Joining the world: the challenge of internationalizing undergraduate education

Joining the world: the challenge of internationalizing undergraduate education

Madeleine F. Green

It is now a truism that American college graduates will live and work in a world where national borders are permeable; information and ideas flow at lightening speed; and communities and workplaces reflect a growing diversity of cultures, languages, attitudes, and values. Nor is it a new idea that an undergraduate education–and especially liberal education–must produce graduates who will be productive contributors to civic life both locally and globally and who understand that the fates of nations, individuals, and the planet are inextricably linked.

A committed minority of educators has long insisted that learning about the world and about the interrelationship of national, international, and global issues is indispensable to a high-quality education. But these ideas have hardly been central to the national educational debate and discussion of the past 25 years. Indeed, U.S. scientific, economic, and military might; the rise of English as a global language; and the success of our higher education system–as well as its attractiveness to international students–have fueled the American tendency to believe that our own history, language, and culture are all that matter.

It is no wonder, then, that in the age of globalization and post-September 11, U.S. colleges and universities face an urgent and perplexing set of questions about how to educate students for this new world. We cannot make the common claim to have the best system of higher education in the world unless our graduates can free themselves of ethnocentrism bred of ignorance and navigate the difficult terrain of cultural complexity. As this article demonstrates, there is reason to hope that internationalization will become a more central part of the U.S. reform agenda. But we have a long way to go–there are no quick fixes in the business of institutional change.


To the extent that national priorities are reflected in federal programs and spending, international education has been low on the list. Federal initiatives have been few, far between, and modestly funded. Combined federal spending under the largest such programs in the U.S. Departments of Education, State, and Defense is roughly $280 million, which amounts to less than 1 percent of federal discretionary expenditures for higher education. The Fulbright Program, initiated more than 50 years ago and the jewel in the crown of international education programs, is a modest program of $123 million, having experienced significant cuts in the last decade. (See Steven G. Kellman in this issue.)

Much of the current federal support for international education grew out of the Cold War. The 1958 National Defense Education Act (NDEA), prompted by the Soviet launching of Sputnik, created a substantial investment in development of area studies and language experts. The Department of Education’s 1965 HEA-Title VI program, which provides the major support for higher education’s production of language and area studies experts, continues to be a very important but modest initiative of $86.7 million; it is complemented by the Fulbright-Hays overseas program, a mere $11.8 million investment.

Modest new Title VI initiatives were added over the ensuing decades, and in 1991 the creation of the National Security Education Program represented new federal energy around international education. One of the few concrete investments From the elusive “peace dividend” that resulted from the end of the Cold War, it supports study abroad for undergraduates, international and language study for graduate students, and institutional projects that emphasize languages and areas of the world critical to U.S. security. But its scale too is small: its awards since its first year of operation in 1994 have never exceeded $7.4 million (in 2000 and 2001 they were down to about $5 million), and the original trust fund of $150 million, reduced by Congress to approximately $38 million, is being spent down.

Although the higher education associations have used their bully pulpit over the last two decades, especially in the past five to seven years, to produce a spate of national reports, high-profile studies and pronouncements from policymakers have been, at best, sporadic. Twenty years elapsed between two major events–the 1979 President’s Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies and President Clinton’s 1999 “Memorandum on International Education.” The 1979 commission rang the alarm on a multitude of issues, including dismal rates of language learning in high school and college and unmet government needs for a cadre of experts on other countries and areas of the world.

Two decades later, in 1999, a memorandum from President Clinton on international education policy committed the federal government to supporting international education. It recommended that educators encourage international students to study in the United States; promote study abroad by U.S. students; support exchanges for faculty, students, and citizens; enhance programs at U.S. institutions that build international partnerships and expertise; expand foreign-language learning and knowledge of other cultures; support the preparation of teachers who can interpret other countries and cultures; and use technology to aid the spread of knowledge.

The list is complete and admirable, but without any accompanying funding, its impact was thus limited. The Bush administration came into office with a strong commitment to K-12 education, but neither international education nor higher education figured prominently on its agenda. September 11 has not altered the administration’s priorities.


