Conference Call Notes
March 27, 2001
CIC Senior International Officers/ Provosts Discussion
Regarding Opportunities for Collaborative Action in International
Programs
Participating in the call:
Lou Anna K. Simon, MSU (Chair of the CIC)
Rod Erickson, PSU
Mike Stohl, Purdue
John Hudzik, MSU
Gene Allen, Minnesota
Jerry Ladman, OSU
Steven Hoch, Iowa
Barbara Allen, CIC
Background:
At their fall meeting, the CIC Provosts agreed that a small group
of CIC Provosts and International Officers should convene to discuss
and elaborate upon the opportunities for international collaboration
that were articulated by the Senior International and submitted
to the Provosts in the fall.
Draft notes from the conference call:
Lou Anna Simon reported that both the Presidents and Provosts
of the CIC member universities continue to maintain a high interest
in potential opportunities for collaboration among and between
our international programs. In recent meetings, there has been
a sign of general impatience that we have not been able to move
together on a limited set of high priority areas for collaboration.
The purpose of this call is to sharpen our focus, and to move
toward a report and recommendation for the June 4 meeting of the
Presidents and the June 19 meeting of the Provosts. It is understood
that while we will not have a fully fleshed proposal for consideration
by June, we should be able to articulate key opportunities, along
with an identification of proposed next steps and timely outcomes
for reaction from and input by the Presidents and Provosts.
Dr. Simon further encouraged us to think in terms of taking a
national leadership position in cooperation among international
programs, and to look to opportunities for highlighting CIC action
at national meetings.
As a starting point for discussion, Barbara Allen indicated that
during the recent round of campus visits to CIC member universities,
two issues were raised on nearly every campus: increasing access
to study abroad opportunities, and 'doing something' about less
commonly taught languages. Among the many opportunities that have
been discussed, these areas seem to have the most consistent interest
and support.
After some discussion in support of these particular items (study
abroad and less commonly taught languages) as a focus for potential
action, the group then moved on to discussing aspects of these
activities that might bear further discussion/examination:
· What are the current incentives and disincentives for
collaboration? In planning collaborative activities it is very
important to consider carefully, in the structuring of the program,
the incentives for the individual institutions, faculty directors
of programs and students to actively participate. The concept
of cooperation is very appealing, but if the program is not structured
such that the proper incentives are in place, then the program
is likely to not live up to expectations.
· Any consortial activities identified must clearly demonstrate
value-add to the member universities and we must identify the
criteria or measures for value-added.
· Our conversations should include consideration of issues
of and mechanisms for quality control in consortial programs.
· The trust that CIC member universities have for one another
is an important element that cannot be overlooked, and suggests
that these institutions are the "right ones" for collaboration
on these issues.
· There may be mechanisms in place that serve as barriers
to collaboration (e.g. funding models that discourage collaboration
on program delivery) and we must focus on how these barriers can
realistically dealt.
· The issues may be complex, and we may want/need to engage
others in the conversations (particularly the other CIC groups
with strong interest in these areas).
· We may end up working with subsets of willing CIC partners,
rather than seeking to have all commit to action. We don't need
everyone to sign on, but we do need a workable and sustainable
core number in each instance - and the number of participating
partners may vary from issue to issue or project to project.
The group agreed that several Senior International Officers should
attend the April 17 meeting of the Study Abroad Directors in order
to discuss and identify options for increasing the number of students
participating in study abroad, and increasing the number of high-quality
programs and options for our students. Potential discussion items
include the identification of criteria for successful program
attributes in these areas, and a discussion of opportunities for
collaboration. Specific suggestions for potential activities that
might be considered and critiqued include:
· Examine the reasons why AESOP has not been as successful
as hoped, and whether or not it can be altered to serve as a more
viable option and strong model for collaboration;
· Building on the model of collaborative CIC programs such
as those sponsored in Mexico and Quebec;
· Sponsoring faculty development seminars on how to develop
strong and successful study abroad programs;
· Explore opportunities for faculty exchange;
· Broker agreements with desirable international partners
and universities, and in some cases other consortia;
· Broker agreements with "outside" study abroad
program providers;
· Broker student exchange opportunities where individual
institutional arrangements are not cost effective or administratively
viable;
· Broker agreements for such services as group insurance.
In the area of less commonly taught languages, it was suggested
that the idea of addressing LCTLs makes such eminently good sense
that what is needed is one or two "experiments" in delivering
a program with a strong evaluation component. The LAS Deans are
also very interested in this, and will discuss at their April
29/30 meeting. Wendy Wilkins, Dean, MSU College of Arts and Letters
is leading a small team of faculty to develop a LCTL experiment
in intermediate Portuguese - the LAS Deans will discuss this at
their April meeting and identify next steps.
The group suggested that Barbara Allen work with the LAS Deans
to ensure that at least one SIO is included in the "team"
putting the experiment together. It was suggested that a small
task force, representing at most 2-3 member universities, and
involving a minimum number of individuals including a faculty
member, LAS Dean, international officer, and a technologist could
get this moving forward, not only to look toward implementing
and evaluating pilot projects, but larger issues that need to
be examined in developing a workable, general framework for broader
LCTL collaboration. Barbara Allen and Steve Hoch will work together
on this matter, and will communicate with the LAS Deans and then
back to the SIOs.
Next steps:
· Several SIOs to attend April 17 meeting of the Study
Abroad Directors. Allen to confirm
· Provosts to discuss (briefly) at April 24 meeting (by
phone) - Allen to convey comments, suggestions back to SIO ad
hoc group
· SIOs meet April 25 - discuss, elaborate upon these issues.
The agenda to consider as a matter of priority study abroad and
LCTLs.
· Follow up group (subset of SIOs) draft discussion document
for Presidents, Provosts.
· Allen/Simon/others? Present information to Presidents
June 4 and Provosts June 19
BMA 3/28/01 v.2
|
