Virtual Internationalization of Higher Education: A

Virtual Internationalization of Higher Education: A Comparative Study between Saudi and UAE Universities By © 2018 Ebtisam Dafer Alqahtani M.A., University of Kansas, 2012 B.S., King Khaled University, 2007 Submitted to the graduate degree program in Educational Leadership and Policy Studies and the Graduate Faculty of the University of Kansas in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Chair: Dr Ronald Aust

Dr. Young-Jin Lee

Dr. Bruce Frey

Dr. Richard Branham

Dr. Suzanne Rice

Date Defended: 11 April 2018

ii The dissertation committee for Ebtisam Dafer Alqahtani certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation:

Virtual Internationalization of Higher Education: A Comparative Study between Saudi and UAE Universities

Chair: Dr. Ronald Aust

Date Defended: 11 April 2018

iii Abstract Virtual Internationalization policies increase administrators’ global cognizance and enhance the precocity of learners to tackle global issues. Higher Education Institutions that have established the interconnected network of virtual learning environments have developed cultural diversity classrooms that influence the learners to embrace a liberal perspective (De Wit et al., 2015). Data was collected using a survey to investigate the current level of administrators’ knowledge about Virtual Internationalization and explored the challenges that might prevent the effective integration of Virtual Internationalization strategies in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and the United Arab Emirates universities (UAE). This study also identified the differences between KSA and UAE universities in a) administrators’ experiences with Virtual Internationalization, b) integration of Virtual Internationalization strategies, and c) the challenges preventing effective integration of Virtual Internationalization strategies. Further, the relationships between the integration of Virtual Internationalization strategies and the universities’ locations, medium of instruction and accreditations were examined. Descriptive statistics, independent-samples t test, and multiple regression analyses were conducted to address the research questions. Participants in this study were 482 administrators from KSA universities (71.5%) and 192 administrators from UAE universities (28.5%); there were 10 participants who did not report the location of their universities. Among the 684 participants, 87 of them (about 12%) were from universities using Arabic as a medium of instruction; 225 of them (33%) were from universities using English as a medium of instruction; 369 of them (about 54%) were from universities using

iv both Arabic and English as the medium of instruction; and 3 of them did not report their teaching language. Twelve participants did not report the accreditation of their universities. Among the 672 participants who reported the accreditation of their universities, 215 of them (32%) were from universities with national accreditations; 64 of them (9.5%) were from universities with international accreditations, and 393 of them (58.5%) were from universities with both national and international accreditations. Analyses of the self-report survey data showed that, first, participants’ average knowledge of and experience with Virtual Internationalization was limited (M = 1.66, SD = 0.82), using a 4-point Likert-scale (0 = No experience, 1 = Very little experience, 2 = Some experience, and 3 = A lot of experience). Results of an independent-samples t test show that there was a significant difference between KSA and UAE universities in administrators’ knowledge of Virtual Internationalization (t(519) = -9.48, p < .001). Second, results of an independent-samples t test show that administrators at UAE universities perceived a higher level of integration of Virtual Internationalization in their universities than their peers at KSA universities (M = 10.37 for UAE participants vs. M = 7.92 for KSA participants) and the difference in their perceived level of integration of Virtual Internationalization was statistically significant (t(440.36) = -7.04, p < .001). Third, results of an independent-samples t test also show that there was a significant difference between KSA and UAE universities in the challenges that might prevent effective integration of Virtual Internationalization strategies (t(448) = -9.37, p < .001), with KSA administrators perceiving integration of Virtual Internationalization more challenging than UAE administrators. Last, results of the multiple regression show that the integration of Virtual Internationalization strategies was significantly related to universities’ location and accreditation, but not related to the medium of instruction.

v This study provides evidence that universities should have strategic plan to virtually internalize and set aside a budget and resources to fund the implementation stages. The findings indicate that university’s administrators in the KSA and UAE require proper orientation and exposure to technical knowledge and organizational strategies, thus improving their capacity to integrate and implement Virtual Internationalization programs in their campuses.

vi Dedication I dedicate this research to My Father, who helped me in all things great and small. My Mother, who never stop giving of herself in countless ways. My beloved two brothers, the symbol of love and giving. All the people in my life, who touch my heart and soul.

vii Acknowledgement In the name of Allah the most Merciful and Beneficent First and Foremost, praise is to ALLAH, the Almighty, the greatest of all, on whom we ultimately depend for sustenance and guidance. I would like to thank Almighty Allah for giving me determination and strength to do my research. His continuous grace and mercy was with me throughout my life and ever more during the tenure of my research. Completion of this doctoral dissertation was possible with the support of several people, who so generously contributed to the work presented in this dissertation. Special mention goes to my enthusiastic supervisor, Ronald Aust. My PhD has been an amazing experience and I thank Aust wholeheartedly, not only for his academic support, but also for giving me so many wonderful opportunities. I also owe a debt of gratitude to all the members of the doctoral committee Dr. Bruce B. Frey, Dr. Lee, Young-Jin, Dr. Richard Branham and Dr. Rice Suzanne for their unfailing academic helpfulness throughout this research. I should not forget all the cooperative administrators / participants whom I used for my data from the two universities of KSA and UAE. They are the indispensable assets of this study. Although I cannot list all the names of people involved in this project, my sense of gratitude toward them is enormous. I would like to thank my colleagues and friends for criticism, discussions and suggestions.

viii I also extend my heartfelt appreciation to everybody who was important to the success of this research, as well as expressing my apology that I could not mention personally one by one. I owe everything to my family; Father, Mother, Grandfather, Grandmother, Brothers, Sisters in law, Nieces, Uncles and Aunties who encouraged and helped me at every stage of my personal and academic life and longed to see this achievement come true. I love you all. Ebtisam Alqahtani

ix Table of Contents Abstract......................................................................................................................................... iii Dedication ..................................................................................................................................... vi Acknowledgement ....................................................................................................................... vii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. xiii List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. xiv Chapter 1 Introduction................................................................................................................. 1 Higher Education in the KSA and the UAE ........................................................................... 6 Al-Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University ............................................................. 16 Zayed University .................................................................................................................. 18 Internationalization of Higher Education in KSA and UAE ................................................ 19 Virtual Internationalization of Higher Education in KSA and UAE.................................... 22 Challenges to Virtual Internationalization in KSA and UAE .............................................. 25 Statement of the Problem ..................................................................................................... 28 Purpose of the Study............................................................................................................. 31 Research Questions .............................................................................................................. 31 Hypotheses of the Study ....................................................................................................... 32 The Significance of the Study .............................................................................................. 33 Operational Definitions ........................................................................................................ 34 Chapter Summary ................................................................................................................. 36 Chapter 2 Literature Review ..................................................................................................... 37 Definitions ............................................................................................................................ 40 Internationalization of Higher Education Strategies ............................................................ 42

x Internationalization of Higher Education Modes and Steps ................................................. 46 Drivers of the Internationalization Process .......................................................................... 47 The Rationale for Virtual Internationalization of Higher Education ................................... 51 Virtual Internationalization of Higher Education ................................................................. 54 Virtual Instruments of Internationalization of Higher Education ........................................ 56 Benefits of Virtual Internationalization ................................................................................ 59 Challenges of Virtual Internationalization ........................................................................... 62 Virtual Internationalization Theories ................................................................................... 63 Virtual Internationalization Programs .................................................................................. 78 Internationalization in the GCC Region ............................................................................... 93 Chapter Summary ................................................................................................................. 96 Chapter 3 Methodology ............................................................................................................. 97 Research Design ................................................................................................................... 98 Research Questions .............................................................................................................. 99 Hypotheses of the Study ..................................................................................................... 101 Research Settings ............................................................................................................... 101 Data Collection Procedures ................................................................................................ 104 Description of Variables ..................................................................................................... 106 Participants ......................................................................................................................... 106 Instrumentation ................................................................................................................... 107 Survey Translation ............................................................................................................. 109 Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................................... 110 Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 113

xi Limitations of the Study ..................................................................................................... 115 Summary ............................................................................................................................ 116 Chapter 4 Results ...................................................................................................................... 117 Data and Participants Description ...................................................................................... 117 Research Questions and Results ......................................................................................... 120 Research Question 1 and Research Question 4.a ............................................................... 121 Research Question 2 and Research Question 4.b ............................................................... 123 Research Question 3 and Research Question 4.c ............................................................... 127 Research Question 5 ........................................................................................................... 132 Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................... 135 Chapter 5 Discussion and Conclusion ..................................................................................... 137 Purpose of the Study........................................................................................................... 137 Hypotheses of the Study ..................................................................................................... 138 Participants ......................................................................................................................... 139 Discussion of Research Question Findings ........................................................................ 140 Limitations of the Study ..................................................................................................... 149 Implications ........................................................................................................................ 150 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 150 Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 153 Suggestions for Future Research ........................................................................................ 156 References .................................................................................................................................. 159 Appendices ................................................................................................................................. 175 Appendix (A): Academic Advisor’s Letter ........................................................................ 175

xii Appendix (B): Approval of Protocol .................................................................................. 176 Appendix (C): Survey English Version.............................................................................. 177 Appendix (D): Survey Arabic Version............................................................................... 182 Appendix (E): Approval from Al-Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University .......... 186 Appendix (F): Approval from Zayed University ............................................................... 187 Appendix (G): Consent Form ............................................................................................. 188 Appendix (H): Survey Electronic English-Version............................................................ 189 Appendix (I): Survey Electronic Arabic-Version .............................................................. 193

xiii List of Figures Figure 1. The distribution of students in KSA’s HEIs ................................................................... 8 Figure 2. Distribution of learners in UAE’s HEIs ........................................................................ 14 Figure 3: Drivers of Internationalization (Haggard, 2013) ........................................................... 48 Figure 4: CABWEB Portal’s conceptual model (Bell & Zaitseva, 2007) .................................... 58 Figure 5: The primary reasons for HEIs to focus on internationalization (De Wit et al., 2015) .. 60 Figure 6: Diffusion of Innovation Theory Model ......................................................................... 65 Figure 7: CIGE Model for Comprehensive Internationalization (Ward, 2015)............................ 69 Figure 8: The Institutional Theory Chart ...................................................................................... 70 Figure 9: Communication model .................................................................................................. 74 Figure 10: Learning by doing model cycles ................................................................................. 77 Figure 11: Student mobility in GCC Regions ............................................................................... 95 Figure 12. Descriptive Methodology (Blessing et al., 1998). ...................................................... 99

xiv List of Tables Table 1: Summary of the Location of Participants’ Universities ............................................... 119 Table 2: Summary of Medium of Instruction in Participants’ Universities................................ 119 Table 3: Summary of Accreditation of Participants’ Universities .............................................. 119 Table 4: Participants’ Knowledge and Experience of Virtual Internationalization .................... 122 Table 5: Results of t test and Descriptive Statistics for Experience with Virtual Internationalization .............................................................................................................. 123 Table 6: Integration of Virtual Internationalization Strategies in Universities........................... 124 Table 7: Results of t test and Descriptive Statistics for Integration of Virtual Internationalization Strategies ............................................................................................................................. 127 Table 8: Challenges Preventing Integrating Virtual Internationalization Strategies in KSA and UAE Universities ................................................................................................................. 128 Table 9: Results of t test and Descriptive Statistics for Challenges of Integrating Virtual Internationalization Strategies ............................................................................................. 132 Table 10: Results of Regression Analysis: Location, Medium of Instruction, and Accreditation of University Predicting Integration of Virtual Internationalization Strategies....................... 134 Table 11: Results of Regression Analysis: Location and Accreditation of University Predicting Integration of Virtual Internationalization Strategies .......................................................... 135

Chapter 1 Introduction

The last decade of the 20th century saw the establishment of standard universal norms that sought to increase economic and political interdependence and improve the global flow of persons, goods, and services (Adapa, 2008). Adoption of the provisions of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) encourages countries to deregulate and deinstitutionalize universities to promote cross-border movement of educational services (AlKhalifa, 2016). Wachter (2002) asserts that education is a “product” rather than a “public good” that should be deregulated and deinstitutionalized to enhance the exchange of knowledge and information among institutions, faculty or teacher, and students (p. 7). The rise of academic entrepreneurialism and the commitment to realize cross-cultural perspectives in the dissemination of knowledge force universities to engage in internationalization efforts (Khan, Omrane, & Bank, 2016). Internationalization is the process of incorporating multidimensional, interdisciplinary, international, intercultural and global dimensions into the purpose, functions, and delivery of education and research in university education (Adapa, 2008). Qiang (2003) provides a definition: “Internationalization of higher education as the process of integrating an international/intercultural dimension into teaching, researching, and service functions of the institutions” (p. 249). The cross-border provision of higher education is meant to match the supply and demand as market factors in the global economy. The internationalization of higher education has been encouraged by pull and push factors. The primary push factor is the introduction of rules and regulation by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and GATS that promote deregulation and open cross-border movement of persons, goods, and services (Al-Khalifa, 2016). Universities across the world are essentially 1

service providers that want to increase their revenue by attracting more students, and gain prestige by internationalizing their courses. The governments of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have accepted the push for diversification from hydrocarbon to a service-based economy (Al-Khalifa, 2016). The two countries decided to internationalize their higher education systems after realizing that most citizens worked for foreign-owned firms supervised by different racial and ethnic graduates (Qiang, 2003). Therefore, universities in the KSA and the UAE were required to internationalize so that they would develop globally competent graduates with English language proficiency. The nationalbased internationalization process in the KSA and the UAE advocated for the adoption of the United States education standards to replace the Arabic-based instruction, which is a strategy of exposing learners to a globally competitive language (Qiang, 2003). The shift empowers the locals of KSA and UAE to become economically competitive and contribute to the development of their countries (Al-Khalifa, 2016). This indicates that governments and institutions are committed to providing internationalized educational services that guarantee KSA and UAE peoples access to the global qualification that facilitate the creation of a knowledge-based economy (Al-Khalifa, 2016). Internationalization of higher education involves the collaboration of domestic with international universities to ensure the mobility of faculty and students and exposure to international curriculums (Adapa, 2008). The partnership between schools increases the pool of scientific knowledge as they offer joint teaching and research programs. The demand for universally recognized qualifications and skills that meet the highly competitive needs of the global labor market, pushed the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, which includes: Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates to

2

internationalize their higher education systems (Al-Khalifa, 2016). Equally, pull factors like the preference for Western-based education qualifications, the rise of English as a language of instruction, and influence of GATS in deregulating institutions have contributed to the internationalization of higher education in KSA and UAE. The need for internationalization of higher education started with the concept of encouraging universities to transcend the crossborder restriction through active exchange programs that engage students and faculty (AlKhalifa, 2016). The free market economy has intensified the demand for internationally recognized graduates with global awareness and skills to fit in the modern labor market. Hence, students are seeking universities and colleges that offer internationalized higher education programs in anticipation of becoming part of the 21st-century’s service-economy. Academic mobility and the economic advantages associated with cross-cultural and cross-border education such as knowledge of foreign languages is enhancing the internationalization of higher education (Khan, Omrane, & Bank, 2016). Globalization of trade has evolved the market forces and created a need for institutions to develop the experience of learners to fit the competitive international workplace. Higher education institutions (HEIs) must internationalize to interconnect and increase their interdependence with other universities in a way that prepares their faculty and students to engage in research and development of projects that are critical to enhancing the international competitiveness of their institutions. The emergence of knowledge-based societies and evolution of global communities is modifying the managerial approaches, attitudes, and cultures of university leaders to focus on becoming internationally competitive. HEIs are becoming increasingly competitive by forming partnerships that enhance the internationalization process that uses program-related strategies to facilitate cross-border academic and research initiatives.

3

As modern entrepreneurial organizations providing education services, universities must internationalize to increase their profit, share technological expertise, and partner with investors that diversify risk and widen the revenue networks (Khan, Omrane, & Bank, 2016). Similarly, the advent of Information Communication Technology (ICT) created platforms that support the virtual dissemination of knowledge independent of the geographical distance of separation and time differences between the learner and the instructor (Al-Khalifa, 2016). ICT has articulated the internationalization of higher education by allowing the integration of components of research, teaching, and administrative activities with new information technologies that enhance remote access to electronically managed university programs (Wachter, 2002). Virtual Internationalization encompasses the utilization of ICT to dispense transnational higher education programs and courses to students (Khan, Omrane, & Bank, 2016). According to Wachter (2002), “The combination of international content taught and learned in an international classroom, bringing together staff and students from different international backgrounds, which support the acquisition of a range of skills” (p. 13). The importance of internationalizing universities through ICT is to enhance the access to e-Learning platforms that ensure students’ exposure to the international curriculum without the need to migrate to overseas institutions (Al-Khalifa, 2016). Wachter (2002) asserts universities that use internationalized virtual education have higher access to a diversity of faculty and students from across the world. Schools can establish a consistent online infrastructure network with affiliate institutes that allow virtual mobility of students and faculty without actual movement. ICT enhance ePartnerships between HEIs in research and teaching. Wachter states that the Internet and ICT tools promote the implementation of virtual education whereby content is delivered without the inhibition of place and time by using technology. Virtual technologies allow universal access and exchange of

4

knowledge based products between universities and enhance virtual mobility that augments curriculum integration and credit transfer (Wachter, 2002). Also, ICT offers HEIs the opportunity to adapt course content to fit the diversified social, cultural, and linguistic learning environments for international students. Economically, it is cheaper to adjust a virtual course to the specific needs of learners compared to changing it in a traditional classroom that may require departmental input and approval (Khan, Omrane, & Bank, 201). Virtual Internationalization of higher education in KSA and UAE aims to equip their citizens with the 21st-century labor market skills so that they can become competitive in the global economy. The two countries have implemented internationalization initiatives differently to provide students with global market qualifications as a strategy of creating a knowledge-based economy to end dependence on the hydrocarbon revenue. Furthermore, as international economic competition has intensified with the deregulation of state enterprises, KSA and UAE higher education markets opened to the global market in different ways. The KSA used sponsorship programs to increase the outbound movement of Saudis to international universities in America and Europe (Al-Khalifa, 2016). HEIs in KSA are tasked to internationalize on their own, and the government often funds the process without interfering. Alternatively, the UAE started a national network that provides e-infrastructure and the Internet that interconnects all the public and interested private HEIs to local and international partners in Europe and America (Ankabut, 2016). The KSA achieved a higher export of learners through scholarships while the UAE gained more inbound faculty and student mobility using a national ICT platform. This study explores the levels of the Virtual Internationalization integration of higher education in KSA and UAE.