Nevertheless, there is surprising public support for international education. Americans consider international learning and the acquisition of foreign-language skills important components of a college education. The findings of a recent national public opinion poll and of a poll of 500 college-bound high school seniors (see Hayward and Siaya, 2001) indicate that Americans have more international experience and interest than one might guess, in light of low levels of governmental spending and discourse. It is likely that the results would have been even more favorable to international learning had the polls been conducted after September 11.

* Fifty-five percent of the U.S. adult respondents and 62 percent of the high school seniors had traveled the United States.

* Level of education was the most important predictor of travel. More than 75 percent of the college graduates had traveled outside the United States–over twice the proportion for people without a high school diploma.

* More than half the adults surveyed thought that a knowledge of international issues would be important to their careers in 10 years; 90 percent thought it would be important to the careers of future generations.

* Eighty-five percent of the public thought that knowing or learning a second language was important (compared to 65 percent in 1965). Three-quarters of the respondents favored making it a requirement in high school, and 70 percent thought it should be required in college.

* College education has a significant impact on international knowledge. Out of 15 questions, respondents with less than a high school degree averaged fewer than five correct answers, high school graduates just under seven, and college graduates nearly 10.

High school students headed to four-year colleges had similarly positive attitudes toward international learning and interest in pursuing it while in college.

* Forty-eight percent wanted to study abroad.

* Eighty-five percent planned to participate in international courses or programs.

* Ninety-eight percent had studied a language in high school, and 57 percent planned to study a foreign language in college.

* Eighty-three percent of students identified international education opportunities as an important consideration in selecting a college.

Certainly, expressions of interest and good intentions do not necessarily translate into student choices or public demands. But this interest is noteworthy and should spur campuses to examine the barriers students face in acting on their interests in international learning.


Colleges and universities have an enormous task ahead if they are to internationalize their curricula and student experience. Financial constraints, other reform agendas that clamor for attention, the current absence of public or student insistence, and the paucity of government funding make the work all the more difficult. It is no wonder that progress has been slow.

The data on internationalization are not encouraging:

* Foreign language enrollments as a percentage of higher education enrollments have declined from 16 percent in the 1960s to an average of less than 8 percent.

* Only 6 percent of all language enrollments are in Asian languages, less than 2 percent in Arabic and Hebrew combined.

* Only 3 percent of U.S. students study abroad before they graduate. The 143,590 who did so in 1999-2000 constituted less than 1 percent of postsecondary enrollments.

* In the 1980s, only 14 percent of students took four credits of internationally focused coursework.

* The percentage of four-year institutions with language requirements for some students declined from 89 percent in 1965 to 68 percent in 1995.

The latest research by the American Council on Education (ACE) suggests that the gap between national rhetoric and institutional policies and practices is also considerable. Slightly more then a third mention international or global education in their mission statements; fewer than three in 10 institutions state international education as one of the top five priorities in their strategic plans. About one-third have formally assessed the impact or progress of their international education efforts in the past five years.

Additionally, the survey revealed that only two out of five institutions required undergraduates to take courses focused on perspectives, issues, or events outside the United States as part of their general education requirements. Queries about language requirements in four-year institutions–where they are more likely to be present than in community colleges–revealed that only 23 percent had a foreign language entrance requirement, and 37 percent had a language requirement for all students in order to graduate.


Good intentions and piecemeal actions are not enough. Campuses committed to internationalization need to hear success stories, serving both as models and as causes for optimism. The eight institutions involved in the ACE project “Promising Practices,” funded by the Carnegie Corporation and launched in 1999, offer such stories. Selected through a national competition, the eight are exemplars of diverse types of colleges and universities that have made significant progress in internationalizing the undergraduate experience. Through project meetings, self-studies, and site visits, ACE sought to understand their successes and challenges and to promote learning among the institutions.

The eight institutions provide a rich source of diverse experiences in internationalizing the undergraduate experience. With different missions, student populations, funding levels, and institutional cultures, they have gone about the work of internationalization in different ways, but they have much in common that explains their successes. The following common ingredients have emerged as vital to their success:

* an intentional, integrative, and comprehensive approach;

* strong leadership from the top;

* leadership throughout the institution;

* widespread faculty engagement;

* a commitment to meeting student needs;

* an ethos of internationalization; and

* supporting structures and resources.

This list of key strategies tracks closely with findings on successful institutional change emanating from earlier ACE work and reported in the “On Change” series.

