to partner institutions abroad,
workshops on the principles and pedagogies of international learning, release time for a semester
or summer support, and supporting team teaching in which an international expert partners with
someone new to the field. FIU should also consider counting international activities and the
teaching of I-courses positively in Tenure & Promotion as well as raise considerations. And it
might consider a concerted effort to hire more internationally oriented faculty, in order to reach a
certain percentage by 2020.
14.Develop funding mechanisms to sustain this initiative. Much of the QEP can be accomplished
by building on FIU’s existing curriculum and international resources. Some aspects, however,
would benefit from new funding. The QEP Development Team should develop a document
outlining what kinds of support would be most useful, considering support for faculty
development, new study abroad initiatives (particularly those connected to I-courses), bringing
8
speakers to campus, and the staffing needed for coordination of this initiative. A burst of
funding in the development phase could most likely be followed by reduced expenditures after a
few years.
The QEP Team should also consider various methods for funding this initiative in the long-term.
Among the most common methods are: specific international education grants, a foundation
campaign, allocating 1% of the indirect costs of all international grants to international
initiatives, and/or an across-the-board student fee of $5-10/semester to support international
learning and activities.
15.Make this a visible part of FIU’s identity, recruiting, and publicity. The QEP Development
Team should consider how to make international learning part of the ethos of FIU, something of
which all students are aware even before they come to FIU, as well as something that permeates
the campus atmosphere once they are there. FIU recruiting and advising materials, websites for
both the university as a whole and individual schools, and various university and school mission
statements should be examined with an eye toward this goal.
9