5

Higher Education in the KSA and the UAE Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s HEIs. KSA has grown from an impoverished and illiterate kingdom to a modern state with an advanced and excellent economy. King Abdulaziz bin Saud established the KSA in 1932, and at that time it recorded a 90% illiteracy rate since most people were nomads (Pavan, 2014). Pavan states that in 2013, the country reported only a 5.6% illiteracy rate, which highlights the fact that KSA has been transformed from a third world to a developed state. KSA had eight universities in 2003 and a few vocational training facilities without prospects for the internationalization process. However, the government initiated a policy that added about 100 institutions offering higher education programs. UNESCO (2011) reports that the country started its mission of developing the higher education sector following enactment of the Council of Ministers Resolution No. 779 that created the Educational Policy Document in 1969. The Royal Decree Number M/8 of 1993 established the KSA Higher Education Law to direct the higher education agenda. The MOE (2017) states that KSA created the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) in 1975 to lead the expansion of the higher education sector to fit the needs of the country. The Higher Education Council (HEC) supersedes all government agencies in overseeing the posteducation policies and coordinating the KSA’s HEIs to ensure the provision of quality programs. The Council regulates compliance of establishments in formulating their curriculum. HEC created a national agency, the National Commission for Academic Accreditation and Assessment, which checks the quality of programs offered in the KSA. The Ministry of Higher Education amalgamated the technical and vocational training institutions under the Technical and Vocational Training Corporation (TVTC) in 2005 (MOE, 2017). Pavan (2014) reports that TVTC set up colleges that provided excellent training. The merger removed female training 6

schools from the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs to come under TVTC. Likewise, the government merged the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Higher Education into the Ministry of Education (MOE) in 2015 with 26 state universities, 10 private universities, and 41 private colleges (MOE, 2017). Pavan (2014) asserts that the ambitious Ten-year Strategic Plan 2004-2014 sought to expand and improve the quality of higher education system by allowing overseas universities to set up International Branch Campuses (IBCs) within KSA. At the beginning of 1970, the country had only three state universities. The King Saud University was chartered in 1957 followed by the establishment of the King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals in 1963. In 1967, the government started the King Abdulaziz University to address the rising population of students. King Abdulla bin Abdulaziz Al Saud assumed power in 2005 when the KSA had only 7 public universities. KSA’s education sector transformed within ten years from below 10 to 28 public institutions in 2014. The implementation of the Ten-year Strategic Plan helped KSA to establish itself as a hub of excellence in the GCC region. KSA spent over $56 billion out of the $228 billion to support the development of education in 2014, which represents 25% of the Ministry of Finance’s national budget (Pavan, 2014). The funds made the promulgation and implementation of the Ten-year Strategic Plan 2004-2014 possible. The higher education plan aims to transform KSA into a competent population with practical problem-solving skills. The statistics in Figure 1 below indicates the distribution of students in 23 government universities, 28 private HEIs, and 8

7

institutions and colleges in KSA.

KSA Student Enrollment in 2015 0, 0%

Figure 1. The distribution of students in KSA’s HEIs The government schools report the highest enrollment rates compared to the private and other local HEIs. For example, in 2015, the government universities enrolled over 1.6 million and over 100,000 graduated while the new students’ enrollment was at 332,607. In the same year, private colleges and universities attracted 21,754 new students, 75, 119, enrolled and managed only 5,178 graduates. On the other hand, the other HEIs in KSA registered the highest number of students enrolled in diploma courses: there were 39,808 new learners, 116,392 as continuing students, and 24,166 graduates in 2015. The information reveals a consistent trend of government institutions enrolling more than 90% of the KSA college students, followed by other HEIs, and last private colleges and universities. The country hosts many foreign students taking international courses in the modern education facilities. For international students, these are the figures: in 2015, KSA gained 18,938 new students in addition to the 62,143 already enrolled

8

while 3,993 graduated from the KSA’s top universities and colleges. Similarly, the country exported 199,285 students to other countries, particularly the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia (MOE, 2016). Al-Khalifa (2016) states that the KSA used sponsorship programs to increase the outbound movement of Saudis to international universities in America and Europe. For example, the introduction of the King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Scholarship Program in 2005 increased the mobility of students from the KSA to foreign universities. The MOE (2016) reports that a high number of students received scholarships to study in the Arab world, North American countries, Europe, Asia, and Australia. MOE data highlights that 28,421 students received sponsorships in 2015, while 12,915 graduated after receiving grants for their entire academic years. In the same year, the government was already supporting 199,285 students enrolled in various overseas universities. The United States is benefitting from the highest number of KSA students. The cultural mission-USA attracted 17,826 first-year students in addition to the 89,423 enrolled on scholarship, while 3,309 graduated in 2015. Canada and the United Kingdom have approximately 20,000 Saudis each on the student mobility program supported by the government of KSA. Hence, the King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Scholarship Program has increased KSA student mobility and enhanced their effort to study in international universities in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada. The program supports about 20,000 students studying in the Arab States, 32,000 in Europe, and 25,000 in Asian countries (MOE, 2016). The culturally supported programs have enhanced the internationalization of the KSA’s higher education programs as many students are sent to study overseas.

9

United Arab Emirates’ HEIs The sheiks of the seven separate emirates established the UAE in 1971 as a federal state with the shared use of resources but preserved the autonomy of each region. The new nation started with 74 schools but no institution of higher education. The government created the UAE University (UAEU) in 1977 to offer undergraduate and postgraduate training. Egypt provided faculty members and advice on the design of the curriculum and instructional materials (Al-Ali, 2014). In 1988, the state started the Higher Colleges of Technology (HCT) to run the technical and vocational training programs for postgraduate degrees. The Federal law established the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research (MOHESR) in 1992 to engage in general planning, licensing, and accreditation of programs to ensure quality training. MOHESR created the Commission for Academic Accreditation in 1999 to handle assessment of courses offered in all HEIs. Similarly, MOHESR founded the Office of Higher Education Policy and Planning in 2004 to coordinate higher education programs in UAE (Al-Ali, 2014). Al-Ali state in 2004, MOHESR merged with the Ministry of Education and Youth to form the Ministry of Education. According to Al-Ali today, HCT controls 16 campuses that have colleges for male and female students. The federal government established Zayed University in 1998 with two campuses in Abu Dhabi and Dubai. The government aims to provide free education for all citizens as enshrined in Article 23 of the federal constitution. UAE has remained committed to investing in education by allocating more funds to the sector since 2001. Moreover, even with the contracting economy when oil and gas prices slumped, the government dedicated more resources to institutions of higher education and scholarships. The UAE is the biggest host of international university campuses in the GCC region after allowing 40 IBCs to operate within the country. The country has sixty institutions of higher 10

education that serve a population of 5.07 million people. United Kingdom, United States, and Australian universities have run branches in the UAE since the government started supporting the internationalization process in the 1990s (Wilkins, 2010). Wilkins (2010) asserts that 62% of the students in the UAE and Oman taking British standard qualifications believe that the United Kingdom’s universities offer the best model of higher education that bridges the skills gap in the labor market. Competition between the United Kingdom and the United States IBCs with physical structures and amenities in the country has enhanced the growth of higher education centers in the Emirates. Al-Ali (2014) argues that UAE transformed its higher education by introducing the English-based model to replace the former Arabic-based model. Furthermore, the country adopted the United States curriculum with some elements of the United Kingdom philosophy. UAE welcomed United States participants who facilitated the switch from Arabic to English during the 1980s and 1990s. Consequently, the country’s three universities, Higher Colleges of Technology (HCT), Zayed University (ZU), and UAE University (UAEU), implemented the United States model. While the national institutions use the United States accredited programs, IBCs from the United Kingdom and Australia practice their country-based accreditations since their graduates are internationally recognized. Universities operating IBCs include Middlesex University (United Kingdom), University of Wollongong (Australia), Carnegie Mellon University (United States), and College of North Atlantic of Canada (Al-Ali, 2014, pp 59-61). The UAE HEIs have forged partnerships with foreign universities to offer joint degrees. The Commission for Academic Accreditation (CAA) licenses all the private HEIs operating in the region although individual Emirates have independent accreditation agencies (Wilkins, 2010). Wilkins states that CAA uses academic standards based on the United States model of

11

higher education to assess and sanction institutions. The UAE colleges have established partnerships with the top-ranked foreign universities that incorporate scholarship opportunities that enhance the mobility of students and faculty. Hence, UAE nationals can study directly in universities overseas or join the available IBCs without traveling. The country requires citizens to enroll in colleges that offer internationally recognized undergraduate and graduate degree programs. For example, Zayed University (ZU) is in the process of attaining accreditation from the United States regional bodies. The partnerships have boosted research and access to overseas colleges through sponsorships. Furthermore, students can join the IBCs supported by foreign HEIs in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and other regions (Wilkins, 2010). Al-Ali (2014) claims that the fundamental pillar of education in the UAE is that they will develop the local talent to reduce the dependence on foreign expatriates. The education policy’s objective is to enhance the “Emiratization” process, which is the concept of nationalization of the key human resource sector. The government established and funds the UAEU, HCT, and ZU to provide free higher education that would boost the students’ competencies to enter the global market. The nationalization process aims to curb the country’s reliance on an imported workforce as a national security measure of protecting the local economy. Furthermore, the UAE is concerned about developing the proficiencies of local graduates to match the international standards so that they can be a global labor force (pp 10-12). Academic experts believe that the skills of the students and faculty will increase with the expanded university education system. Restricted and institutionalized learning inhibited the transition from local to internationalized teaching and learning (pp 26-29). Deinstitutionalization and inclusive policies that comprise the move from elite to the mass accessibility of higher education have boosted the UAE’s student population attending

12

universities. Khamis (2016) indicates that the country increased its number of students in HEIs from 92,700 in 2009 to 143,100 in 2014. The education sector forecasts a 4% annual growth in university first-year students. The country has opened more HEIs and partnered with IBCs and private institutions to ensure the highest possible admission rates of new learners. Khamis states that the UAE has 511 international schools offering quality education, which means that the country has the highest number of foreign HEIs in the world. The internationalization indicates the success of government’s policy to promote the development of the private education sector. Government funds the private sector by providing a deregulated environment with sponsorship and grant opportunities. The UAE’s Ministry of Education (MOE) asserts its policy through the ten-year plan to improve the accessibility of quality international education. About 17 IBCs will open in Abu Dhabi and 20 more in Dubai between 2017 and 2018. Examples of influential colleges that provide internationalized curriculum include “GEMS, SABIS, London Business School, and New York University of Technology” (p.1). The government’s dedication to increasing the competencies of the UAE nationals is paying off as more students are learning with the United States curriculum (Wilkins, 2017). For example, Smart Education launched in 2017 provides tablets networked with high-speed 4G networks to connect about 800 classrooms in 146 schools (Khamis, 2016). The digital media platform supports a modern learning environment that will introduce virtual education in UAE. To enhance quality dissemination of knowledge, the UAE divides universities into federal or non-federal, which then admits students according to a set capacity. The state had five universities in 1990, and that number increased to 54 in 2008. The privatization policy allowed the opening of private universities in addition to federal institutions (CHEDS, 2014, p 10). The Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics (CHEDS) reports that UAE licensed 78 HEIs 13

categorized into universities, institutions, and colleges in 2013. The country has only two federal universities and two national colleges run directly by the government. The private sector has the highest number of institutions, which are 25 universities, 33 colleges, and 10 institutions. The country has opened the private sector to the top-ranked foreign HEIs that operate licensed IBCs that fall under the category of non-federal institutions. The country has 10 IBCs that support the provision of an international curriculum and Virtual Internationalization of studies (CHEDS, 2014). The UAE higher education sector is divided into five levels of study, which are the foundation, diploma and higher diploma, bachelor’s, master’s, and doctorate. Figure 2 shows the distribution of students in the countries’ HEIs

UAE Number of Students in HEIs

Figure 2. Distribution of learners in UAE’s HEIs The Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research (MOHESR) awards scholarships to ensure student mobility that improves the acquisition of internationalized 14

training. The number of individuals that MOHESR has awarded scholarship opportunities increased from 766 in 2008 to 1,155 in 2009. However, the figures decreased to 709 in 2010, 340 in 2011, 393 in 2012, and only 320 students in 2013 (CHEDS, 2014, p.94). CHEDS reports in 2013, the country sent 1,292 students to learn in overseas institutions on sponsorships, and the United States and the United Kingdom attracted respectively 143 and 108 UAE learners. The decrease is attributed to the rise of diverse learning opportunities in UAE due to the high presence of foreign IBCs. For example, in 2009, 603 UAE nationals went to study in America, which is the highest number compared to 143 in 2013. The United States has received 1,933 students from the UAE between 2008 and 2013, which represents 52.5% of the total foreign cultural missions on sponsorship compared to 708 for Australia and 455 for the United Kingdom. The country’s international curriculum offered by universities and IBCs in Dubai and Abu Dhabi has attracted expatriate students that comprise 29.33% of the higher education population. The UAE students represent 60.33% of the student distribution in the local HEIs, which represents 77,397 while the expatriate students are 50,882. Learners from the GCC region represent 7.04 %, other Arab countries represent 21.10%, and other nationalities represent 11.53% of the student in higher education institutions (CHEDS, 2014). The information reveals a trend in which UAE is attracting more international students than exporting to overseas countries. Therefore, the country is becoming an excellent source of international learning centers since top-ranked universities have established their IBCs and private HEIs in the region. For example, the University of Wollongong has run the largest IBC since 1993, and it enrolled 2,812 students in 2009 for both undergraduate and postgraduate studies, out of which 15% are Iranians, 13.4% UAE, and 25% Indians (Wilkins, 2010).

15

Al-Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University The university was founded in 1974 as a non-profit HEI to serve the city of Riyadh with a population of about five million people. The Al-Iman Ibn Mohammed Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMAMU) was started by the 10th Royal Decree No. 50/m and cabinet resolution No. 1100 to expand the level of higher education. The University offers studies in intermediate diploma, higher diploma, and bachelor’s programs under the national government’s funding platform (IMAMU, 2017). The HEI has 11 colleges, whereby five campuses are in Riyadh and six in other regions as Al-Qassim, Al-Ehsa, Medina, and southern areas. IMAMU has two more institutions, one for jurisdiction and another for teaching Arabia language. In addition, the university operates six international campuses disseminating Islamic and Arab knowledge in other countries including the United States, Japan, Mauritania, Djibouti, Indonesia. In 1982, the late King Fahd bin Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud started the expansion of IMAMU using a five-year plan. The construction began with student housing, followed by phase two that covered academic area, phase three the campus services facilities, phase four the medical center and sports area, and phase five the faculty member housing area. The entire University Campus City was opened in 1990, IMAMU’s operations shifted to the city, and the expansion contributed to the improvement of the quality of research and increased the number of programs that the university offered to local and international students (IMAMU, 2017). IMAMU operates 20 schools and colleges that are spread out to cater to the needs of the entire kingdom. Examples of institutions include the Supreme Jurisdiction Institute, Supreme Institute for Dawah and Ihtisab, Arabic Language Teaching Institute, and King Abdullah Institute for Translation and Arabization. The IMAMU is under the control of the Rector, and seven Vice-Rectorates run the city campus and other colleges. The IMAMU Vice-Rectory

16

administers the entire city school with overall leadership authority. The others six are the ViceRectorates for Community Service and Information Technology, Female Students Affairs, Sharia Institutes Affairs, Higher Studies and Scientific Research, Planning, Development and Quality, and Knowledge Exchange and International Communications (IMAMU, 2017). The university has 18 deanships that manage the faculty members to ensure excellent delivery of academic services. IMAMU has 16 academic administrators that oversee the daily operations of the institution, and they administer the Printing Press, Engineering, Operations and Maintenance, University Media, and Campus Safety and Security sectors. Likewise, there are eight non-academic administrators that oversight other areas as the Traffic, Sports Facility, and Internal Auditing offices. IMAMU operates academic centers that disseminate knowledge and engage the public, and they are the Medical Service Center, IT Crime Studies Center, Center for Labor Marketplace Studies, and Science and Technology Unit. The General Directorate of Research Chair Program handles the academic experiments, and 25 research chairs work under the officer that include the Al-Haramaim Research Chair, UNESCO Research Chair for Interfaith and Cultural Dialogue, and Sheik Abdul-Rahman Al-Jersey Research Chair for Human Rights Studies. The university supports research and development through three primary libraries, which are the Deanship of Library Affairs, Knowledge Portal, and Prince Sultan Library of Science and Knowledge (IMAMU, 2017). IMAMU as a national university supports various forms of study curricula intended to serve the vast diversity of students that it serves. For example, IMAMU offers Conventional and Parallel education, E-learning, Distance, Continuing Education, and Sharia Institutes for Arabic curriculum. The MOE data states that the variety of educational programs and the quality associated with the university has attracted high number of students. In 2015, the school attracted

17

65 male and 271 female students for the diploma course and 15, 311 male and 10,498 female students for bachelor’s degree programs. Higher diploma offered 2,685 new students a chance to study in addition to the 10,981 already enrolled, while 999 graduated in 2015. The university had 85,659 students taking a bachelor’s degree and 11,297 graduates in 2015. IMAMU recorded a total of 97,331 enrolled students, 28,830 first-year students, and 12,614 graduates in 2015 (MOE, 2016). Zayed University Zayed University (ZU) was established in 1998 to honor the founder of the UAE region, the late Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan to provide international quality education to locals. ZU operates campuses in Dubai and Abu Dhabi areas that enroll international students. The university started an international program with the Abu Dhabi Campus to ensure the quality of the curriculum offered by the institution. ZU adopted the United States curriculum and sought accreditation of the United States’ Middle State Commission on Higher Education (ZU, 2015). ZU offers a diversity of programs in its chain of institutions that use the United States curriculum to ensure the internationalization of higher education in UAE. The main colleges are Education, Technological Innovation, Sustainability Sciences and Humanities, Business, Communication and Media Sciences, and Technological Innovation (Marir, 2015). Marir states that a President controls ZU with the help of the University Council. The Vice-President oversees the internal audit and community affairs as critical components of ZU and administers the University. Under the Vice-President is the Provost who is charged with the responsibility of managing the daily administrative operations of the University. The institution has two Deputy Provosts for finance and administration and academic affairs. On the same level of management of the organization are 8 deanships who steer different faculties, and among them are the College

18

of Art & Science, Education, Information Technology, and Library and Learning Resource Center (Marir, 2015). The university has 13 academic administrators, 4 senior appointees, and 391 staff members. The faculty members are 691 with 35 professors, 113 associate professors, 266 assistant professors, and 277 instructors (ZU, 2015). In 2015, ZU admitted 1,141 male and 7,760 female students, which totals of 8,901for different bachelor’s programs (ZU, 2015). The university awarded 1350 students the undergraduate degree, whereby 178 were male and 1172 female, and 369 graduate students in 2015 (ZU, 2015). Marir (2015) reports diversity based on programs are distributed into 37.2% taking degree programs. Comparatively, 33.8% of the ZU students are taking general education, the readiness course has 20,8%, while the graduate comprises 8.2% of the student body (p. 35). Internationalization of Higher Education in KSA and UAE Al_Khalifa (2016) asserts that the internationalization efforts in KSA started in 2005 following the formation of the King Abdullah Scholarship that sponsored highly qualified students to study abroad. Between 2006 and 2010, KSA students received total grants of $128,311,450 million that supported over half a million students to study in international universities in the United Kingdom, United States, and Canada. The commitment of the government to enhance learning resulted in the country nearly doubling its HEIs from 14 to 25 state-run universities that provide free access to higher education. In 2004, the government created the National Commission for Academic Assessment and Accreditation (NCAAA) to coordinate the regulation, assessment, and accreditation of private and public institutions. Deregulation aided the establishment of IBCs and private universities, by 2012 the country had 29 new private HEIs (pp. 110-111).