An intentional, integrative, and comprehensive approach. Colleges and universities are experienced at malting changes at the margins. But internationalization is not simply a matter of adding a language requirement, introducing a global requirement in the general education curriculum, or increasing the number of students going abroad (now a mere 3 percent of students nationally). Each of these is only a piece of a larger whole. Internationalization is a change that is both broad–affecting departments, schools, and activities across the institution–and deep, expressed in institutional culture, values, policies, and practices.

It requires articulating explicit goals and developing coherent and mutually reinforcing strategies to reach those goals. An internationalized campus has more than a series of courses or programs that promote international learning; it links them together intentionally in order to create a learning environment and to provide a set of experiences to as many students as possible.

Institutional and external context shape all major change. Among the “Promising Practices” campuses, size and mission were important determinants of institutional approach. Smaller institutions are easier ships to turn, and interdisciplinary programs often find a more hospitable home there.

It is not surprising, then, that liberal arts colleges have historically led the way in internationalization. Dickinson College illustrates this point. A traditional, residential, liberal arts institution of some 2,000 full-time students, Dickinson has been expanding its internationalization efforts intensively since the mid-1980s, and international awareness now permeates the student experience. Some 21 percent of the students majored in languages last year, while 81 percent studied abroad. International and global themes infuse the curriculum, and all majors in the humanities and social sciences require internationally focused courses, which each department inventories.

On the other hand, there is a certain amount of inertia associated with size, prestige, decentralization, and a high degree of faculty autonomy. As a medium-sized research university, SUNY at Binghamton faced challenges associated with those characteristics in integrating internationalization across schools, departments, and research centers. Vigorous efforts to engage faculty in course redesign through a curriculum development fund, placing international education’s academic programming under the vice provost for undergraduate education, and a broad-based International Education Advisory Committee have helped focus the university’s efforts and draw the threads together.

Indiana University (IU), with 37,000 students at the Bloomington campus (nearly three times the size of Binghamton), created a centralized administrative structure to coordinate internationalization that includes international services, overseas study, and international research and development. The chief international officer reports to the IU president and works with academic units across the campus. Additionally, a Title VI-funded Center for Global Education works with schools and faculty members across the campus to create academic programs such as the international studies minor.

Leadership at the top. Not coincidentally, presidents and chief academic officers who are ardent supporters and public champions of internationalization lead all the institutions. Presidents and senior leaders have sent consistent and repeated messages to faculty, staff, students, and external stakeholders that internationalization is vital to the institution’s academic vibrancy and that it is everyone’s business. Sustained attention is essential; by the time they joined the project, most of the eight institutions had been working on internationalization for nearly a decade. And, while governing boards play different roles according to institutional type and tradition, their support over time is essential.

President Julio Leon was the initial architect and champion of the effort to internationalize the Missouri Southern campus. (See Kimberly S. Gray, Gwendolyn K. Murdock, and Chad D. Stebbins in this issue.) He made the case to external groups (with their fair share of skeptics), mobilized internal enthusiasm, widened the base of leadership, and launched activities and programs even before state monies were appropriated.

Arcadia University (formerly Beaver College) provides another case study in leadership. When Bette Landman stepped into the presidency in 1985, Beaver College was experiencing financial and enrollment difficulties. With some 80 private colleges in the greater Philadelphia area, Beaver was losing the competition for students, resources, and reputation.

While its Center for Education Abroad (CEA), founded in 1965, was successful and well known outside the institution, it functioned quite separately from the campus, and few Beaver students went abroad on its programs. Internationalization presented an opportunity to build on the successes of CEA, bring a new dimension to the curriculum, energize the faculty, and establish a clear market niche. The appointment of David Larsen as CEA director in 1993, the same year that a new mission statement reflected Beaver College’s commitment to internationalization, began a new relationship between the college and CEA. Since then, new programs, vastly increased study abroad, and a deliberate effort to infuse all aspects of the institution with an international dimension provide clear evidence that Landman’s vision is now integral to Arcadia’s identity.

The leadership challenge at research universities is some-what different. Focusing attention is especially difficult given the scale, complexity, and culture of research universities. The principal strategies for leading change available to presidents and senior administrators at any institution are persuasion, exhortation, and rewards. All of those strategies may be required simply to focus campus attention on internationalization.

Indiana and Binghamton have met that leadership challenge. When IU System President Myles Brand came into office in 1994, one of the outcomes of the strategic planning process he initiated was a recommendation to strengthen international programs. A number of initiatives resulted, including new university funding for international curriculum development; centralizing access to the university’s international resources and connecting them to community, government, and business; establishing international studies summer institutes for high school teachers and students; and improving contact with and programing for IU’s international alumni.

Similarly, when Lois DeFleur assumed the presidency of SUNY at Binghamton, her first strategic plan in 1992 established international education as a priority. The 1995 revision elevated internationalization to one of three institutional priorities, setting out broad goals and clearly measurable objectives. The development of the university-wide International Education Advisory Committee in 1994 and the development of an international mission statement for Binghamton set the course for future gains.

While the symbolism of presidential speeches and the inspiration of mission statements and strategic plans do not guarantee results, they are an important expression of institutional values and priorities and a crucial foundation for engaging the campus in building something new. They must then be made real in leadership acts, whether through allocating or raising funds to support internationalization, removing barriers, or stepping aside and letting faculty and staff take charge.

Leadership throughout the institution. The commitment of presidents and senior leaders is necessary but insufficient to achieve major change. While enthusiasm for a given direction or initiative is never universal on any campus, widespread faculty and administrative leadership is essential to create institutional energy, provide legitimacy, and achieve broad participation. At community colleges, the local focus often works against a larger international scope, and the high proportion of adjunct faculty poses challenges for leadership, as well as for curricular coherence and faculty development.

The two community colleges in the project–Kapi’olani and Tidewater–were notable for their grass roots leadership of internationalization. At Kapi’olani Community College, an initiative to infuse an Asia-Pacific dimension throughout the institution is coordinated by two faculty members who are granted release time for these responsibilities. Over the years, Kapi’olani has developed a group of advocates for the Asia-Pacific Emphasis by rotating the faculty members in these leadership positions and thus bringing their international commitment back to the teaching or administrative positions they assume in the college.

At Tidewater Community College (TCC), internationalization has also historically been the province of the faculty. There is no chief international officer; the International Education Committee, one of six standing governance committees, oversees international initiatives. This structure ensures faculty leadership for TCC’s international agenda, but it also has its costs. Faculty terms on the committee are two years, and committee assignments are always in addition to significant regular teaching duties.

Chief international administrators are vital leaders in the internationalization process. The international administrators at the participating institutions are highly respected and energetic, working across departments and schools. With the support of senior administrators, they have catalyzed the deans, department heads, and faculty to do the important work of internationalization.

Faculty development and engagement. Presidents can sign an infinite number of international agreements, but academic change is within the domain of the faculty. And neither making international perspectives real nor infusing the curriculum with them is a given for U.S. faculty. The Carnegie Foundation’s 14-nation study of the academic profession found that American faculty are far less committed to internationalism than their counterparts abroad. Most of the eight “Promising Practices” campuses built that commitment by providing opportunities for faculty to travel in order to conduct research, meet with colleagues, or accompany students. Their successes make it clear that once faculty develop firsthand international experience, their interest and enthusiasm grow quickly; that investment pays off in faculty support for internationalization, in the enthusiasm they communicate to students, and in their own teaching and research.

The resources the institutions devote to supporting faculty member’s international engagement vary tremendously. But in every case, those who have been abroad to study, teach, or lead students have been transformed by the experience, especially if they have had little international experience beforehand. Even by allocating very limited resources, several institutions have been able to increase the number of internationalists on their faculty until they have reached a critical mass. Unfortunately, budget cutbacks and the ever-present suspicion that international travel is a boondoggle make this important investment vulnerable.

Travel is not the only strategy to engage faculty in internationalization. Faculty grants to infuse international content into existing courses or to develop new ones with international focus are modest investments in curricular improvement. Most of the eight institutions offer such grants. Workshops for faculty help with both pedagogy and international content. Dickinson provides language-immersion opportunities at one of its centers abroad for non-language faculty who qualify by taking an intermediate language course before the session and pledging to continue their language study upon returning to Dickinson.