19

Alrashidi & Phan (2015) highlight that the internationalization process started with the shift from Arabic to the English language in Higher Education. The Ministry of Higher Education asserted for the development of the global language competencies of KSA citizens to ensure that the internationalization process was successful in achieving the transformation from a hydrocarbon to a knowledge based economy. Implementation of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) in the KSA enabled the development of positive attitudes towards increasing the linguistic proficiency of the students and faculty. KSA citizens with skills in English as a medium of international communication encouraged the development of the internationalization of higher education in the country. Most universities use instruction in English in all scientific, medicine, and engineering courses. Likewise, even students taking social humanities in Arabic are expected to complete compulsory units in English since all learners are expected to develop listening, speaking, and reading skills that are critical for the establishment of a modern economy in KSA (pp. 37-38). The primary challenge that KSA faces in achieving the internationalization process in the country is the level proficiency of English among its learners. A general misconception about the daily usage of the foreign language is derailing the competencies of the students. Lack of reallife experience and teacher-centered instruction continue to hamper the acquisition of English. Students tend to memorize the language because of the instructors’ overreliance on traditional teaching methods. For example, teachers communicate in Arabic when teaching English, which minimizes the students’ exposure to sufficient practice (Alrashidi & Phan, 2015, pp. 38-40). Al-Khalifa (2016) reports that the UAE started its higher education internationalization process during the 1990s when the country accepted the establishment of private HEIs to support research and development of the country. Private universities admitted 82,894 students in 2014,

20

whereby 57% were from overseas countries. The American University of Pune, Heriot-Watt University, and Middlesex University have joint-degree partnerships with the UAE’s HEIs. International Branch Campuses (IBCs) include the University of Sharjah, the University of Dubai, Al Ghurair University and Paris-Sorbonne University of Abu Dhabi. The country stopped the Arabic language-based instructional design and adopted the United States curriculum that uses English for teaching and learning (Al-Khalifa, 2016). Adoption of United States accreditation standards improved the internationalization of higher education in UAE. The strategy has encouraged dissemination of quality educational services benchmarked by market indicators. The country established the University Assurance International Board (UQAIB) in 2009 to review the private HEIs that occupied the free zone areas like the Dubai Knowledge Village and Dubai International Academic City. In addition, the Knowledge and Human Development Authority (KHDA) is charged with the responsibility of authorizing the operations of private universities and colleges. KHDA applies the United Kingdom Quality Assurance Agency for higher education to evaluate the quality of programs in all the Dubai free zones. Evidently, UAE implemented both United States and United Kingdom education standards to ensure that the private institutions established in the country provide quality educational services (Al-Khalifa, 2016). Al-Khalifa (2016) argues that diversification of the UAE’s education sector has improved the internationalization efforts and benefitted the country with a high inbound flow of international students. Moreover, private HEIs have collaborated with the government to ensure full capacity operations since the UAE’s Ministry of Education provides financial support to avoid risks associated with underfunding mishaps. The private and public education sector faces the major hurdle of overcoming regional instability that threatens the inflow of expatriate

21

learners and faculty. The country’s HEIs are limited in the courses and programs that they offer since most of the internationalization curriculum has focused on business, management, and information technology subjects. Due to the small UAE national population, the establishment and expansion of private sector universities will likely be limited. (Al-Khalifa, 2016). Virtual Internationalization of Higher Education in KSA and UAE The expansion of web-based educational systems that use ICT learning platforms supported by technology with the Internet and a computer or electronic device started in KSA in the 2000s. The successful implementation of the Virtual Internationalization initiative depends on the cooperation and participation of the faculty of a university to deliver quality instruction. In 2014, KSA registered 24,000 educational systems that included 12 colleges and universities, institutions, technological schools, girls’ colleges, vocational and religious colleges that offer virtual academic services (Alrashidi, 2014, p. 658). Alrashidi asserts that KSA started the Virtual Internationalization initiative to ensure accessibility of higher education to a large number of students because 30% of the KSA population is less than 14 years of age (p. 657). Alrashidi highlights that schools in KSA have implemented E-learning initiatives as an important element of delivering content in addition to the traditional classroom method. The government provides funds for Internet communication technology (ICT) to motivate schools to use virtual education as an intervention to increase the skills of KSA students. Education policymakers have implemented distance learning that has introduced international content to people living in rural areas. In addition, the government supports the introduction and usage of eLearning because the platform allows utilization of both asynchronous and synchronous learning and the spreading of educational materials to disseminate knowledge. Virtual courses use graphics, virtual experiences, and simulations that encourage multiple approaches to build an

22

innovative mind compared to the traditional curriculum. Al-Iman Ibn Mohammed Ibn Saud Islamic University posts and transmits all lectures on the Internet with the support of open communication through forums, email and virtual classrooms. Likewise, King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah offers distance-learning programs that target people in the western region of the KSA. The Ministry of Higher Education evaluates and approves the virtual tertiary course that institutions offer. The country had its official virtual institute in 2007, the Knowledge International University (KIU), which delivered content in PDF and lives sessions (Alrashidi, 2014). The Ankabut (2016) asserts that the Virtual Internationalization of higher education in UAE began in 2001 with the establishment of the Advanced Network for Research and Education (ANKABUT) by the government to provide ICT infrastructure that enhances the Emirates’ HEIs to interconnect domestically and internationally with affiliate universities. ANKABUT has established e-infrastructure resources in collaboration with the European International Research Organizations (EIROS) to ensure research communities in Emirates interact with European scholars The UAE National Grid Initiatives (NGIs) run by ANKABUT has collaborated with the pan-European Grid Infrastructure (EGI) to create a grid computing system that allows the virtual exchange of ideas between UAE and Europe HEIs. ANKABUT has a core network of 10Gbit/s connectivity that is both IPv4 and IPv6 enabled to provide a national Wide Area Network (WAN) that interconnects local institutions and links them to international universities. The government’s ICT platform provides Web Hosting & email, DNS service, videoconferencing service, eFADA, and NTP services to both private and public universities. In addition, it connects the Emirates’ HEIs to Internet networks in New York and Europe (Ankabut, 2016).

23

Ankabut highlights that all UAE HEIs participating in the ANKABUT program have increased access to virtual learning and enhanced student and faculty mobility. The UAE national network supports “Real-time services like voice and video conferencing, broadcasting of lectures or student class, and allow subject matter experts to offer master-classes from around the world” (p. 1). Universities involved in the program include Zayed University, Khalifa University, NYU Abu Dhabi, The Petroleum Institute, HCT institution, Amity University, ALHOSN University, ACTVET, ADVETI, FCHS, IAT, IAT, and Aviation Academy. International institutions that participate in the ANKABUT framework are the Abu Dhabi-based Paris Sorbonne University, American University in Dubai, and American University of RAK. The network supports multi-site networking, but each university has its Virtual-Private-Network (VPN) to ensure the privacy of date shared with distance institutions. As a local Internet registry, ANKABUT requires universities to request IPv4, IPv6, and AS numbers to start operating an independent network accessible throughout the world. The agency offers domain name servers (DNS) and NTS services so that each institution can resolve full-qualified domain names (FQDN) and synchronize time by providing two timers for the HEIs’ and international institution’s time to ensure that connected users have an accurate stratum clock. The program contributes to Virtual Internationalization by connecting various universities for virtual exchange programs and schools to ensure student-student and faculty-student communication, research, and studying. The UAE national network promotes the free flow of information in and out of the country (Ankabut, 2016). Another platform, the Dubai-based e-TQM College founded in 2002, provides e-learning services to students who want to learn virtually in the UAE (Gokah, Gupta, & Ndiweni, 2015). The Dubai Prince and the UAE Defense Minister, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum,

24

started the e-TQM as a virtual knowledge-based environment to support open access to Arabs who want to specialize in quality management (Cherian, 2003). Cherian states that the organization collaborated with the Lloyds TBS in the United Kingdom to integrate the standards associated with the European Foundation for Quality Management to evaluate and benchmark the quality of higher education offered in the UAE. Gokah, Gupta, & Ndiweni (2015) highlight that the MOHESR accredited the Hamdan Bin Mohammed e-University as the first exclusive online institution. ZU runs an annual virtual platform for discussions that attracts about 200 participants from across the world to encourage diversity in higher education discussions (Gokah, Gupta, & Ndiweni, 2015, p. 445). Furthermore, Dubai’s HEIs use blackboards, Moodle, LMS, and Web CT as part of the practical internationalization strategy to ensure universities are accessible to all learners (Teresevičienė, Volungevičienė, & Dauksiené, 2011). Challenges to Virtual Internationalization in KSA and UAE The success of the Virtual Internationalization of higher education in the KSA and the UAE has achieved a competitive advantage with the establishment of the United States and European International Branch Campuses (IBCs) in the region and the creation of Internet networking with overseas HEIs. Though the early 2000s were marked by the problems related to the high price of accessing computers, ICT tools, and the Internet, the cost dropped drastically, thus enhancing easy acquisition of required e-infrastructure. However, the anticipated level of adoption of modern e-learning classrooms in the region has not yet been achieved due to different challenges. For example, e-universities tend to teach only, while neglecting research and services that are critical in benchmarking the quality of the e-courses (Wachter, 2002). Research programs require the presence of the instructor to guide the students to correct potential mistakes that could result in biased findings that in turn could mislead the academic society.

25

The complexity of designing effective and quality web-based courses remains a challenge that affects many universities in the UAE and the KSA. Teachers are yet to grasp ideas and technical skills to create content that encourages active student engagement and enhance interactivity between teachers and students. Another issue is that there is a low achievement rate of peer-to-peer interaction that is critical in connecting students taking the web-based courses (Albidewi & Tulb, 2014). Teachers are unable to handle rapid responses required by student feedback systems provided by the web-based learning environment, which substitutes for faceto-face interactions. Production of high-quality e-learning and distance education content is costly compared to traditional classroom curriculum in the KSA and the UAE (Alrashidi, 2014). The development of the virtual curriculum requires the input of multiple agencies within a university and department resulting in delays of the production process. Albidewi & Tulb (2014) assert that university administrators likewise delay the provision of virtual courses in the UAE and the KSA because of the limited institutional funding programs covering the initial costs of setting up an international curriculum, acquiring e-infrastructure, and training the faculty. The success of implementing the e-learning platform within a college depends on the capability of the managerial personnel that executes the planning strategy. Institution-wide policy and coordination realizes faster results compared to department-based internationalization efforts. Most colleges use free software provided by their respective governments or open source web application such as Moodle and social media. Training students and faculty to use web-based technologies and maintain standard practice remain a consistent challenge that derails the Virtual Internationalization initiatives in both countries. Faculty needs technical training to acquire prior experience with online course software like Blackboard and

26

Moodle. Universities without qualified staff to implement the Virtual Internationalization planning, suffer from various setbacks and quality problems (Albidewi & Tulb, 2014). Insufficient proficiency in the English language among instructors and students and teaching style used by faculty continue to challenge and hinder the realization of Virtual Internationalization in the KSA and the UAE. Lack of a platform for learners to apply the language continually in social context reduces chances of increasing their competence in communicating (Alrashidi, 2014). Alrashidi & Phan (2015) states that typical misconceptions concerning the importance of English in the Arab countries continue to derail the adoption of elearning courses offered in the United States or United Kingdom curriculum. Even institutions that have adopted the internationalization strategies have yet to start using student-centered instruction with images, videos, and graphics. Teachers continue to use traditional teaching methods like uploading the entire class session to the web for e-learners. Students are accustomed to teacher-centered instruction, whereby individual access of lectures are shared online but lack alternative modern ways of disseminating content by using graphics and videos to enhance comprehension of academic ideas. Alrashidi & Phan affirms that poor teaching styles encourage students to memorize English words instead of helping them to understand the meaning. Moreover, instructors’ overreliance on the traditional teaching methods like using Arabic to teach English skills inhibits the acquisition of communication and writing skills. Faculty in the KSA tend to believe that learning a foreign language could undermine the culture and religion, because of the importance of the Arabic language to understanding the Quran. As a result, teachers communicate in Arabic when teaching English, which minimizes the students’ exposure to sufficient writing and speaking activities. Al-Khalifa (2016) asserts that the KSA’s HEIs are limited in the courses and programs that they offer since most of the

27

internationalization curriculum has focused on business, management, and information technology subjects. Albidewi & Tulb (2014) state that the Virtual Internationalization initiatives remain under institutional faculty that lack time to conduct research, provide quality web-based courses, and manage an e-course. Besides, lack of reward from the university administration to motivate the staff to provide supporting services to e-learners continues to undermine virtual higher education in the KSA and the UAE. The quality of online courses remains in doubt due to lack of direct contact with lecturers to emphasize credibility of disseminating knowledge with experience and practice. Furthermore, universities find it difficult to form facilitating agreements with foreign HEIs. Most HEIs lack funds to engage in academic collaboration with overseas colleges. It is also an issue that a lack of ICT skills among the students and insufficient knowledge regarding usage of the web for learning hinders the faculty from initiating internationalization process. Statement of the Problem The switch from traditional teacher-oriented to student-centered classrooms has supported the integration of Virtual Internationalization programs in higher education institutions (HEIs) (Ghabra, 2010). This study sought to describe the current situation related to the Virtual Internationalization of higher education in KSA and UAE universities from an administrative perspective. It also aimed to explore the challenges that prevent effective integration of Virtual Internationalization strategies from the perspective of administrators at KSA and UAE universities. In addition, this study sought to correct the misconception among policymakers in the KSA and UAE that internationalization encourages globalization by undermining the Arabian culture and knowledge.

28

The Arab Regional Conference on Higher Education held in Cairo in 2009 recognized the value of virtual universities and remote learning in boosting the production of knowledge and management of their market economies (Lamine, 2009). The conference adopted education policies that recognized the importance of an internationalized student body and experience in the GCC region. Correspondingly, higher education authorities of the KSA and UAE ordered their HEIs to start offering cross-border higher education accredited programs that promoted transnational mobility and supported students to attain global labor skills (French, 2010). Resistance against globalization and the use of information/communication technologies in the GCC’s education sector delayed the adoption of Virtual Internationalization strategies. The 2009 conference convinced the KSA and the UAE’s MOE to allow their universities to start distance-learning programs, which now offer globally accredited and joint degree programs (Lamine, 2009). Despite the initiatives by the government agencies, the Virtual Internationalization of higher education is still in its infancy stage in the Arab world. The researcher chose to compare the Virtual Internationalization strategies integration of the universities in KSA and the UAE as the two states differ in economic, political, and social policies. Alrashidi & Phan (2015) state that the KSA has a segregated-education system with strict rules and regulations that prohibit institutions from making decisions without the government’s authority and involvement. The country embodies a high level of uncertainty avoidance among decision-makers like university administrators (Hofstede Insights, 2010). As a result, the administrators tend to avoid making risky choices such as adapting international educational programs and practices without express input from the Ministry of Education. In sharp contrast, UAE runs a desegregated-education system that supports autonomous processes, where campus administrators can use the freedom to facilitate the Americanization processes that

29

support Virtual Internationalization strategies (French, 2010). Furthermore, the UAE has a high level of diversity that encourages internationalized students and faculty perspectives (Gokah, Gupta, & Ndiweni, 2015). French (2010) asserts that the UAE ruler has signed the ownership of several universities to a self-perpetuating international board of trustees that control both the learning and researching practices to ensure conformity to the United States college accreditation standards. In contrast, the KSA universities remain under exclusive government control, which inhibits the shift towards incorporation of internationalized curricula and faculty practices. Al-Ali (2014) asserts that one of the most striking characteristics of HEIs in KSA and the UAE is their sense of Arab identity. Therefore, the MOE in both countries have established a balance between providing open access to international curricula and material resources and maintaining an emphasis on the national curricula as well. Ghabra (2010) states that the universities of both countries suffer from weak administration, poor recruitment strategies and practices, heavy teaching loads, too much emphasis on profit, ineffective faculty representation, and instability among staff (p. 22). The researcher indicates that there are various challenges that destabilize the integration of Virtual Internationalization programs in the higher education systems of KSA and the UAE; they include technological infrastructure, organizational and institutional support, culture, and budget constraints. This study analyzes literature that examines the reasons for the slow process of integration of Virtual Internationalization into the higher education institutions of the two nations. An online survey measured administrators’ knowledge and perception of challenges affecting the integration of the Virtual Internationalization strategies in the universities in the KSA and the UAE. Furthermore, the researcher intends to show the benefits of remote learning in internationalizing the student body, faculty, and curricula.

30

Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to determine the current level of Virtual Internationalization integration and to explore the challenges that might prevent its effective integration in the universities of the KSA and the UAE. The research acted to achieve the objective by assessing the perspective of the university administrators to identify the difference in the level of integration of Virtual Internationalization between the KSA and the UAE institutions. The Virtual Internationalization was measured via a survey. The researcher believes that success of Virtual Internationalization is in the hands of the administrators who play a significant role in integrating Virtual Internationalization strategies. Therefore, the administrators were chosen as a target sample for this study. Research Questions 1. To what extent do administrators at KSA and UAE universities know about Virtual Internationalization? 2. To what extent do KSA and UAE universities integrate Virtual Internationalization strategies? 3. What are the main challenges that might prevent the effective integration of Virtual Internationalization strategies in KSA and UAE universities from administrators’ perspective? To answer these questions, the researcher used descriptive statistics, which provides information about the mean, standard deviation, frequencies, variance, range, and percentage of participants responding for each category. 4. Are there significant differences between KSA and UAE universities in the following areas? 31

a) Administrators’ experience with Virtual Internationalization. b) The integration of Virtual Internationalization strategies. c) The challenges that prevent effective integration of Virtual Internationalization strategies. To answer this question the researcher conducted an independent-samples t test to examine the differences between KSA and UAE universities in administrators’ experience with Virtual Internationalization, the integration of Virtual Internationalization strategies, and the challenges that prevent effective integration of Virtual Internationalization strategies. 5. Are the selected variables of KSA and UAE universities’ (location, medium of instruction and accreditation) related to the integration of Virtual Internationalization strategies? To answer this question the researcher conducted a multiple regression analysis to evaluate how the selected variables of KSA and UAE universities related to the integration of Virtual Internationalization strategies. Hypotheses of the Study 1. Administrators at KSA and UAE universities have less experience with Virtual Internationalization. 2. KSA and UAE universities have limited integration of Virtual Internationalization strategies. 3. There are challenges that might prevent the effective integration of Virtual Internationalization strategies in KSA and UAE universities from an administrators’ perspective. 4. There are significant differences between KSA and UAE universities in the following 32

areas: a. Administrators’ experience with Virtual Internationalization. b. The integration of Virtual Internationalization strategies. c. The challenges that prevent effective integration of Virtual Internationalization strategies. 5. There is a relationship between the selected variables of KSA and UAE universities’ (location, medium of instruction and accreditation) and the integration of Virtual Internationalization strategies. The Significance of the Study The study derives its importance from the following issues: •

Focus on integrating Virtual Internationalization strategies as an important step in the process of educational development that KSA and UAE higher education seeks to achieve.