Funding faculty development is always a challenge. Most institutions have used a combination of external and institutional funding. Tidewater Community College has made securing external funds for international faculty development a high priority. With funding from federal and state sources, TCC has run study tours for faculty and held curriculu- development seminars focusing on different regions of the world. Since 1992, 44 faculty and staff members from 15 disciplines have worked or studied abroad with the help of international professional development funds. Additionally, 45 faculty have taken part in seminars focused on different world regions and have created teaching modules with the assistance of specialists on the regions.

Meeting student needs. International education can be unfriendly to students. For example, language classes using the “drill and kill” method of instruction, or (as David Maxwell and Nina Garrett point out in this issue) that envision all students as prospective language and literature majors rather than as travelers or professionals, are notorious deterrents to language study. Similarly, policies that make it impossible for students to graduate in four years if they study abroad or that restrict the portability of financial aid to these programs can discourage all but the most persistent students.

The “Promising Practices” institutions have worked to meet student needs. Arcadia University, which enrolls many first-generation college students who have not traveled far from their local communities, whets students’ appetites to study abroad with its highly popular “London Preview” program. For eight years it has provided an introduction to travel abroad to first-year students, who for $245 can experience international travel.

The Arcadia subsidy is an investment. By introducing students to an international experience, it lets them discover that procuring a passport is easy; crossing the Atlantic is not something to fear; and maneuvering in a new city, culture, and country is possible. By sending faculty and staff (free) to accompany the students, Arcadia builds interest and support for international activities across the campus. It continues its student-friendly approach by listing in the catalog how students in each department can fulfill requirements for the major through its study abroad programs.

Nationally, the growth in study abroad over the years has been in the shorter programs that last a semester, a summer, or even a few weeks. While there is wide agreement that the longer the experience, the greater the cultural immersion and learning, today’s students are voting with their feet for shorter programs. At Indiana University, summer program enrollments have increased 124 percent since 1997 and semester-long programs by 123 percent since 1989, while the year-long program numbers have stagnated.

A number of the institutions are building study abroad components into regular courses so that travel components of a few weeks are integral parts of the course. While such experiences are a far cry from a year in a foreign country using another language, they do provide some international exposure to students who might have none otherwise.

Kapi’olani Community College (KCC) anchors its international focus–called the Asia-Pacific Emphasis–in the multicultural nature of its student body, and by bringing the world to the campus. Of its 7,200 students, only 13 percent are Caucasian; the rest are primarily of Asia-Pacific origin. Nearly half the faculty participate in planning and programs related to the Asia-Pacific Emphasis, and 70 percent of courses offered include substantial Asia-Pacific content.

For KCC, international and multicultural emphases are so inextricably entwined that they are synonymous. KCC’s International Cafe provides a comfortable venue for students to congregate with and learn from each other. Language exchange is one of its most popular features. Students can find native Japanese speakers to practice conversation with, who in turn find help with their ESL homework. Students give presentations on their culture and history at the cafe and find friends and connections there.

On many campuses, students who are interested in developing foreign language proficiency but not in taking literature courses have few choices. SUNY at Binghamton’s Languages Across the Curriculum program (LxC) has helped make language study meaningful. In LxC courses, student language resource specialists lead study groups, assigning material in the target language and conducting discussions about the readings. Since 1991, between one and 10 courses have offered an LxC option each semester, and some 2,800 students have participated.

Creating a campus ethos. The gap between institutional rhetoric on internationalization–as evidenced by mission statements and other institutional proclamations–and its realization in institutional practices, policies, and culture is striking on many campuses. It is no small task to weave into the institution’ s outlook a shared conviction that the campus and the world are inextricably linked. The project institutions have been deliberate in creating a culture that embodies their aspirations, where internationalization is lived rather than merely spoken about, and they wisely recognize the difficulty of the task.

The change process is inevitably messy, not at all linear or predictable. The eight campuses have moved on multiple fronts, aligning deeds and words and building a culture of internationalization by promoting faculty engagement; providing faculty development resources; developing rich cultural opportunities on campus through lectures, film series, festivals; promoting study abroad and international learning in freshman orientation and in the catalog; and allocating resources.

Providing resources and supporting structures. The most frequently cited reason for inaction in higher education is lack of funding. Indeed, there is never enough money available for all the worthy innovations and enhancements institutions would like, and internationalization does make a claim on resources. Few of the institutions in the project had generous funding for their initiatives; most relied on reallocation of existing resources, frequently incrementally and over time, and modest external funding. These funds went a long way in supporting good ideas and curriculum development.