•

Highlight that despite all unlimited benefits that Virtual Internationalization can offer in the field of higher education, integrating Virtual Internationalization strategies into KSA and UAE higher education is still a slow and complex process.

•

This study could reveal that not nearly enough research has been done to discover the underlying reasons why Virtual Internationalization strategies integration in KSA and UAE higher education has been slow and the environmental factors which may also be contributing to this.

•

Detecting through this study the contribution of the variables (university’s location, medium of instruction and accreditation) in raising the level of Virtual Internationalization strategies integration into KSA and UAE universities. 33

•

This study could help to determine the university level of integration of Virtual Internationalization strategies.

•

The results of this study could be useful to modify, develop, and adopt new practices and strategies in terms of Virtual Internationalization into KSA and UAE higher education.

•

The results of this study could provide information that can benefit the relevant decision and policymakers by considering the challenges that might prevent the effective integration of Virtual Internationalization strategies into KSA and UAE universities.

•

The result of this study is to correct the misconception, which is a fear of policy makers, that internationalization is Globalization in countries like KSA and UAE. According to Moussalli (2017), “Many nationalist and cultural trustees of the Arab world, for instance, condemn the influences of globalization on their culture” (p. 4). Operational Definitions

Higher Education Higher education is a centralized cultural and social system of post-secondary colleges that is composed of “a group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole, or an organized set of interrelated ideas or principles” (Abdouli, 2008, p. 241). Higher education brings together creators of knowledge who develop different programs, methods, and pedagogical tools to facilitate the acquisition of skills in diverse learning environments.

34

Internationalization Hawawini (2016) defines internationalization as “the international process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions, and delivery of postsecondary education, in order to enhance the quality of education and research for all students and staff, and to make a meaningful contribution to society” (p. 4). Thus, the main aim of the process is to coordinate, align, and integrate international programs, policies, and initiatives in universities in an interconnected manner. Virtual Education Virtual education includes the integration of information communication technology (ICT) platforms that facilitate distance learning and allow having access to university courses remotely. Farrell (1999) states that virtual or web-based learning uses combined broadcast and interactive teleconferencing technologies powered by the information and communication technologies. They are targeted to support real-time administrative college functions, such as teaching remotely, providing curriculum materials, delivering course materials and tuition, and making assessments. Virtual Internationalization Virtual Internationalization encompasses the virtual movement of students, faculty, curriculum, and institutions across the borders to enhance teaching and learning processes like studying, researching, and engaging in extracurricular activities. It can be characterized as “campus-less college, book-less library, and professor-less classrooms because of distance learning” (Nabih & Riad, 2017, p.178-179). This process uses information communication

35

technology to allow students to interact and complete their studies remotely away from their teachers and providers. Administrators Administrators in this study include deans, assistant or associate deans, department heads, directors of schools, and administrative staffs. Chapter Summary This chapter introduced the current study that was designed to investigate the level of integration of Virtual Internationalization and to explore the challenges that might prevent its effective implementation in the universities of the KSA and the UAE from administrators’ perspective. The chapter highlighted statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, research questions and hypothesis, the significance of the study and the operational definitions that were used in this study.

36

Chapter 2 Literature Review

Globalization trends are creating a transformative effect on the internationalization of higher education by influencing HEIs to develop academic products that are exchangeable in an open market. Globalization turns knowledge into commodities that add value in the commercial sector by encouraging the production of educational goods and services that for the international markets. De Wit (2011) defined globalization as “the reality shaped by an increasingly integrated world economy, new information and communications technology, the emergence of an international knowledge network, the role of the English language, and other forces beyond the control of academic institutions” (p. 343). Alternatively, internationalization is defined “the variety of policies and programs that universities and government implement to respond to globalization” (p. 343). Globalization has pushed HEIs to produce tradable commodities that must remain competitive and relevant to addressing the international labor and commercial needs. Globalization advocates for the internationalization of higher education locally and abroad for students to attain skills to manage the globalized world. De Wit (2011) asserts that the internationalization at-home dimensions influenced by globalization are: curriculum and programmes, teaching and learning processes, extra-curricular activities, liaison with local cultural/ethnic groups, and research and scholarly activities” (p. 244). The second dimension is internationalization abroad, which encompasses activities that encourage cross-border education such as, “mobility of students and faculty, and mobility of projects, programmes, and providers” (p. 244). HEIs are compelled by the four rationales for internationalization, which are political, economic, social and cultural, and academic factors. The economic rationale is the most 37

dominant global force influencing the internationalization of higher education as they seek to attract international students, increase mobility, and offer courses that address global issues. Likewise, the academic rationales include the capacity to strike strategic alliances, improve an institution’s status and profile in the international market. The increase in global investments in higher education is influencing the rise of an academic service sector and the knowledge products. Altbach & Knight (2007) state that Globalization has led to “the integration of research, the use of English as the lingua franca for scientific communication, the growing international labor market for scholars and scientists, the growth of communications firms and multinational and technology publishing, and the use of information technology” (p. 291). The mentioned achievements of globalization have influenced the internationalization of higher education. The need for internationalization of higher education is to address the growing demand for globally qualified workers in the international labor market. Altback & Knight (2007) asserts that HEIs are required to provide quality-internationalized education by hiring qualified scientists and scholars to enhance the dissemination of knowledge. Furthermore, internationalization of higher education increases international academic mobility by initiating knowledge products such as programs that encouraging cooperation among universities through the Information and Communication Technology (ICT). According to WTO through GATS, HEIs are expected to internationalize and facilitate academic mobility that ensures cross-border supply of education, encourage consumption abroad, establish commercial presence through joint ventures with local institutions, and ensure presence of a mobile faculty (pp. 291-292). Furthermore, HEIs internationalize to make profits by gaining international students, and provide readily accessible international higher education services to meet the demand among students. 38

The advent of ICT influences the internationalization of higher education by providing essential administrative and support infrastructure. Universities exploit the new information and communication technologies to increase global mobility of students and faculty, “Technology is transforming higher education by providing a global focus, thereby intensifying global interconnectedness” (Lemoine, Jenkins, & Richardson, 2017, p. 62). Technology supports the dissemination of instruction and resources to students. ICT provide e-learning tools that are critical in learning, communication tools that interconnect faculty and students, and support global flow of knowledge and information. ICT is critical in the transmission modes of teaching and learning that include instructional design and dissemination of knowledge through online platforms, made up of learning management system (LMS) and virtual learning environment (VLE). Virtual Internationalization of higher education complements the internationalization process by using ICT tools that support virtual mobility of students and faculty. Virtual Internationalization is a cheaper alternative that HEIs can exploit as a strategy for enrolling international students and start faculty exchange programs. Noor-Ul-Amin (2013) states that eLearning offers cooperative learning and reflection with tailored student-centered form of education delivery. Students receive customized feedback with the VLE system, which “improves the experience of the students and teachers and to use intensively the learning time for better results” (p. 6). Students and faculty interact through VLE like Blackboards, emails, blogs, and videoconferencing in real time despite their geographical distance of separation. HEIs can form virtual partnerships and offer joint degrees to students from across the national borders. Therefore, Virtual Internationalization offers a mode of curricula delivery to international students with the use of a mobile faculty. 39

Definitions Internationalization Internationalization refers to activities that intensify collaboration across state borders in ways that increase the mobility of persons and ideas to shape new paradigms of understanding humanity. The term gained increased usage during the 1980s to emphasize the global dimension of Higher Education. However, some definitions assert the sectorial meaning such as the westernization, Americanization, Europeanization, or modernization of education (Deardorff, De Wits, Heyl, & Adams, 2012). The internationalization process increases cooperation as well as competition by strengthening research that addresses global issues. Van der Wende (2001) states that internationalization is also defined as the global integration of learning to improve the concepts of teaching, research, and service functions of higher education. The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) promote the free and cross-border trade in educational services. Guri-Rosenblit (2015) claims that the World Trade Organization is at the forefront of this and have sought to deregulate education markets. Increasing the autonomy of institutions allows colleges and universities to become more responsive to both local and global challenges. Hence, research activities tend to center on ideas that stimulate learners to find solutions to their environment. According to Guri-Rosenblit, internationalization represents the systematic and sustained approach to establishing a responsive higher education that relates to the challenges affecting the globalization of societies, economies, and labor markets. De Wit et al (2015) states that the European programs like Socrates and Erasmus that started in the late 1970s sparked the move towards the internationalization of education. Similarly, the United States’ Fulbright program began after the Second World War (De Wit et al, 2015).

40

Higher Education Ward (2014) claims that Higher Education is a global-oriented connected microcosm that provides students with an opportunity to test the values, beliefs, skills, attitudes, and behaviors that they learn to shape their future in creating an open and democratic society. Smithee (2012) states that the primary objective of higher education is to provide academic support and skills that empower students to function more efficiently in an integrated world. Higher education is the kind of training that fosters an informed citizenry who have the capacity to participate in governance through public advocacy and invest in the nation’s economic future. Students enter tertiary institutions to improve their ability to participate in the instructional acquisition of competencies and research aptitudes to address environmental challenges. Virtual Internationalization of Higher Education Virtual Internationalization of HEIs refers to networking of teaching and learning strategies that use ICT to link curriculum and student’s mobility. Deregulation has allowed modern universities to move beyond the state or national borders in the hope of internationalizing education services across the world. Likewise, Virtual Internationalization of HEIs is the mobilization of skilled human resources aimed at changing the perspective of the global knowledge economy through the utilization of digital technologies that interconnect the students to curriculum and teachers (Van der Wende, 2001). Similarly, Virtual Internationalization of HEIs marks the cross-border delivery of programs and knowledge that depends on virtual mobility to realize learning outcomes. The main component of Virtual Internationalization of HEIs is the digital collaboration that ensures the mobility of students, academic staff, and academic program across the border offering joint degrees (De Wit et al., 2015, p. 45). Virtual Internationalization of HEIs also encompasses the concept of partnerships

41

between individual institutions with investors in establishing satellite campuses across the world that provide similar programs to the international students within their geographical regions. For example, HEIs in the United States and Europe have branch campuses in Vietnam, Singapore, China, and Qatar, which aid in the internationalization of the curriculum, programs, academic, and staff in the developed countries. Agreements between international and intercontinental universities have amalgamated many colleges into cooperation that meet the growing demand for research services. Hence, another meaning of Virtual Internationalization of HEIs is the process of integration the international and intercultural aspects into the process of teaching, research, and service functions (Jibeen & Khan, 2015). Internationalization of Higher Education Strategies The first strategy for HEIs and other stakeholders in the internationalization of higher education is developing an international higher education policy agenda and mission that can utilize state-level governance tools or private investment resources. Public discussions about global citizenship encourage approval of a training strategy that supports the internationalization process. European countries have created a policy for the internationalization of higher learning by starting the Erasmus Lifelong Learning program in 1987. Statistics show that 31 member countries have participated in the initiative with over 200,000 students benefitting from the exchange program annually. The European Union policy on education requires Erasmus to make students employable in the international labor market (EU, 2010). Lane, Owens, & Ziegler (2014) assert that most states in America have passed congressional resolutions and gubernatorial proclamations that seek to turn local and national colleges and universities into global sources of knowledge. For example, in 2010, 29 states passed gubernatorial proclamations and other nonbinding resolutions in their legislative houses

42

and senates allowing private and public HEIs to prioritize the internationalization of higher education in the United States. These legislative initiatives denote the importance of collaborative global research that empowers learners to adopt a comprehensive mindset. The state governments require university administration to recognize the significance of international-oriented faculty members with the capacity to participate in the creation and implementation of international curricular and extracurricular educational activities (pp. 263271). For example, the State University of New York (SUNY) formed the Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL) Center, which pioneered the provision of the internationalization pedagogical approach to teaching and learning targeting transnational students (Ward, 2015). Many HEIs have adopted the COIL platform to advance the process of the internationalization of the United States curriculum. In the Middle East, a partnership between EdX Corporation and the Queen Rania Foundation for Education and Development in Jordan started the Arabic-based massive open online courses (MOOCs) platform. Two KSA investors from the business community launched the Rwaq MOOCs platform in 2013 as part of the country’s policy of internationalization of knowledge and culture. The KSA government through the Ministry of Labor is cooperating with EdX to establish an open-platform MOOC that will offer courses in the Arabic language to people in rural communities (Adham & Lundqvist, 2015). However, unlike Europe and the United States, Middle East governments have yet to pass resolutions to establish MOOCs. EU (2010) asserts that the second important strategy used by the HEIs in the internationalization initiative is the establishment of foreign language components to enhance inclusivity and overcome language barriers. For example, the Erasmus virtual campuses have integrated ICT-based content management tools to provide global pedagogical services in over

43

20 foreign languages. The HEIs in Europe use Erasmus to ensure the mobility of staff, a trend that is supported by government to ensure that colleges and universities become centers of excellence. Similarly, the state of New Mexico has implemented policies that require the school districts to start developing global language skills in both the primary and secondary education sectors (EU, 2010) Likewise, New York and Pennsylvania have approved the input of NAFSA (Association of International Educators), which is a consortium of universities and colleges that organize scholarly exchange programs and offers international studies in foreign languages (Lane, Owens, & Ziegler, 2014). The third strategy requires the state governments, industry stakeholder, and HEIs to fund the internationalization of higher education through either public grants or private investment from the business community. De Wit et al (2015) claims that the European Commission funded the acquisition of infrastructure for the Virtual University of Europe (VirtEU) in 1999, and the EU’s eLearning initiative provided capital resources for the development of the Collaborative European Virtual University (cEVU) 2001(p. 77). The Erasmus program has handled over three million students who are sponsored by the European Union. The United Kingdom’s Minister of Universities started the British MOOC platform, FutureLearn, managed by the Open University (p. 81). The British Museum, the British Council, the British Library, and the National Film and Television School fund FutureLearn to provide free courses (Adham & Lundqvist, 2015). Similarly, German has a privately-owned MOOC, Iversity, which offer programs for credit (De Wit et al., 2015, p. 82). The U.S. Department of Commerce formed the United States Commercial Services (USCS) to monitor the export of education services, and it reported about $22 billion annual revenue from the export. USCS aided states to pool resources to build the internationalization framework in top private and public universities. The program has attracted

44

international students in 25 states that have a web presence for virtual education. State governments together with the USCS provide the pooled resources and VLE program that both private and public universities use to develop their respective global education policies. Industry stakeholders fund the acquisition of infrastructure and provide capital to private HEIs that offer exchange and research programs (Lane, Owens, & Ziegler, 2014). Last, strategic planning and goal setting factors incorporated into modern management practices determine the extent of the internationalization of higher education. HEIs and industry stakeholder must form an engaging international agenda that re-evaluates the organization’s mission to establish a global dimension. For example, Colorado State University had a plan to introduce international students by 2015 to achieve the ratio of one to four by providing direct aid to international scholarships and internships (Lane, Owens, & Ziegler, 2014). Similarly, the Finnish higher education system has initiated grants to cover travel and living expenses of students and faculty staff, engaging in the exchange programs to compliment the Nordic Funding (De Wit et al., 2015). The strategic planning for HEIs includes coordinating the implementation of the internationalization of higher education with various players. HEIs must align their mission with the state gubernatorial agendas, the business community, regional stakeholders, and accreditation and federal agencies who represent the organizations that influence the shaping of strategic plans that support the internationalization of higher education. For example, the University of North Carolina (UNC) runs a consortium called the Long-Range Plan that administers and coordinates activities geared towards providing aid programs to attract international students (Lane, Owens, & Ziegler, 2014).

45

Internationalization of Higher Education Modes and Steps Imports and exports. Imports and exports represent the fundamental mode of internationalization of higher education whereby one side sends, and the other accepts emigrating students. The export of learners defines the student-exchange programs based on agreements between universities. The inward (import) flow of students benefit learners as the exposure to foreign culture improves the retention of knowledge (Khan, Omrane, & Bank, 2016). Likewise, the outward internationalization aims at helping learners to acquire skills from the international universities to share with others back at home. Academic joint ventures. Academic joint ventures represent the level of internationalization that allows HEIs to offer complementary and supplementary educational programs and services (Khan., 2016). Usually, two or more schools come together and sign agreements to provide double or dual academic programs and certifications. Student exchange programs form part of the program’s inward and outward internationalization that enhance the specializations of learners. For example, one university can handle program specialization while the other offers internship opportunities. A consortium of HEIs can create an exchange platform that provides varied learning experiences. Khan (2016) states that two or more colleges can form an academic partnership known as a consortium that allows the exchange of students, faculty staff, and research programs to foster a cooperative culture of learning. Joint programs expose students and scholars to several intercultural ideas that increase the academic experience of the partnering HEIs. Faculty exchanges integrate researchers from different universities and success of such actions is the building of a more significant pool of knowledge that benefits the partnering institutions.

46

Moreover, the collaborating HEIs can create a VLE that offers a variety of learning initiatives to help their members acquire multicultural skills. Opening and running of campuses abroad. The last level of internationalization is the opening and running of campuses abroad, which encompasses the transfer of faculty members or hiring of local professionals for administration purposes. Academic institutions can cooperate with direct foreign investment schemes to establish a physical presence that enrolls students locally while offering an international standard form of higher education. Campuses built overseas provide a variety of academic programs without the inhibition associated with partnerships or distance learning (Khan., 2016). Drivers of the Internationalization Process According Childress (2006), leadership remains the primary internal driver of the internationalization of higher education. University management teams, government agencies, and the heads of international offices determine the speed of implementing the initiative’s plans. The actions of the central administration influence institutions in creating programs that address the needs of international learners. The primary enabling factors in the development of the internationalization plans are associated with the programs of the participating HEIs. Institutional leaders like the president, provost, and the Board of Trustees remain critical in establishing a global-oriented higher education curriculum. Furthermore, university administration determines the number of resources set aside to develop the universal syllabus. College executives influence the success of plans designed by the cross-departmental committees that seek to execute the curricular component of the internationalization plan.

47

Figure 3: Drivers of Internationalization (Haggard, 2013) Figure 3 above presents the influence of the Board or central management of the institutions in determining the internationalization strategy (Haggard, 2013). The survey shows that the central administrators are responsible for the implementation of the internationalization initiative. The provost’s dedication to supporting the faculty members from different schools in developing strategies determines the speed of accomplishing the internationalization agenda. The top leadership of HEIs defines policies that guide opening higher education to transnational market (Childress, 2006). Hence, international offices are mandated to follow the guidelines of the provost. Likewise, administrators must negotiate with the top leaders for resources to ensure that an HEI achieves its mission of attracting international students by offering global-oriented programs. One factor that remains a significant determinant of the success is the availability of 48

skilled faculty members who can design the best curriculum to serve the universal needs of students. The authority of the head of the internationalization effort in every college or university determines the success of an institution in accommodating international learners. For example, the Board of Trustees and the provost mandate the dean of international education to plan and implement the process and report the success and challenges to the top administrators. Some universities create administrative committees to oversee the international studies component. The International Activities Council is an example of a working group that comprises of faculty members and administrators put together by a provost to manage the internationalization process (Childress, 2006). Lane, Owens, & Ziegler (2014) affirms that the determination of higher education government agencies to lead the internationalization initiatives in their states influences the outcome of the process. Government intervention groups can work with the top university leaders in planning and execute the virtual systems and student exchange programs by offering resources and technology. For example, the Colorado state education agencies cooperated with the Board of Governors of the University of Northern Colorado (UNC) to establish the UNC Exchange Program (UNCEP). The program sends students from different universities and colleges in Colorado to study abroad through the support of government grants. Similarly, the University Systems of Georgia has a strategic plan that assists HEIs in visa prerequisite, faculty development strategies, admission and residence policies, and providing risk and ethical guidelines (Lane, Owens, & Ziegler, 2014) The external drivers of internationalization include the national and international rankings that influence the capacity of HEIs to attract international students. Childress (2006) states that

49

the programs like the internationalization collaboration, laboratory research, and promising practices provide the necessary support for the development of the global-oriented higher education. Research indicates that approximately 13% of the HEIs that have access to state resources have successfully developed a consortium program that has realized a higher inflow of foreign students. Collaborations among HEIs and government agencies acted as an external driver for the internationalization programs by boosting the visibility of the state universities in the educational service market. Scholarly research facilities that support the acquisition of critical knowledge are used as international laboratories. Similarly, promising practices highlights the readiness of the faculty members and the administrators to handle a international exchange program. Closely related is that offering higher education curriculum in the indigenous languages that the international students understand encourages higher admission rates (Childress, 2006). Childress (2006) asserts that the institutional accreditation improves the ranking of HEIs locally and internationally, which in return acts as an external driver that fosters the internationalization of higher education. Recognized HEIs readily requires the support of their schools and departments to implement the internationalization plan. The federal and state governments prevent the proliferation of diploma mills, by closing non-accredited agencies offering virtual education services. Additionally, the vetting of HEIs’ programs provided to the international market enhances the quality of training. The involvement of government agencies in the internationalization of higher education safeguards the quality, which mitigates the financial and student safety risks. For example, the states of Minnesota and New York have enacted legislations that require all HEIs offering an international education curriculum to publish their programs publicly. Government regulations have increased transparency as only

50

vetted programs are allowed for an internationalization initiative. The use of a ranking system highlights the institutional perception of quality assurance in providing the best educational services that result in a highly-educated workforce. The level of scholarly research and the dedication of the faculty members in disseminating knowledge-based skills remain associated with the highly ranked HEIs. The production of outstanding graduates that deliver in the labor market is a consistent indicator of the success of a college or university in an internationalization program. The Rationale for Virtual Internationalization of Higher Education The logic behind the globalization of tertiary training started in the 1980s and intensified during the later 1990s. The rationales for the internationalization of higher education are the economic, political, cultural, and educational factors that influence the process in different ways (Ralyk, 2008). The political rationale asserts the interests of a state and other stakeholders in providing a secure and stable ideological support for the development of higher education. National or state interests present a substantial overlap in rationales within and between the different stakeholders that compete based on the hierarchy of priorities (Jeptoo & Razia, 2012). Acoording to Ralyk (2008), states that fund higher education require the development of VLE, which provide free education at no fee. In contrast to this, in countries where students pay for their tuition, many online learning investors are willing to start extensive research programs that match the education provided in traditional HEIs. The government comprised of local, national, and regional bodies represents the official stakeholders who need the education sector to elevate the economic output of learners (pp 7-11). Hence, federal oversight representatives could hinder or allow the Virtual Internationalization of higher education depending on the perception of the officials towards accrediting a program. Even if an academic program is recognized in Europe

51

and the United States, the developing countries’ government requires an evidence-based performance assessment of the effectiveness of VLE programs (De Wit et al., 2015). State officials need awareness of the modules offered and that the compatibility of students graduating from the virtual classrooms will fit into the local political agenda. Hence, governments license virtual HEIs depending on the benefits associated with their programs in their domestic market economy. A safety check on this is that state agencies have the power to halt any VLE from operating in regions under their control. The economic rationale intends to create competent global human resources that remain internationally competitive (Gunsyma, 2014). Another conspicuous feature that promotes the internationalization of higher education is the financial incentives to support virtual research, and the HEIs aim to improve the quality and accessibility of educational and cultural dimensions of life (Ralyk, 2008). Ralyk states that the private sector’s interest is to make education a tradable and profitable commodity for export. Revenue production is tied to the cross-cultural logic of advancing the dissemination of knowledge as a form of entrepreneurialism that seeks to increase nations’ economic competitiveness. The financial aspect is geared towards enhancing the research capacity of the students, which raises cultural awareness. The economic rationale is consistent with the notion of preparing the competency of students in their respective academic disciplines to expand their international and local understanding of circumstances and cultures of other people. Learners studying at the foreign universities have higher cultural awareness and acquire the global perspective and methodologies need to work out solutions. Hence, the economic rationale encompasses the requirement of modernizing the global labor force to increase international competition and technology by marketing higher education as a transferable commodity globally (Ralyk, 2008).

52

Ralyk (2008) asserts that HEIs, like polytechnics, colleges, and universities want to increase their global presence by offering scholarly research that integrates students, teachers, and examiners to achieve international academic standards. The presence of international students increases awareness and improves the academic standards of teaching and research. The educational rationale encompasses the dimension of increasing open-minded teaching, research, and services that add value to the global systems of higher education. Virtual Internationalization seeks to change the world by deregulating education to make it a more market-oriented private sector that will address the needs of the labor sector. The diversity of investment sources has advanced higher education as a form of entrepreneurial activity that promotes the universal acquisition of skills and knowledge. Hence, the academic rationale seeks to make higher education a global agent of modernization that brings diverse cultures together to address human issues (Ralyk, 2008). Cultural rationale refers to the preservation of national cultures as part of the internationalization concept of encouraging diversity in the global market. Nations participate in the internationalization of higher education since students want to acquire alternative methodologies and perspectives to work out solutions without undermining their individual indigenous social beliefs. The cultural rationale seeks to preserve the local language and lifestyle without forcing students to adopt different ways of expressing ideas. When countries feel secure about the balancing of ideas to avoid homogeneity, their students will value the internationalization process (Ralyk, 2008). Jeptoo & Razia (2012) highlight that competing rationales emerge when different stakeholders try to fulfill specific priorities that depend on the needs of the society, government, investors, HEIs, and students. The government agencies have the power to either accredit or

53

reject a Virtual Internationalization project depending on the perception of the quality of the system at addressing local or national issues. The interplay between the HEIs and investors supporting virtual higher education and the government’s quality parameter in determining the process of internationalization. Consequently, issues related to the investment in the development of economic structures where skilled employees can fit in the global labor market drive the internationalization process (pp. 367-369). Virtual Internationalization of Higher Education Virtual Internationalization seeks to intensify the mobility of students and faculty by using technology that enhances remote learning. Advanced ICT supported by the Web 2.0 have increased online collaboration and the creation of virtual learning environments. HEIs have held the internationalization process as the basis of achieving realistic teaching with a global appeal (Wachter, 2002). Virtual student mobility uses ICT to integrate international, intercultural, and global dimensions of higher learning into a purposeful function that enhances remote learning and teaching. Wachter (2002) asserts that the primary driving force behind the concept of Virtual Internationalization of higher education is to enhance the mobility of students and faculty beyond the limitations of geographical barriers. Similarly, multi-national corporations have established a market economy that requires a highly-trained workforce with a global decision-making approach. HEIs use internationalization education policies to expand their intake of the student from across the globe. HEIs have opened branch campuses abroad that operate using MOOCs that can handle an unlimited amount of student participation (Nuissl, 2016). In most cases, groups of colleges come together and establish joint degree programs that they offer through the MOOCs platform, which is accessible freely via the web.

54

Jones, Coelen, Beelen, & De Wit (2016) affirm that the development of science through collaborations has enlarged the experience of students who exchange ideas based on their diverse multicultural backgrounds. Virtual interaction leads to sharing of information that has increased mutual understanding and the speed of knowledge development. The implementation of networked knowledge society has improved the quality and diversity of curricula delivered through the international partnerships. Collaboration between different colleges has expanded research opportunities that have increased changes in pedagogy as faculty and staff try to balance ideas to fit the multicultural needs of students. Nuissl (2016) states the changes to the structure of disciplines have introduced specialization in research methods, theory, and experimental topics. Virtual mobility of scholars and students undertaking research projects has created advanced research and knowledge centers around the globe. Jones, Coelen, Beelen, & De Wit (2016) assert that the virtual mobility compliments the real exchange of ideas since the societal elite can choose not to interact beyond their national groups of students, which reduces chances of having a richer intercultural experience. Learners can benefit from the online context collaborations instead of making a physical journey to gain exposure that changes their perspective of critical thinking. The virtual mobility uses multiple types of interactions and different media platforms that provide realistic follow-up mechanisms for scholars to monitor social conversations that ensure the exchange of ideas. A more profound experience is achievable through the professors’ strategies to include online activities that enhance the intercultural collaboration. For example, students can use communication media and tools that support virtual meeting to strengthen multicultural interactions.

55

Virtual Instruments of Internationalization of Higher Education The most common collaboration tools that colleges and other digital centers use include VLE like Blackboard, email, blogs, instant messaging, SMS, email, discussion forums, mobile voice calls, voice over Internet protocol services, and social networking media sites (Bell & Zaitseva, 2007). Virtual mobility tools are divided into synchronous and asynchronous tools. The synchronous type facilitates communication between all users simultaneously and includes chatting, videoconferencing, and web conferencing. On the other hand, e-mail, discussion forum and e-portfolio are examples of asynchronous tools that involve communication between users on an individual basis. The tools are classified into five categories according to the actual usage of each instrument. First, reflective tools, which include portfolios and weblogs, ask for the individual opinions from each student. An e-portfolio reflects the real student experience and personal development, and it is updated dynamically (Teresevičienė, Volungevičienė, & Dauksiené, 2011). Similarly, a weblog is a user-generated website with entries that include links from teachers and students to enhance sharing of ideas. According to Teresevičienė, Volungevičienė, & Dauksiené (2011) the second category is the collaborative tools, that bring together students and teachers to cooperate through such platforms like wikis, blogs, and discussion forums. Wikis allow students and scholars to generate open-ended information that is easily modified by any user. Learners can post questions or opinions in the discussion forum and ask for contributions in the form of replies or comments. Third, communication tools like chat, e-mail, and video or web conferencing help students and teachers to interact virtually. Members of a virtual class can chat to enhance personal communication without meeting face-to-face. Simultaneous transmission of video in real time enhances the virtual classroom setting, which fosters learning and open interactions. For

56

example, Wimba Classroom, Adobe Connect, and Elluminate support the virtual learning environment. Fourth, social networking tools provide space for individual web pages, media sharing, and social bookmarking activities. Last, the learning platform like WebCT Blackboard and Moodle are VLE systems that offer content, curricula information, communication tools, and management systems for teaching and learning. Moodle (Modular Object-Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment) remains the best open source course management system (CMS) developed in the United States that allow teachers to post content, activities, assignments, administer the examination, chat, and offer flexible lessons. Similarly, WebCT (Web Course Tools) is an online commercial VLE that is flexible and easy for students and teachers to post lessons and interact through chats, e-mail, and discussion forums. Bell & Zaitseva (2007) highlight that the European Union has developed specific VLE and other instruments that support the internationalization of higher education. For example, Collaboration Across Borders WEB (CABWEB) integrates instructors and apprentices from different countries. Similarly, ESMOS is a VLE that incorporates online tools and technologies that increase the virtual mobility of students. CABWEB is a portal used by students and professors as a network for online collaboration. Learners and lecturers use Blackboard to communicate, engage in projects, and exchange ideas. CABWEB is configured to use Moodle, which is an open source VLE, and allows students to create user profile, discussion forums, and chat freely. Additionally, students can access resources and engage in the creation of knowledge through the WIKI tool. The CABWEB model shown in Figure 4 highlights the components of the virtual instrument that connect scholars and students. Teachers use the Higher Education Learning Professionals network (HELP) component of CABWEB to check, organize, and discuss activities that include student collaboration and evaluation. Statistics show that HELP is

57

hosting more than 125 members from about 23 countries in Europe and Asia. CABWEB supports peer-evaluation, topic-oriented discussion, and online seminar activities with video interactions. Learners use the student network to form both open and closed groups depending on their different disciplines and aspirations. Teachers assess the voluntary and mandatory online activities that students engage in according to curricula.

Figure 4: CABWEB Portal’s conceptual model (Bell & Zaitseva, 2007) Another option is Enhancing Student Mobility through Online Support (ESMOS), which is a VLE that uses online technologies to develop, evaluate, and model students either undertaking studies (ERASMUS) or work placement programs (LEONARDO). ERASMUS creates a network of activities that increase student mobility in Europe through virtual systems. Similar to this, LEONARDO provides a placement experience that includes motivation to ensure 58

successful transfer and acquisition of skills. ESMOS supports pedagogical, conceptual, methodological, administrative and psychological systems to promote independence in the learning process (Bell & Zaitseva, 2007). Benefits of Virtual Internationalization Virtual Internationalization policies increase staff’s global cognizance and enhance the precocity of learners to tackle global issues. Figure 6 asserts that the primary benefit of the initiative is to improve the quality of education. HEIs that have established the interconnected network of virtual learning environments have developed cultural diversity classrooms that influence the learners to embrace a liberal perspective (De Wit et al., 2015). Moreover, online learning increases skills acquisition and employability of students. Virtual Internationalization strategies are adjusted to fit international standards, which increases the ability of learners to apply their skills in the global labor market without fear of being insufficiently prepared from their HEIs (Khan., 2016). The HEIs joint venture to develop international curricular activities has enhanced the creation of a variety of materials and instructional designs that support learners. Likewise, as HEIs collaborate, the faculty benefits from the shared research opportunities (Hayle, 2008). Students attain broadened knowledge and understanding of other cultures through the interpersonal interactions that increase the ability of learners to solve global challenges.

59

Figure 5: The primary reasons for HEIs to focus on internationalization (De Wit et al., 2015) Additionally, the consistent exposure to diversity and networking develops the social and emotional skills of the faculty members and students in building sustainable international contacts (Hayle, 2008). De Wit et al (2015) states that the attainment of global competencies of students in the interpersonal and intercultural sectors increases the professional development of learners. Sharing of knowledge enhances the creation of best practices that improve the quality 60

of teaching and acquisition of knowledge with a global conscious. The remote exchange of ideas preserves the native experience, thus allowing international students to adopt only appropriate professional skills. Teachers pay attention to the needs of learners through the feedback systems within the VLE and implement changes to the curriculum to guarantee the delivery of studentcentered learning. Virtual Internationalization has established an immediate environment in which teachers can freely consult learners to amend the traditional evaluation practices to fit the diverse needs of online students. In addition, the digital experience has prompts to allow students to ask for alternative materials and make inquiries on topics they have not understood. Likewise, the faculty in a network consortium pools knowledge from different perspectives that aid students in learning alternative ways of applying skills (De Wit et al, 2015). HEIs adopt Virtual Internationalization policies to strengthen their institutional research and knowledge production to maintain their reputation and global ranking (Khan., 2016). Glass, Pijano, Scott, & Knight (2014) assert that the sharing of probe concepts increases the capacity of faculty and researchers in solving cross-border challenges. Hence, Virtual Internationalization of HEIs improves studies through networked collaborations that enhance the production of practical skills. Associations regarding capital, academic, and human resources complement the acquisition of unbiased knowledge through research. Scholars engage in different joint inquiries to enhance the credibility of duplicable results to highlight the best alternatives. The HEIs that offer Virtual Internationalization of higher education programs increase their ranking and visibility in the world, which translates to more income as they attract international students. Universities that offer international educational services enhance their academic profile across the globe (Glass, Pijano, Scott, & Knight, 2014)

61

Challenges of Virtual Internationalization Childress (2006) states that different factors hinder the development of the internationalization process across the world. The primary problem that affects over 23% of the HEIs is the decentralized system of providing international education whereby every institution has its own internationalization goals and measurements. Lack of a coherent central curriculum initiative to increase internationalization continues to derail the capacity of HEIs to implement realistic programs. Individual schools and departments promote their decentralized plans without the direction of their institution. Even state-level management systems depend on the capacity of institutions to handle and implement the internationalization process. Departmental and interschool teams complain of the delays in the institutional decisionmaking process that undermines the internationalization programs by slowing the implementation of anticipated plans (Hayle, 2008). Weaknesses in the university’s command hierarchy dissuade international offices or committees from executing the internationalization strategy, as they must wait for top leaders to approve all proposed changes. At least 19% of the HEIs participating in the program complain of the slow processing of plans: “The biggest challenge to planning is time constraints” (Childress, 2006, p. 18). Even departments require time to assess suggestions and build consensus before developing documents to present to the university leadership for approval. Likewise, a non-supportive HEI president or provost is apt to hinder the internationalization process. The lack of vertical administrative support discourages departments from implementing the plans due to insufficient resources. The lack of resources deters the efficient implementation of internationalization in higher education at the institutional level. Childress (2006) reports that 6% of colleges and universities cannot afford to offer international academic services. Limited financial resources, particularly in

62

HEIs funded by the government, presents a constraint that undermines the internationalization of higher education. Institutions require funding to purchase ICT equipment and lay down a structure that attracts overseas students. The hiring of more faculty members with the capacity to teach the international curriculum in the foreign languages is a priority that requires funding. Virtual Internationalization Theories Five theories support the Virtual Internationalization of higher education and explain the conscious approach to implement an information communication technology (ICT) infrastructure that supports the Virtual Internationalization in universities. The diffusion of innovation theory internationalization theory, institutional theory, learning by doing, and the communication model provide a background for understanding the rise and acceptance of the Virtual Internationalization of higher education across the world. An analysis of each model’s premises reveals the differences in adoption and implementation of ICT systems that encourage student and faculty mobility to transcends national borders. Diffusion of Innovation Theory Rogers (2010) developed the diffusion of innovation theory to explain the spreading of a new idea through a population. Weigel, Hazen, Cegielski, and Hall (2014) claim that the adoption of innovation requires the recognition of the relative advantages, perceptions of compatibility, and an understanding of the complexity of applying the invention. Every new idea reaches a tipping point when it diffuses throughout the social system. Rogers (2010) identifies the mechanisms of diffusion that fall into a 5-step process: knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation, and confirmation. People who share similar beliefs and academic standards readily accept new ideas that extend the usage and application of their awareness: “Thus knowledge of the existence of innovation can create motivation for its adoption” (p. 164). 63