External funding played an important role on the eight campuses. Kapi’ olani and Tidewater have impressive lists of federal and state grants to support internationalization. Indiana and Binghamton attract significant external funding through grants and contracts. And all the “Promising Practices” institutions engage in private fund-raising to support internationalization. Binghamton has an endowment fund to support study abroad and another one to support students studying in Spanish-speaking countries. Dickinson began an endowment fund devoted to internationalization with a challenge grant from NEH in 1985.

Some institutions have increased their reach and capacity through partnerships with businesses. Public institutions have also partnered with their states on trade, economic, and cultural development. Kapi’olani has recently established the Paul Honda International Center as a focal point for international and local students. Kapi’olani also supports local and international workforce development and training partnerships identified by the State Department of Business and Economic Development.


Traditionally, colleges and universities have judged their accomplishments by measuring their inputs and resources–endowment per student, SAT scores of entering students, and/or books in the library. A decade or more of attempting to move from assessing inputs to measuring outcomes has prove a very difficult undertaking. Similarly, the little assessment of internationalization that does occur is accomplished through a series of approximate and easily counted measures, such as the number of international students on campus, students studying abroad, or foreign language enrollments.

Such measures are silent on student learning and attitudes. While this “supply-side” approach to internationalization provides a starting point, institutions that are serious about its effect on students should be taking a close look at learning goals course content, pedagogy, campus life, enrollment patterns, and institutional policies and practices to get a more complete picture of their successes.

The following questions–by no means an exhaustive list–can serve as a guide to a deeper assessment of institutional strategies and student learning outcomes. They are adapted from the self-assessment instrument developed in the “Promising Practices” project.

* Is global/international learning articulated as a goal of undergraduate education at your institution?

* To what extent has your institution developed learning goals associated with the global and international dimensions of undergraduate education? How do you assess student achievement of those goals?

* To what extent is there a clear strategy to accomplish the goals? How does this strategy take into account your institution’s mission, history, and student body?

* To what extent does your institution’s general education curriculum include global content, perspectives, and different ways of knowing? What is your evidence?

* To what extent do the academic departments attempt to internationalize the major? To what extent do they promote or impede study abroad for students? What is your evidence?

* How rich are the opportunities for students to take courses with an international/global focus? What do enrollment patterns in these courses over time tell you about student interest?

* Do you have a language requirement? Why or why not? What do enrollment patterns in language courses reveal? What qualitative data do you have about language learning at your institution?

* How is internationalization manifested in the co-curriculum (such as international events, festivals, lectures, and films)? To what extent do students attend these events?

* How does your institution review and evaluate the global dimensions of undergraduate education?

* How does your institution promote faculty engagement in internationalization? What barriers are there to their engagement? To what extent are you succeeding in removing them? What is your evidence?

* What opportunities exist in the local environment to enhance your internationalization efforts? To what extent has your institution taken advantage of them?

* What governance and administrative structures support internationalization? How well are they working?

* What financial resources does your institution provide for internationalization? What are the most important targets for further investment?

* What have been the trends in recent years with respect to enrollment of international students on your campus? Are there strategies to make their presence contribute to the internationalization of your institution? How well are they working?

* What links does your campus have with institutions in other countries? How well are they working?

* How would an undergraduate student on your campus know that your institution considers internationalization a priority and an institutional value?


While the events of September 11 may focus attention on, and galvanize colleges and universities to become serious about, international and global learning, even a crisis may not produce deep and enduring change. It is too early to say whether U.S. higher education is beginning a transformation, or if internationalization will continue to be a priority for only a minority of institutions. Many profound changes will have to occur if we are indeed beginning a major shift to greater interdisciplinarity, a focus on learning outcomes, and a higher level of engagement with the world.

The piecemeal approach–a language requirement here, some study abroad there, and an internationally focused course or two in the general education requirement–has not succeeded in deeply internationalizing U.S. higher education institutions or student learning. Colleges and universities owe it to their students and to the public to deliver in concrete and meaningful ways on their promise to prepare students for the global world.