Henard, Diamond, & Roseveare (2012) asserts that individuals with operational awareness about any innovation are likely to adopt it. The three factors that have supported the adoption of Virtual Internationalization strategies in HEIs are knowledge about the Internet, computers, and the application of ICT. Awareness about an innovation prompts the acquisition of how-to knowledge, which reveals the principles of its operation and information about usage. The availability of knowledgeable ICT staff and students has persuaded universities to change their attitude towards the inclusion of online learning environments. Sufficient knowledge remains a precursor for the adoption of innovation in the education sector. The success of earlier innovation adopters, such as the well-known MOOCs, has inspired college administrators to offer virtual education programs. Persuasion requires the acquisition of knowledge and a change of attitude to accept change. Adoption of innovation depends on prevailing attitudes and knowledge: “Certain individuals are more likely to have an attitude/adoption gap than are others…later adopters require a longer time, once aware of a new idea, to move to adoption” (Rogers, 2010, p. 170). Henard, Diamond, & Roseveare (2012) state that Europe and the United States are earlier adopters of the ICT expansion into the education sector, while other countries are late adopters. This example explains the constant struggle by the later adopters to invite the United States and European universities to set up international branch campuses in their regions. The changing attitudes towards Virtual Internationalization through ICT motivate other regions that are lagging behind to adopt modern education systems that support their agenda for expanding their knowledge economy. The decision stage occurs when either an individual or a group approves or rejects the use of the innovation. Adoption takes advantage of the new idea to benefit the users, while a rejection occurs due to uncertainty (Rogers, 2010). The implementation stage happens 64

when agents or individuals agree to use an innovation (p. 172). The internationalization of higher education through ICT has taken root in the 21st century due to the availability of advanced technology and communication systems (Henard et al., 2012). The integration of indigenous knowledge systems into virtual ICT systems will empower local people to accept the innovation. Likewise, the confirmation stage offers individuals and agencies the opportunity to provide feedback through an evaluation of the adopted innovation and inform future decisions and recommendation to make it more tenable. Evaluation of the implementation process arrives “at the confirmation stage; the individual seeks to avoid a state of dissonance or to reduce it if it occurs” (Rogers, 2010, p. 181). After an evaluation, the college decides to confirm the role of ICT to enhance the Virtual Internationalization of higher education. While European colleges already had a platform that interlinked their colleges by the late 1980s through the Erasmus Mundus Programme, other regions adopted ICT into their universities much later (Henard et al., 2012). Trials with technologically powered educational methods, and experimentation with innovation, influenced the knowledge and adoption stages. This theory further explains the differences between earlier and later adopters of ICT and online learning innovations, which support the Virtual Internationalization of higher education. Stage of Adoption

Adoption Behavior

Knowledge

Relative Adoption

Compatibility

Persuasion

Complexity

Decision

Trialability

Implementation

Observability

Confirmation

Figure 6: Diffusion of Innovation Theory Model

65

The model in Figure 6 shows the five critical stages of the Diffusion of Innovation theory and explains the five elements that determine adoption of new technologies or ideas by higher education institutions. Colleges that want to provide Virtual Internationalization programs ought to have understood the ICT knowledge and persuade the top leadership to make decisions to start ICT infrastructure that supports a virtual online classroom. Figure 6 displays the five stages of adopting new ideas and five possible adoption behaviors. Weigel et al (2014) affirms that relative advantage explains the perception of innovation as a better alternative for adoption. Virtual Internationalization of higher education requires universities to adopt ICT that include the Internet and web-tools that allow students to connect and learn remotely. Compatibility is the consistency of innovation to serve the needs of adopters. Technology has enhanced colleges to establish interlinked networks that strengthen the exchange of ideas through collaborative research from different geographical regions. Complexity causes a negative adoptive behavior, and occurs when people perceive an innovation to be too difficult to implement. Trialability expresses the capacity of the adopters to experiment with a change in a controlled and limited basis to gain knowledge about its processes. The adoption behavior is positive because it allows institutions to test technology first before deciding to use it. Observability asserts the degree to which the results of an innovation are visible to all stakeholders. The five adoption behaviors influence the attitudes of the university administration and their persuasion to adopt Virtual Internationalization programs that use the technology innovations to offer online courses. The institutional willingness to experiment and overcome the complexity of using ICT determines the behavior of utilizing Virtual Internationalization of higher education (Weigel et al., 2014).

66

Internationalization Theory and Institutional Theory Internationalization theory focuses on the internationalization of firms at the economic dimension. The theory has influenced the structure and development of modern educational systems. Szyszlo (2016) states that Internationalization in the education context means that “A process that integrates the international, intercultural and global dimensions into the key functions of a university, as well as into its mode of operation” (p. 3). Internationalization theory covers the diversity of policies and programs that institutions of higher education implement to attract international learners. Globalization has enforced a shift in the patterns of knowledge production, distribution, and application, which in turn influence reforms in higher education to increase research and innovation. Universities have adopted an intricate role in the framework of developing the regional and national education curriculum toward achieving the national and international standards of research and innovation. Equally, countries want their colleges to internationalize their human capital development to fit the global market economy (Szyszlo, 2016). The Virtual Internationalization of higher education influences the structure of universities and their processes to attract international students and faculty (Flach & Flach, 2010). Internationalization theory shows the effect of globalization in creating clusters of complex frameworks that allow universities to organize and implement research partnerships, virtual programs, and increase the mobility of staff and students to transcend national borders (Henard, Diamond, & Roseveare, 2012). According to Delgado-Marquez, Hurtado-Torres, and Bondar (2011), “Internationalization of higher education is the process of integrating international education into the curriculum…[it] involves increasing international cooperation, enhancing national security and improving economic competitiveness” (p. 269). Institutions aim 67

to build globalized classrooms with an international standard of education that enhance learners’ global awareness. Delgado-Marquez, Hurtado-Torres, and Bondar state that the primary factors of this theory “Universities usually internationalize in order to attract international students, better qualified domestic students, and top quality research staff” (p. 269). Thus, internationalization theory asserts a context of integrating quality staff to direct research and learning in a classroom with a diversity of students and faculty. Lawrence and Shadnam (2008) define institutional theory “as the theoretical framework for analyzing social phenomena, which views the social world as significantly comprised of institutions-enduring rules, practices, and structures that set conditions for action” (pp. 22882289). This theory asserts that organizations exist in a social context in which predominant traditions define rules, practices, and structures more than economic rationality. Therefore, institutions must grow by applying the existing shared norms that influence the epistemic policies of their communities (Amenta & Ramsey, 2010). This theory uses history, or the variable of time, to study the adoption of traditional practices and the outcomes of institutional processes. Adoption of the Virtual Internationalization policies across the world depend on each country’s established social order, the legitimatization of symbolic-interpretive organizational reality, and the subjectivist epistemological position of the society (Flach & Flach, 2010). For example, countries that use ICT extensively create knowledge that stimulates the local institutions to appreciate and implement similar systems. Furthermore, the capacity of universities to adopt Virtual Internationalization policies and implement programs depend on the institutionalized social need for such educational services. Similarly, the institutional theory looks at how institutions relate to each other, which asserts that universities can only implement

68

virtual programs that address social challenges (Lawrence & Shadnam, 2008). Government agencies that support modern education policies welcome culturally diverse virtual learning environments. Institutions provide either constraining or encouraging social conditions for new ideas. Therefore, countries that support Virtual Internationalization programs readily fund and compel their institutions to enhance the shift to international standards of research and learning. Such governments implement educational policies that instruct MOE, HEIs, and other public agencies to work together to build an interlinked and standardized knowledge economy. The institutional theory explains how social context encourages the adoption of Virtual Internationalization policies in government agencies and higher education institutions.

Articulated Institutional Commitment Administrative leadership, Structure and Staffing

Student Mobility

Curriculum, cocurriculum, and Learning Outcomes.

Collaboration and Partnerships

Faculty Policies and Practices

Figure 7: CIGE Model for Comprehensive Internationalization (Ward, 2015) Figure 7 shows the six dimensions of comprehensive internationalization of higher education in various institutions across the world. Ward (2015) asserts that the articulated 69

institutional commitment demonstrates the willingness of the top leaders, such as the provost, to provide resources for the internationalization process. The administrative leadership determines the capacity of an institution to lay Virtual Internationalization structures and staff. Attracting international faculty with skills enhance the creation of the international curriculum and learning outcomes according to global quality standards. The policies that a university chooses to implement influences the teaching practices geared towards achieving Virtual Internationalization. Collaboration and partnerships with other universities encourages and attracts international faculty and students. Furthermore, Virtual Internationalization of higher education in universities promote remote student mobility.

Figure 8: The Institutional Theory Chart

70

The institutional theory chart in Figure 8 explains that leaders in an institution face normative, mimetic, and coercion isomorphic pressure that influences their strategic responses towards adopting Virtual Internationalization (Johnston, 2013). Johnston states the normative pressure, within the hierarchy of university leadership, calls for professional accountability of the virtual courses, assessment criteria, and compliance with regulation to maintain quality. Consequently, administrators can compromise Virtual Internationalization or consent acquiescently when facing institutionalized processes such as rules on accreditation of virtual programs. Most institutions mimic working internationalization policies to avoid failure. Mimetic pressure forces universities to internationalize programs that other colleges have successfully offered in a virtual classroom environment. Copying structures and instructional material highlights the avoidance response that undermines the faculty’s ingenuity to create new standards of virtual education. Furthermore, governments have the power to force universities to internationalize their curriculums, as a reaction to global market needs. Powerful government agencies like the MOEs exert coercive pressure on colleges to provide virtual and international courses that increase collaboration in research. Subsequently, the institutions must comply to remain legitimate. The authority manipulates colleges to compromise the institutionalized policies in favor of internationalizing the curriculum. The provost and stakeholders reach a compromise and allow university administrators to launch Virtual Internationalization programs. Normative, mimetic, and coercion pressure manipulate higher education institutions to set up virtual classrooms that support collaborations (Johnston, 2013). Communication Model Communication is the transmission of a psychological (intellectual and emotional) context by a sender to the recipient. Wendland (2013) states that the communication model 71

identifies key elements of this process and includes the context of the recipient and sender, the message, the channel, the decoder, and the noise within the medium that distorts the signal. The communication model maintains that the most efficient transfer of a message takes place if the sender and receiver are within the same environment and understand the context of the message in order to reduce the effects of noise. In that context, students appreciate a lecturer in front of their classroom who can offer immediate feedback and answer their questions for the duration of the session. The medium determines the efficiency and reliability of a message transmitted and affects how the recipient decodes it. Likewise, the perception of a message sent and received in a face-to-face communication differs from the type communicated through a different medium such as audio, writing, or emails. In the context of the Virtual Internationalization of higher education, simulation of face-to-face learning integrated with a video conferences that contain the real-time gestures and clear voice of the lecturer is more efficient in teaching than modules sent via email, sound recording only, or a transcript of class sessions (Tuisk, Nekrassova, & Miller, 2015). Wendland (2013) asserts that effective communication in a Virtual Internationalization program with diverse student bodies, requires the staff to differentiate between language and speech. At the level of language, adoption of a universal structure to send messages by using shared cognitive structures promotes a transmission monopoly, whereby western colleges control the transmission while others become the consumers. In opposition to this, the use of local speech patterns increases the potential for students to understand knowledge from their social context, since this perspective encourages the integration of social contexts. Therefore, partnerships between universities in creating and delivering international curriculum must consider using capable local staff to teach and support research activities so that they reduce the 72

psychological misinterpretation of information. Communication is the transfer of psychological or intellectual content from a lecturer to a student. Psychological content refers to “what you think or what you feel (mental act)” (p. 54). Subsequently, psychological misinterpretation occurs in the medium of transmission. This includes the misinterpretation of words in case of verbal communication or gestures and graphics signs due to non-verbal communication. The solution to the problem of interpersonal communication is to use socially acceptable variety of languages practiced in a region. For example, local researchers who know different situations, a variety of languages, and cultures have a better chance to run education activities because they understand the learners’ psychological or mental capacities (Wendland, 2013). Tuisk, Nekrassova, & Miller (2015) state that increasing the communication competence of students enrolled in a Virtual Internationalization program require an understanding of intercultural communication. Students can overcome difficulties with coursework content if the faculty orients them correctly and supports their adjustment to a diversity of values, cultural beliefs, and perceptions. ICT systems and tools provide students with varied levels of interconnected interactions that transcend the limitations of state borders, but they need guidance to avoid common communication challenges. For example, the European nations signed the Bologna Accord to aid them in managing the challenges posed by ICT during globalization that increase the interdependence of a diversity of mobile students and faculty. Communication technologies have enhanced the development of ICT infrastructure like the Erasmus Program, which assigns students to international institutions that boost their mobility in Europe. Intercultural communication increases when students and faculty cooperate with other members of dissimilar backgrounds to ensure cross-cultural interactions. In universities offering Virtual Internationalization programs, positive interactions reduce the noise within the channel of

73

transmission and allow the growth of structural diversity. Complex cultural perspectives in the world affect the understanding of a message and create psychological noise or distractions. Challenges within the medium of transmission and the content of message influence the level of meaningful engagement during intercultural interactions. The communication model is critical in explaining the appropriate mechanisms and patterns of sending and receiving a message in a college with diverse students and faculty, which is typical of international institutions (Tuisk, Nekrassova, & Miller, 2015).

Sender

Encode

Channel

Decode

Receiver

Noise

Feedback

Figure 9: Communication model

Figure 9 represents the concepts of the communication model. The sender encodes the message and transmits it through the channel. Examples of channels include face-to-face conversations, telephone calls, e-mails, or written reports (Lunenburg, 2010). In turn, the receiver decodes the meaning of the message and offers feedback. However, noise affects the entire communication channel, thus distorting the message. Feedback occurs when the recipient

74

returns a message to the sender. Communication is the process of sending and receiving information from the originator to the receiver, “Conveying…of thoughts: senders ‘pack’ their thoughts into words, and recipients ‘extract’ the meaning out of these ‘packages” (Wendland, 2013, p. 61). Semantic, psychosocial, and process barriers disrupt transmission (Lunenburg, 2010). Lunenburg (2010) states that noise disrupts the interpersonal communication in higher education institutions offering Virtual Internationalization programs. Technology has reduced process noise that takes place within the communication model and affects the sender and recipient. Similarly, ICT has reduced the effects of physical barriers that include the geographical distance of separation. Semantic barriers refer to the different interpretations of words and phrases that a sender uses to express a message. Staffing universities with internationally qualified faculty experts who understand specialization terminologies, will reduce semantic barriers between students and teachers. Likewise, psychosocial barriers consist of social and psychological noise caused by personal “fields of experience, filtering, and psychological distance” (p. 5). The individual experiences include backgrounds, perceptions, values and expectations that create biases and hinder proper decoding of the sender’s message: “When the sender’s field of experience overlaps very little with the receiver’s communication becomes difficult” (p. 5). Universities offering Virtual Internationalization programs must use staff that understands the differences between students and their diverse cultural biases and background perceptions. Learning by Doing Theory John Dewey formalized the learning by doing theory, which is an educational philosophy that asserts that the value of experience is an essential component of education. “Learning by 75

doing can be referred to as the experiential learning, learning through action, or learning through discovery and exploration” (Likitrattanaporn, 2017, p. 97). Likitrattanaporn states that the theory focuses on problem-solving and critical thinking that advocates for cognitive reflection rather than memorizing content. Rogers and Kolb contributed towards this theory and defined it as cognitive learning or meaningful learning. The fundamental precept of the learning by doing theory is systematic reflection that connects the students to ideas from which they extract meaning to solve problems. Reflection stimulates the learner to use cognition to understand concepts instead of memorizing. Cognition is the mental process of acquiring knowledge and understanding principles through reflective thought, experience, and perception. Likitrattanaporn asserts that learning by doing advocates for the application of the learner-centered teaching approach by integrating student-friendly activities in the classroom. Unlike traditional learning, Dewey asserted that students with specific prior knowledge found solutions much faster and processed problems with more accurate results. The constructivists used the theory to postulate that learners construct individual knowledge and create new models to learn and teach through project-based instruction and problem-based learning. Project-based instruction increases learning by engaging in direct hands-on research. Learners activate their understanding of knowledge when applying its concepts during a problem-solving process that generates new strategies (Qi & Jianwei, 2000, p. 236). Such learner-centered academic exercises allow a student to discover tactics of applying abstract concepts to practical means of solving problems. Qi & Jianwei (2000) affirms that learning by doing theory facilitates higher-order thinking and deep understanding, which is essential in engaging learners. Reflecting problemsolving involves active interactions that build a micro-community where students and faculty 76

share and exchange ideas on their different learning styles and capacity to account for ideas. Virtual Internationalization of higher education offers students a learner-controlled environment with a real-time data collection and feedback system. The presence of a diverse body of students and staff provides an open and supportive self-regulated learning environment. Qi and Jianwei assert that learning by doing requires conversations and collaboration among students and the teachers. Virtual Internationalization of higher education brings together students from diverse backgrounds and cultures and encourages cooperation in research. Virtual classrooms provide students with thought-provoking feedback and guidance system for solving problems independently: “For example, if a learner types a formula involving a typical error when solving the problem, the software will offer them the corresponding feedback and guidance that may promote their thinking, such as, ‘Attention! What is the goal of the problem?’” (p. 236). If a learner fails more than three times during independent study with the software, the individual clicks on the tutor-online provision and request for an individualistic approach from a lecturer (Qi & Jianwei, 2000).

Practical Experience

Active Experimentation

Reflective Observation

Abstract Conceptualization

Figure 10: Learning by doing model cycles

77

Figure 10 shows the cycles of learning as proposed by Dewey’s theory. Likitrattanaporn (2017) affirms that learning is a continuous cycle of understanding abstract concepts in class, followed by active experimentation, practical experience, and reflective observation: “Learning by thinking, reflecting on experience, revising, integrating, making new experiences, followed by reflecting, revising, and integrating again” (p. 97). Mitchell, Petter, & Harris (2017) assert that the theory presents the idea of the development of cognitive awareness through student-centered classroom activities. This allows learners to interpret acquired knowledge to discover and solve problems. The model is relevant to the Virtual Internationalization of higher education because it addresses the objective of delivering a relevant learning experience, in an exciting and innovative means such as online courses and flexible learning. Collaborative student projects increase student knowledge by encouraging problem-solving, critical thinking, and team skills. Furthermore, the Virtual Internationalization ensures technology interactions that boost student involvement, concept mastery, and diversity within the classroom environment (Mitchell, Petter, & Harris 2017). Virtual Internationalization creates an environment using the information system, which ensures interactive classrooms with direct feedback, visual presentations, collaborative student platform, and a readily available faculty. Virtual Internationalization Programs Higher education institutions face the challenge of increasing the global competencies of their students to understand and find the solution to intercultural and cross-border challenges. Internationalization of higher education exposes university learners to transnational experiences. This helps equip the students with their peers’ academic knowledge and increases their employability competencies (Lipinski, 2014). However, physical exchange programs are expensive and impossible to implement in large scale to serve all learners in higher education.

78

Implementation of Virtual Internationalization programs promises to enhance student and faculty mobility and increase the value of higher education through collaboration. Bruhn (2017) asserts that ICT has encouraged the implementation of virtual transnational education that combine the internationalized curriculum with the mobility of students and instructors. Institutions across Europe have started to use Virtual Internationalization strategies provided by different agencies and organizations to enhance academic collaboration, exchange of ideas, and sharing of research projects. Despite the need to encourage inter-institution and crossborder higher education through physical student exchange programs, only 1% of United States students study abroad (Lipinski, 2014). Bruhn confirms that Projects such as COIL, TNE, and MOOCs) have created virtual learning environments that boost intercultural exchanges. Universities link their virtual classrooms despite the geographical distance of separation to ensure cross-border higher education learning. Lipinski states that virtual tools that facilitate the Virtual Internationalization process include ICT supported teleconferencing and videoconferencing systems. Various agencies have implemented ICT infrastructure that facilitates the Virtual Internationalization of higher education across the world, and they include Erasmus Mundus Programme, Tempus Programme, EICL, Virtual Exchange Coalition, and Project IN2IT (Lipinski, 2014). According to Bruhn (2017), the concept of Virtual Internationalization of education seeks to increase student mobility by networking consortia of universities to collaborate in implementing international and intercultural education with a global dimension through virtual learning environments. Institutional reforms aim to integrate global dimension into their programs, which means providing online degrees and certificates that are “worldwide in scope and substance” (p. 3). Examples of MOOCs that provide online courses include Coursera,

79

Udacity, and Iversity. International dimension refers to the development and implementation of virtual classrooms that can reach the international students and increase their virtual mobility. Bruhn highlights that the virtual transnational education uses the Internet, multimedia, e-learning technologies to deliver higher education. The State University of New York developed COIL to boost the virtual mobility of learners between countries. Intercultural dimension recognizes the differences and similarities of ethnicity and nationality when internationalizing the curriculum. For example, institutions must consider the unique cultural needs of the students using virtual learning environment and provide content in several languages. Equally, virtual classroom diversity require teachers who understand the culture and design instructional material and curriculum that address global market needs (Bruhn, 2017) Erasmus Mundus Programme European countries started the Erasmus Mundus Programme to enhance the Virtual Internationalization by joining up universities in Europe to share ideas. Lipinski (2014) states that Erasmus stands for European Community Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students. The project has improved collaboration among institutions and increased joint development of higher education policies. Other countries and areas like the United States, North Africa, and Asia have benefitted from Erasmus. For example, a United States instructor has recruited students that use tools such as Skype, Google Documents, Second Life, and other online technologies to join with their peers using the European project. Erasmus has improved faculty cooperation across Europe and helped universities to integrate the dimensions of internationalization. The program has propagated excellent teaching and learning practices that serve highly mobile students. Bijnens, Boussemaere, Rajagopal, Op de Beeck, & Van Petegem (2006) report that in the 2004-2005 academic year, the Erasmus program had 3 million 80

participants, which was 20% of all the European students (p. 24). The Bologna Declaration of 1999 set the precedence for the establishment of a European Higher Education Area by 2010 (EHEA). The European Union (EU) established a joint system of higher education with equivalent degrees and transferring credits to enhance cooperative research. Bologna stimulated the establishment of Erasmus to promote the mobility of students and faculty and encourage inter-university exchange programs (Bijnens, Boussemaere, Rajagopal, Op de Beeck, & Van Petegem, 2006) The EU has mandated the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) to manage the internationalization program seeking to increase student mobility and interlink faculty (EACEA, 2016). EACEA runs the Erasmus+ program that aims to enhance partnerships among higher education institutions. Erasmus+ is the EU’s newest version of Erasmus, which is a funding scheme that supports projects and activities in education, training of faculty, youth, and sport. Other programs under the EACEA include Creative Europe, Europe for Citizens, EU Aid Volunteers, Intra-Africa, Eurydice, and Programmes 2007-2013 (EACEA, 2017). The European Union funds and oversees the Erasmus+ programs that are identified according to action one for mobility, two for cooperation, and three to support education policy. EACEA manages projects that fall under the Large Scale European Voluntary Service Events (EVS) and Erasmus Mundus Joint Master’s Degrees. EACEA (2016) asserts that the programs funded through EVS are youth, culture, and sports. For example, EVS organized the World Youth Summits, European Capitals of Culture, European Youth Capitals and European sports championships. The agency facilitates the Erasmus+ Key Action 1-Erasmus Mundus Joint Master’s Degrees (EMJMDs) program that aims to stimulate excellence, innovation, and internationalize higher education institutions to deliver collective expertise to students. Erasmus+ 81

funds research activities in a consortium of universities that offers joint or double master’s degrees. The program supports only postgraduate studies to increase the competencies of European graduates across the continent. The Directorate-General for Education and Culture supervises the agency’s capacity to integrate European universities to collaborate and offer joint and double degrees (EACEA, 2016). The European Aid Development and Cooperation funds Erasmus to boost institutional partnerships (EACEA, 2016). Student grants have heightened student mobility and increased their awareness as European citizens. Haake, Lukosch, Rajagopal, & Van Pategem (2006) state that Erasmus facilitates European higher education institutions to implement high-quality joint postgraduate degrees that integrate internationalized curriculum and enhance partnerships. A consortium of more than two universities from at least three countries offer the joint or multiple degree programs. Erasmus provides scholarships and fellowships to students and teachers to ensure that they join the program. Students can study at three different institutions and transfer credits within consortium members. For example, an individual can enroll and learn the first year in the coordinating university before switching to a partner consortium institution during the second year. Erasmus offers similar virtual school exchange courses with comparable curriculum to incorporate student and faculty mobility. Haake, Lukosch, Rajagopal, & Van Pategem (2006) affirms that the European Network for Quality Assurance (ENQA) standardized the higher education activities to ensure equivalent degrees. Erasmus developed the European Quality Assurance Register (EQAR) in 2008 to benchmark the quality of the joint degrees. Quality assurance has improved the translation from the physical exchange of student to the virtual mobility within the Erasmus Mundus Programmes. Virtual Internationalization has achieved higher levels of student and teacher

82

mobility and enhanced communication and collaboration among consortium partners. The shared VLE has created an online sharing program that allow learners and instructors to interact freely regardless of time and participate in the Erasmus courses. The VLE disseminates instructional materials and contains all information for students to study. VLE boosts interpersonal interactions and creates a community where students exchange ideas and experiences. K.U. Leuven is using VLE to circulate course information and conduct online lectures. Erasmus disseminates series of conferences to consortium member universities through the coordinating institution. The program uses tools such as FlashMeeting, Skype, and other online tools that facilitate videoconferencing. Videoconferences such as webinars support a virtual connection likened to face-to-face communication and is ideal for remote tutoring. REVE (Real Virtual Erasmus) compliments the physical exchange programs and supports the virtual mobility of faculty and students. The virtual Erasmus allows students to take courses at a partner university without a physical appearance. REVE is a “networked e-learning as an integrated part of mainstream higher education, aiming at transferability, scalability, and sustainability of networked e-learning” (Haake, Lukosch, Rajagopal, & Van Pategem, 2006, p. 273). Haake Claims that REVE employs information and communication technologies to enhance virtual mobility throughout the European institutions. REVE provides a framework through which a consortium of universities plan and execute courses jointly. Erasmus' virtual platform supports both learning and teaching activities for both students and instructors. REVE is an ICT supported learning environment with cross-border collaboration in technical, pedagogical, and learning and teaching activities seeking to increase intercultural understanding in Europe. A partnership consists of a provider and recipient university working together to disseminate knowledge. The provider institution coordinates the Virtual Internationalization

83

process by offering the course material, teaching strategies, and assessment criteria, while the consumer college creates a network to receive and disseminate the online course content and materials to students. REVE aims to improve the existing university courses and enhanced collaboration between students from different international and national boundaries. The program offers technological, organizational, and pedagogical solutions for colleges seeking to establish virtual programs (Haake, Lukosch, Rajagopal, & Van Pategem, 2006). Haake, Lukosch, Rajagopal, & Van Pategem (2006) state that Virtual Erasmus uses a simple mechanism to integrate universities trying to implement Virtual Internationalization programs through its infrastructure to disseminate knowledge. REVE uses a producer-consumer model, which describes the relationship between the coordinating institution that synchronizes the learning processes and the consumer university that provide a platform for learners to access the internationalized content. Stakeholders use virtual Erasmus’ simple procedures to establish contact for partnerships. Hakke claims that the announcement phase allows a provider institution to declare the interest to collaborate with other universities. Willing consumer colleges negotiate network conditions before joining the consortium to offer Virtual Internationalization courses. After joining in, the preparation phase starts when new partner institutions adapt and modify the internationalization curriculum to fit the local needs. The enrollment period begins when students take courses abroad virtually from their local colleges. A limited virtual course requires the consumer university to conduct a registration phase when they identify the best-suited students and teachers to enroll. The learning phase marks the collaborative studying, teaching, and assessment processes that the producer and consumer institutions engage in remotely. The result registration phase starts at the end of the semester when teachers tally grades for the participating students in their respective home college administration systems. The REVE project

84

has used elaborate strategies to localize its courses. For example, the virtual platform offers instructional material provided in the local languages and culture that influence teaching methods. Universities use Virtual Erasmus to foster collaboration in research and it integrates ICT to enhance the virtual mobility of students. Partnerships between institutions have boosted the involvement of teachers from different backgrounds to intensify the internationalization of higher education in Europe. Faculty members work together to develop the research projects, benchmark quality and ensure greater student mobility (Haake, Lukosch, Rajagopal, & Van Pategem, 2006). Tempus Programme The Trans-European Mobility Programme for University Studies (TEMPUS) began in 1990. It was renewed in 1994 to 1998, 1998 to 2000, and 2000 to 2006, and it includes the addition of member countries to the EU and the inclusion of North Africa, Russia, Balkans, and Central Asia in the last edition (Tempus, 2008). Acoording to Tempus (2008), the program facilitates collaboration among institutions to upgrade and reform the partner countries’ higher education systems. Tempus IV started in 2006 and lasted until 2013, it uses a combination of bottom-up approaches that allow each institution to begin the internationalization process and top-down approaches that enable countries to determine the best reform processes to maximize acquisition of knowledge according to local market needs. Tempus aims to address the Joint European Projects (JEPs), Structural and Complementary measures, and Individual Mobility Grants. JEPs create a platform that ensures institutional collaboration in research and credit transfer through the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) (Tempus, 2008). Tempus allows state partners to restructure universities by introducing quality assurance systems and management information systems and promoting the sharing of academic services. Furthermore, 85

Tempus aids institutions in training the human resources to improve governance and administration of student services to support the transition from institutionalized to internationalized learning environments. Structural and Complementary Measures (SCMs) are meant to ensure compliance with accreditation systems, credit system, and quality assurance of the virtual restructured degree courses. SCMs have increase efficiency of disseminating knowledge and augment the management practices of European universities. Likewise, the Individual Mobility Grants (IMGs) fund students and teachers to participate in the internationalization training opportunities that enrich cooperation. Tempus uses IMGs to boost professional conversation among partner countries through virtual webinars and conferences (Tempus, 2008). Tempus Programme (2013) reports that Tempus funded 1492 individuals between 2000 and 2006 to attend a foreign institution. Tempus IV started between 2006 and 2013, and it marked the era of modernizing and internationalizing higher education. The phase improved the cooperation among institutions to build a stronger culture of partnerships in coordination with the Erasmus Programme. Between 1990 and 2006, Tempus funded 6500 projects that engaged 2000 universities in the EU and partner countries outside of Europe (Tempus Programme, 2013). The three primary instruments that finance the Tempus projects are the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA), European Neighborhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI), and the Development Cooperation Instrument. IPA supports proposals targeting the Western Balkan countries and Turkey. Likewise, the ENPI benefits the Tempus partner countries in Southern and Eastern Europe countries and Russia to promote government reform in the higher education sector. Furthermore, the funds cater for social and political progress aimed at expanding democracies and stable security among partners with bilateral ties with the EU. The Development Cooperation 86

Instrument finances the Central Asian partners to enhance economic and sustainable social development (Tempus Programme, 2013). EICL Project Partnership between the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTH) in Greece and the Russian St. Petersburg State Polytechnic University (SPSPU) led to the creation of a 3dimension game that enhances virtual learning (Mavridis, Leftheris, Tsiatsos, & Kudryavtseva, 2012). The E-Internationalization for Collaborative Learning (EICL) system has promoted the Virtual Internationalization of higher education in Greece and Russia. Supported by Tempus, the project covers software engineering, languages, literature, mathematics, geography, and history, among other subjects. Students from AUTH and SPSPU collaborate to play the game to learn more skills from questions asked in the virtual learning environment. AUTH implemented the game, Grafica, while SPSPU students participate to gain more awareness about the Greek’s customized content. The game runs on an OpenSim platform to enhance collaboration between professors and students from the AUTH and SPSPU. Although the AUTH staff and students implemented the game, SPSPU students and faculty participate in playing and enhancing its capacity to teach the disciplines of marketing, business planning, and public administration. AUTH provides the technical support, implements the virtual game, and designs the scenario. On the other hand, SPSPU plays the game, evaluate the game activities, and create questions and answers. The virtual international co-operation between the two universities has enhanced the adoption of modern strategies of learning and teaching that replace the traditional classroom (Mavridis, Leftheris, Tsiatsos, & Kudryavtseva, 2012). Mavridis, Leftheris, Tsiatsos, & Kudryavtseva (2012) reports that the TEMPUS project supported the creation of the E-Internationalization for Collaborative Learning (EICL) project to 87

develop transnational teaching strategies. EICL has approximately 20 different types of projects called international binomials run by various consortia of universities. The two objectives that guide the binomial between AUTH and SPSPU are to exploit ICT to internationalize higher education and use e-tools to enhance the process. The game also promotes interactions between international teachers and improves virtual student mobility in Greece and Russia. Students login and register a team that represents their local university class, they then answer questions to garner points that translate to a win. Grafica enhances collaboration among the learners who must cooperate to answer the questions correctly to avoid losing points: “the fastest player of the team is submitted. Moreover, after each answer, there is appropriate feedback, which informs the players of the result. Finally, if a player clicks the HELP button, his team is charged some points, and the help text will be available to his teammates” (p. 2). The primary objective of the game is to aid teams to develop strategies for answering questions faster and provide the right answers to earn more points. Collaboration takes place online using virtual environment tools, like Instant Message, that enhance interaction. The game deducts points for opening a question simultaneously or twice, which requires prior arrangement to avoid such mistakes. At the beginning of the competition, all teams have 1000 points, but the opening of every question incurs a reduction of 20 points. Similarly, clicking the HELP button result in a loss of 30 points; however, a right answer to a question earns a team 150 points. Competition motivates the students to participate in the virtual learning activities, and they are encouraged to learn teamwork skills that lead to the acquisition of professional competitive skills. Teachers observe the competition and view the actions of each team, which aids in the development of learning activities that help players to achieve the objective of the game. Likewise, students can use their native language to hold team discussions before submitting answers to the game's questions even

88

though the feedback must be in the English language (Mavridis, Leftheris, Tsiatsos, & Kudryavtseva, 2012). Virtual Exchange Coalition In 2009, Soliya, Global Nomads Group, and iEARN-USA formed the Exchange 2.0 Coalition to facilitate the sharing of cross-cultural experience and boost people-to-people education programs (Soliya, 2013). Virtual Exchange Coalition uses media technology tools to enhance social interaction. Since its inception about 30 years ago, the platform has integrated learning from kindergarten to college: “Virtual exchanges are technology-enabled, sustained, people-to-people education programs…virtual exchanges use the same technologies to build mutually affirming relationships and foster constructive and meaningful dialogue among youth” (Soliya, 2013, p. 1). The Exchange 2.0 Coalition collaborated with the Saxelab Social Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory, part of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), to offer virtual internationalized education to primary, secondary, and post-secondary institutions. MIT established assessment criteria to benchmark the quality of education disseminated through the online learning environment. Soliya (2013) asserts that the partners use the evidence-based measurement tools to assess the impacts of virtual education. The organization exploits low-cost ICT and media technologies to run the virtual exchange programs that vary from kindergarten to college. The program aims to provide youth with a platform to interact while gaining globaloriented skills. Consequently, the Virtual Internationalization program promotes global interactions among students and increases the chance to studying abroad. Soliya runs the Virtual Internationalization program in the United States, Europe, and Islamic institutions since 2003. The Connect Program has facilitated the integration of 100 universities in 27 countries. The Soliya virtual exchange program promotes training of faculty to 89

support the virtual concept of studying abroad. Statistics show that 70% of students at the University of North Carolina have used the program to connect and engage with peers from Europe, North Africa, and Asia. Global Nomads Group (GNG) uses virtual tools to enhance faculty interactions and student-centered participation in learning. GNG has improved interactivity among participants by using “videoconferencing, webcasting, social networking, gaming, and participatory filmmaking” (Soliya, 2013, p. 3). GNG has connected 1 million youth from 50 countries from the seventh to twelfth grade for 15 years by providing virtual learning opportunities. Teachers integrated the GNG’s Global Citizens in Action (GCA) program into their local classrooms to interlink students from diverse backgrounds. For example, Spanish students have connected with peers in Afghanistan through video conferences. The program aims to build social and political awareness to increase youth activism projects. Although the Spanish school sits in a rural area, GNG has made it possible for the students to appreciate and understand Afghan culture (Soliya, 2013). iEARN-USA is the acronym for the International Education and Resource Network supports K-12 teachers with Virtual Internationalization tools and curriculum to facilitate meaningful collaboration in projects (Soliya, 2013). The virtual project began in 1998, and it boasts of a network of 50,000 educators that represent 30,000 schools and youth organizations from 140 countries. The program has integrated 3,000 teachers in the United States with competencies and skills to create an internationalized curriculum based on the Common Core guidelines. iEARN provides interactive technological tools to schools and educators to develop and disseminate knowledge that includes Skype and other interactive tools. For example, in New Jersey, iEARN funds projects designed by students such as animated videos that educate

90

classmates about different topics. The program allows students to Skype and chats with their peers from other countries like Nigeria (Soliya, 2013). The Virtual Exchange Coalition has helped students in the United States, Europe, Middle East, and North Africa to connect and share ideas that establish mutual respect as global citizens. The program has expanded the virtual exchange of students, in both pre- and post-secondary studies, to allow them to exchange academic experiences. Unlike the physical exchange program that caters percent to 1% of youth, virtual exchanges have expanded the numbers and made it possible for young people from different countries “to access high-quality international crosscultural education” (Virtual Exchange Coalition, 2017, p. 1). Findings of the program’s assessment conducted by Saxe lab show that Virtual Exchange 2.0 Coalition has increased cultural awareness of students and boosted their empathy towards other participants' perspectives. According to Virtual Exchange Coalition (2017), The program has collaborated with the Qatar Foundation International, the United States Institute of Peace, Bezos Family Foundation, and Alwaleed Philanthropies. Qatar Foundation International supports the blending of physical and virtual exchange programs and gauges the impacts of the program (Virtual Exchange Coalition, 2017). The United States Institute of Peace provides a platform for conferences where policymakers and the private sector meet to discuss the leadership, assessment, and impact of the Virtual Internationalization exchange program. The Bezos Family Foundation funds the Global Nomads Group’s virtual programs target K-12 schools across the world. The foundation provides virtual tools, content, and checks the quality of the virtual exchange. The Alwaleed Philanthropies funds Soliya’s virtual outreach programs that set the foundation for the Virtual Exchange Coalition. Testimonies assert that teachers can use the Virtual Exchange Coalition to negotiate partnerships with educators and schools across the