* President’s Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies, J.A. Perkins, (Chairman), Strength Through Wisdom: A Critique of U.S. Capability, Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979.

* Barrow, Thomas et. al., College Students’ Knowledge and Beliefs: Survey of Global Understanding, Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, 1981.

* What We Don’t Know Can Hurt Us, American Council on Education (ACE), 1984.

* Lambert, Richard, International Studies and the Undergraduate, ACE, 1989.

* Andersen, Charles, International Studies for Undergraduates, 1987: Operations and Opinions, Higher Education Panel Report No. 76, ACE, 1988.

* What We Can’t Say Can Hurt Us–A Call for Foreign Language Competence by the Year 2000, ACE, 1989.

* Building the Global Community: The Next Step, Report of a conference sponsored by the American Council on International Intercultural Education and the Stanley Foundation, 1994.

* Goodman, Louis W., Kay King, and Nancy L. Ruther, Undergraduate International Studies on the Eve of the Twenty-first Century, Association of Professional Schools of International Affairs, 1994.

* Educating Americans for a World in Flux: Ten Ground Rules for Internationalizing Higher Education, ACE, 1995.

* A Research Agenda for the Internationalization of Higher Education in the United States, Association of International Education Administrators, 1995.

* Educating for Global Competence–America’s Passport to the Future, ACE, 1998.

* Global Responsibility: Final Report of the AASCU Task Force on Global Responsibility, American Association of State Colleges and Universities, 1998. (

* Expanding the International Scope of Universities, National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, 2000.

* Chandler, Alice, Paying the Bill for International Education: Programs, Partners and Possibilities at the Millennium, NAFSA: Association of International Educators, n.d.

* Hayward, Fred, Internationalization of U.S. Higher Education, Preliminary Status Report 2000, ACE, 2000. (

* Hayward, Fred and Laura Siaya, Public Experience, Attitude, and Knowledge: A Report on Two National Surveys About International Education, ACE, 2001. (

* Open Doors: Report on International Exchange, Institute for International Education (published annually).


Eight Success Stories

* Appalachian State University, NC

* Arcadia University, PA

* SUNY at Binghamton

* Dickinson College, PA

* Indiana University

* Kapi’olani Community College, HI

* Missouri Southern State College

* Tidewater Community College, VA

Notes: For profiles of each institution and spotlights on their innovative practices in internationalization, see Missouri Southern’s program is described in this issue by Kimberly S. Gray, Gwendolyn K. Murdock, and Chad D. Stebbins.


* Barrows, Leland C., ed., Internationalisation of Higher Education: An Institutional Perspective, Bucharest: UNESCO-CEPES, 2000.

* Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, Internationalisation of Higher Education, Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 1996.

* Eckel, Peter, Madeleine Green, and Barbara Hill, On Change V. Riding the Waves of Change: Insights from Transforming Institutions, Washington D.C.: American Council on Education.

* Groening, S. and D .S. Wiley, eds., Group Portrait: Internationalizing the Disciplines, New York: The American Forum for Global Education, 1990.

* Johnson, Joseph and R. Edelsstein, Beyond Borders: Profiles in International Education, Washington D.C.: Association of American Colleges and American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business, 1993.

* Klasek, Charles B., ed., Bridges to the Future: Strategies for Internationalization of Higher Education, Carbondale, IL: Association of International Education Administrators, 1992.

* Knight, Jane and Hans de Wit, ed., Quality and Internationalisation in Higher Education, Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 1999.

* Mestenhauser, Josef M. and Brenda Ellingboe, Reforming the Higher Education Curriculum: internationalizing the Campus, Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education and Oryx Press, 1998.

* Pickert, Sally and Barbara Turlington, Internationalizing the Undergraduate Curriculum: A Handbook for Campus Leaders, Washington D.C.: American Council on Education, 1992.

* Whalley, Tom, Best Practices for Internationalizing the Curriculum, Victoria, B.C.: Centre for Curriculum, Transfer, and Technology, 2000.

Madeleine F. Green is vice president and director of the Center for International Initiatives at the American Council on Education (ACE). This article is based on a forthcoming A CE publication: Promising Practices in Internationalization, Summer 2002. The author retains the copyright to this piece.

COPYRIGHT 2002 Heldref Publications

COPYRIGHT 2002 Gale Group