91

world. For example, Elvita Wiasih’s Tweet claims of having obtained approval of plans to collaborate with schools in China and Indonesia (Virtual Exchange Coalition, 2017). Project IN2IT Internationalization by Innovative Technology (IN2IT) is a project co-funded by Erasmus+ and Tempus to establish ICT infrastructure to interconnect the Israeli universities with the EU institutions to boost internal and external internationalization of higher education. The primary agenda of the program is to expedite the execution of Virtual Internationalization activities by providing the virtual infrastructure, enhancing institutional partnerships, and encouraging the exchange of knowledge. IN2IT seeks to accomplish three academic activities, “teaching and learning academic curriculum, knowledge sharing by research communities, [and] academy-industry cooperation” (Holzmann, 2015, p. 2). The rationale of IN2IT is to develop and deliver multidisciplinary studies based on the international curriculum through contemporary “teaching technologies such as Web 2.0 tools, MOOCs, e-learning, webinars, and conferencing” (Holzmann, 2015, p. 6). The program seeks to establish knowledge hubs for sharing research projects. The platform offers interactive tools that connect students and faculty from different backgrounds to share knowledge virtually through social networks. Holzmann (2015) claims that the IN2IT promotes community collaboration practices that aim to help students acquire international skills for global market economies. The rationale behind the cooperation is to ensure that the higher education institutions provide training that increase the competencies and employability skills of students as global citizens. IN2IT uses low-cost ICT tools to create a framework for universities to participate in the collective student capacity-building program through internationalization of higher education. Currently, the IN2IT has a consortium of fifteen

92

universities that include nine Israeli, two from Italy, and one each from Poland, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom (Holzmann, 2015). The funding agencies, Tempus and Erasmus, have set several objectives that the project must achieve in Israel. The program seeks to create a platform for internationalization and virtually integrate European and Israeli universities. IN2IT delivers technological infrastructure to support institutional collaboration in diverse academic projects. The exchange program connects the Israeli’s advanced research in technology and engineering to the European colleges’ advanced international experience (Holzmann, 2015). Higher education institutions use the ICT platform to engage and coordinate academic programs, share virtual teaching materials, and train staff on the best internationalization practices and techniques. Sharing teaching experiences has established a pool of international professional communities of practice (CoPs) that enhance the exchange of knowledge through virtual research opportunities. Besides developing competences, the project assesses the best technologies that improve virtual exchange programs among collaborating institutions. Holzmann states that IN2IT also evaluates its operations and shares results with Israeli and European universities using online technologies that support virtual conferences, seminars, videos, and social networks. Internationalization in the GCC Region The GCC comprises of the KSA, UAE, Sultanate Oman, the State of Qatar, Kingdom of Bahrain, and the State of Kuwait. Al-khalifa (2016) states that the GCC countries depend on oil and gas revenue to fund the development of knowledge-based economy to replace their dependency on hydrocarbon resources. KSA, UAE, Bahrain, and Qatar have in place high expenditures to create internationalization of their respective higher education sectors. The Higher Education Council of Bahrain has developed a technology infrastructure, EdTech, that 93

supports learning analytics, capacity building, and enhance access to higher education Furthermore, the EdTech platform has established remote labs, virtual labs, MOOCs, eLearning, and accelerated exponential access to higher education in Bahrain. The intention of increasing the technology-enabled learning environment is to improve teaching and learning. The country projects to expand its institutions to attract approximately 35% international students by 2025. Bahrain uses innovative curriculum delivery approaches that include using EdTech to provide the foundation year basic courses and teaches the usage of e-literacy (Higher Education Council, 2016, pp. 28-30). Al-Khalifa (2016) argues that deregulation and privatization of the education industry have increased the commitment of HEIs in the GCC region to provide internationalized curriculum. The education ministries of GCC countries have implemented the provisions of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and the World Trade Organization to allow private universities to set up and encourage the cross-border movement of educational services. Deregulation of institutions has motivated local HEIs to internationalize by accepting international curriculum and English-based model of instructional design. The GCC countries have committed a significant portion of their GDP to improving the delivery of academic services to the Arab people. For example, KSA recorded the highest expenditure of $56 billion in 2014, while the lowest in the GCC region is the Kingdom of Bahrain that spent $2.2 billion. The governments of the Gulf Arab countries are committed to expanding the access to higher education through privatization and deregulation strategies that have increased students in HEIs (Al-Khalifa, 2016, pp. 100-101) The diversity of programs offered in GCC’s HEIs has led to the greater recruitment of international students. KSA has the highest number of expatriate learners from across the world.

94

However, the percent of Saudis remain much higher in tertiary enrollments in the country. UAE and Qatar have the highest percentage of international students at 44.8% and 39.9 % respectively in their HEIs due to constant reforms aimed at moving knowledge-oriented economies (AlKhalifa, 2016, p. 105). KSA uses state-driven strategies to increase student and faculty diversity while Qatar and UAE apply the market-driven initiatives. 1.2 1 0.8

Series1 Series2

0.6 0.4

0.2 0 1

Figure 11: Student mobility in GCC Regions Figure 11 highlights the 2016 statistics on the mobility of students for the GCC regions. It indicates that KSA hosted 71,773 foreign learners while 73,548 KSA students were studying in abroad universities (Al-Khalifa, 2016, p. 107). UAE’s outbound mobility stood at 8,530 nationals while the inbound movement was 64,119 expatriate students. Bahrain sent 4,481 and received 5,036 students while Oman sent 11,294 and received 2,579. Kuwait attracted no expatriate students but exported 16,799 nationals to study in overseas universities. Qatar exported 5,038 learners abroad, and it admitted 10,078 in its HEIs (Al-Khalifa, 2016, p. 130). 95

The statistics assert that the UAE education sector has encouraged a higher level of student inbound mobility rates while KSA has almost equal incoming and outgoing rates. All GCC countries have promoted the internationalization of their respective higher education sectors, except Kuwait, in hosting expatriate students. Chapter Summary This chapter reviews literature in the field of Virtual Internationalization of higher education. The chapter looks at the historical background of research to support the theoretical arguments being made and demonstrates the strategies, modes and steps, benefits, and challenges of Virtual Internationalization in higher education.

96

Chapter 3 Methodology This study was designed to investigate the current level of Virtual Internationalization and exploring the challenges that might prevent the effective integration of Virtual Internationalization in KSA and UAE universities from an administrators’ perspective and to identify any difference in the level of the integration of Virtual Internationalization between KSA and UAE universities. This chapter covers the process and procedures that were used to design a reliable instrument for this study and the statistical methods used to analyze the collected data. Descriptions of the nature of these procedures are explained in the following sections: 1. Research design 2. Research questions 3. Research hypothesis 4. Research settings 5. Data collection procedures: a) Consent to conduct the study b) Research field study approval c) Ethical consideration 6. Description of variables 7. Participants 8. Instrumentation 9. Survey translation 10. Reliability

97

11. Validity 12. Data analysis 13. Limitation of the study Research Design Descriptive Research Design The study seeks to describe the current situation related to the Virtual Internationalization of higher education in KSA and UAE universities from an administrative perspective. As a descriptive study, the investigation utilizes interviews and questionnaires that address the research questions as well as independent and dependent variables for measurement and observation (Blessing, Chakrabarti, & Wallace, 1998). While a descriptive research design involves systematic and accurate analysis of the relevant facts, it also aims to discover new meanings in a situation by evaluating the current state, determining the frequency of occurrence of specific events, classifying the information, and identifying the relationships between the selected variables (Dulock, 1993).

98

Figure 12. Descriptive Methodology (Blessing et al., 1998). The main purpose of descriptive research is to outline, explain, and validate the data obtained (Knupfer & McLellan, 2001). As seen in Figure 12, the criteria utilized focus on evaluating the current state of Virtual Internationalization of higher education integration in KSA and UAE universities. The study uses descriptive analysis to determine the current level of Virtual Internationalization integration in the universities of KSA and the UAE. Moreover, the research employs prescriptive methods based on assumptions and experience to discover new meaning from the perspective of administrators. Last, the investigation observes and analyzes the obtained data to determine whether the findings confirm or deny the original hypothesis. Research Questions 1. To what extent do administrators at KSA and UAE universities know about Virtual Internationalization? 2. To what extent do KSA and UAE universities integrate Virtual Internationalization 99

strategies? 3. What are the main challenges that might prevent the effective integration of Virtual Internationalization strategies in KSA and UAE universities from administrators’ perspective? To answer these questions the researcher used descriptive statistics, which provides information about the mean, standard deviation, frequencies, variance, range, and percentage of participants responding for each category. 4. Are there significant differences between KSA and UAE universities in the following areas: a. Administrators’ Experience with Virtual Internationalization. b. The integration of Virtual Internationalization strategies. c. The challenges that prevent effective integration of Virtual Internationalization strategies. To answer this question, the researcher conducted independent-sample t test to examine the differences between KSA and UAE universities in administrators’ experience with Virtual Internationalization, the integration of Virtual Internationalization strategies, and the challenges that prevent effective integration of Virtual Internationalization strategies. 5. Are the selected variables of universities’ (location, medium of instruction and accreditation) related to the integration of Virtual Internationalization strategies? To answer this question the researcher conducted a multiple regression analysis to evaluate how the selected variables related to the integration of Virtual Internationalization strategies.

100

Hypotheses of the Study 1. Administrators at KSA and UAE universities KSA and UAE universities have less experience with Virtual Internationalization. 2. KSA and UAE universities have limited integration of Virtual Internationalization strategies. 3. There are challenges that might prevent the effective integration of Virtual Internationalization strategies in KSA and UAE universities from administrators’ perspectives. 4. There are significant differences between KSA and UAE universities in the following areas: a. Administrators’ experience with Virtual Internationalization. b. The integration of Virtual Internationalization strategies. c. The challenges that prevent effective integration of Virtual Internationalization strategies. 5. There is a relationship between the selected variables of universities’ (location, medium of instruction, and accreditation) and the integration of Virtual Internationalization strategies. Research Settings Al-Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University The Al-Iman Ibn Mohammed Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMAMU) operates 20 schools and colleges that are spread throughout the country to cater to the needs of the entire KSA. Examples of institutions include the Supreme Jurisdiction Institute, Supreme Institute for Dawah and Ihtisab, Arabic Language Teaching Institute, and King Abdullah Institute for Translation and 101

Arabization (IMAMU, 2017). The IMAMU is under the control of the Rector, and 7 ViceRectorates run the city campus in Riyadh and other colleges. The IMAMU Vice-Rectory administers the entire city school with overall leadership authority. The others six are the ViceRectorates for Community Service and Information Technology, for Female Students Affairs, for Sharia Institutes Affairs, for Higher Studies and Scientific Research, for Planning, Development and Quality, and for Knowledge Exchange and International Communications (IMAMU, 2017). IMAMU has 18 deanships that oversee the faculty members to ensure excellent delivery of academic services. It also has 16 academic administrators that manage the daily operations of the institution, including the Printing Press, Engineering, Operations and Maintenance, University Media, and Campus Safety and Security sectors. Likewise, eight non-academic administrators oversee other areas as the Traffic, Sports Facility, and Internal Auditing offices. IMAMU also operates 13 academic centers that disseminate knowledge and engage the public, and they are the Medical Service Center, IT Crime Studies Center, Center for Labor Marketplace Studies, and Science and Technology Unit (IMAMU, 2017). The General Directorate of Research Chair Program handles the academic experiments, and 25 research chairs work under the officer that include the Al-Haramaim Research Chair, UNESCO Research Chair for Interfaith and Cultural Dialogue, and Sheik Abdul-Rahman Al-Jersey Research Chair for Human Rights Studies (IMAMU, 2017). The university supports research and development through three primary libraries, which are the Deanship of Library Affairs, Knowledge Portal, and Prince Sultan Library of Science and Knowledge (IMAMU, 2017). IMAMU as a national university supports various forms of study curricula intended to serve its vast diversity of students. For example, IMAMU offers conventional and parallel education, E-learning, Distance, Continuing Education, and Sharia Institutes for Arabic 102

curriculum. The variety of educational programs and the quality associated with the university has attracted a high number of students (IMAMU, 2017). Zayed University ZU operates campuses in the Dubai and Abu Dhabi areas that enroll international students. The university started an international program with the Abu Dhabi Campus to ensure the quality of the curriculum offered by the institution. ZU adopted the United States curriculum and sought accreditation from the United States’ Middle State Commission on Higher Education. ZU offers a diversity of programs in its chain of institutions that use the United States curriculum to ensure the internationalization of higher education in UAE. The main colleges are Education, Technological Innovation, Sustainability Sciences and Humanities, Business, Communication and Media Sciences, and Technological Innovation (Marir, 2015). A President controls ZU with the help of the University Council. The Vice-President oversees the internal audit and community affairs as critical components of ZU and administers the University. Under the Vice-President is the Provost charged with the responsibility of managing the daily administrative operations (Marir, 2015). The institution has two Deputy Provosts for Finance and Administration and Academic Affairs. On the same level of management of the organization are eight deanships who steer different faculties, and among them are the College of Arts and Science, Education, Information Technology, and Library and Learning Resource Center (Marir, 2015). The university has 13 academic administrators, 4 senior appointees, and 391 staff members. There are 691 faculty members, of whom 35 are professors, 113 associate professors, 266 assistant professors, and 277 instructors (ZU, 2015).

103

Data Collection Procedures The purpose of this study is to determine the current level of Virtual Internationalization integration and to explore the challenges that might prevent its effective integration in the KSA and the UAE universities. To collect data, the researcher developed a survey to serve the purpose of this study. The population of this study included both male and female administrators working in either KSA or UAE universities during fall 2017. A survey, in both English and Arabic versions, was given to the administrators working at IMAMU and ZU. In this study, the researcher obtained the consent of the respondents to use the information provided by them, with the assurance that their identity would be kept confidential and anonymous. Official documents included an academic advisor letter, approval of the protocol and both Arabic and English versions of the survey that were sent to the Deanship of Scientific Research at IMAMU in KSA (see Appendices A, B, C and D), and to ISC (Institutional Surveys Committee) at ZU in UAE. After granting the permission of these two official entities, an email was sent to all administrators via the Department of Information Technology at IMAMU and ZU. The Department of Information Technology then sent an email that included the survey link to all the administrators who actively use their university email account. The number of valid responses to the English version survey was 110, and the number of valid responses to the Arabic version survey was 574, with a final sample size was 684. There were some missing values because not all the participants responded to all the survey questions. Consent to Conduct the Study. A request to conduct this study was sent to the University of Kansas Human Subjects Committee at the Lawrence campus (HSCL), and approval was granted in June 2016 to collect the data (See Appendix B).

104

Research Field Study Approval. The researcher sought, and granted, permission from the Deanship of Scientific Research at IMAMU, and ISC (Institutional Surveys Committee) at ZU to distribute an online survey to the participant sample (see Appendices E and F). The final step was to seek the consent of the participants. Information about the aim of this study was presented to enable participants so that they could voluntarily decide to participate as research subjects (see Appendix G) Ethical Considerations. In this study, the researcher guaranteed confidentiality and anonymity. Confidentiality is the obligation of a researcher to protect the source of information and avoid its disclosure without the necessary authorization (Wiles, Crow, Heath, & Charles, 2006). In this study, the researcher obtained the consent of the respondents to utilize the information provided by them with the assurance to keep their identity confidential. The researcher is under a legal responsibility to ensure the anonymity of the participants of the survey. Anonymity means avoiding the collection and publication of any information that may allow determining the identity of the respondents, including names, addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mails (Wiles et al., 2006). The researcher utilized specially-designed software for data collection and analysis (Qualtrics) that is well-known for its state-of-the-art security measures, to ensure the participants anonymity. Participants were not asked for their names or their demographic information (sex, age, and race). Although it was an online survey, no pieces of information like an IP address, zip code or email address were collected. Thus, the researcher guaranteed the confidentiality and anonymity of the information provided by the respondents to ensure they felt free to express their thoughts without any reservations or concerns. After retrieving the data from the survey software provider (Qualtrics), the researcher maintained the data on password protected computer. 105

Description of Variables The following is a description of the independent and dependent variables in this study. Independent Variables (IV) In this study, the demographic information provides data regarding the participants’ university: 1. Location 2. Medium of instruction 3. Accreditation 4. The level of experience with Virtual Internationalization. Dependent Variables (DV) In this study, the dependent variables are as follows: 1. The level of experience with Virtual Internationalization. 2. The level of integrating Virtual Internationalization strategies. 3. The challenges that prevent effective integration of Virtual Internationalization strategies in KSA and UAE universities. Participants A survey in both English and Arabic versions was given to the administrators and included both male and female working at IMAMU in the KSA and ZU in UAE during Fall 2017.The actual size of the administrators’ sample at IMAMU was 5,117 (2,028female and 3,089 male) (Ministry of Education, 2016), while the size of the administrators’ sample at ZU was 423 (273 female and 150 male) (Zayed University, 2016). The number of respondents to the survey at IMAMU was 482, while the number of respondents at ZU was 192.The number of valid responses to the English version survey were 110, and the number of valid responses to the 106

Arabic version survey were 574. The final sample size was 684. Participants have differences in their universities’ (location, medium of instruction and accreditation). The researcher obtained an official approval from the Deanship of Scientific Research at IMAMU, and ISC (Institutional Surveys Committee) at ZU to reach the participant sample by distributing an online survey. The researcher distributed the survey to each administrator at both universities. After that, the researcher collected and analyzed the data. This entire process took two months. Instrumentation To collect the data, the researcher used a survey that measured the experience of Virtual Internationalization and explored the challenges that might prevent the effective integration of Virtual Internationalization strategies in KSA and UAE universities from the administrators’ perspective. This identified any difference in the level of the integration of Virtual Internationalization strategies between KSA and UAE universities. The survey, containing 38 items, was developed after reviewing the literature and several existing surveys that are related to virtual mobility and the internationalization of universities. The first source was a survey conducted in 2016 by the American Council on Education (Center for Internationalization and Global Engagement), “Mapping Internationalization Assessment Tool.” The second source was “Virtual Mobility for Teachers and Students in Higher Education” conducted by Teresevicˇiene˙, Volungevicˇiene˙ and Daukšiene in 2011.The third source was a study conducted in 2012 by Green, “Measuring and Assessing Internationalization.” After that, the survey was sent to experts in the field of virtual learning and virtual mobility where they were asked which of the items were not critical and which critical items were missing. Following that, three associate and assistant professor who taught international online classes at the University of Technology of Kaiserslautern, Germany and Manipal University, UAE reviewed the list of 38 items to identify

107

the most relevant items. Based on their suggestions, some items were rephrased. After the modifications and developments, the researcher developed survey items that fit the need of this study. The survey consists of four main parts. Part I: The University Demographic Information. This section focuses on the university’s demographic information. It uses three questions to gather information about the university: 1. Location 2. Medium of instruction 3. Accreditation Part 2: The Current Level of Experience with Virtual Internationalization of Higher Education. This part evaluates the current level of experience with Virtual Internationalization of Higher Education. Eight survey questions were designed and the responses were measured on four Likert-type scales of 1= No Experience, 2= Very Little Experience, 3= Some Experience, 4= A Lot of Experience. Part 3: The Current Level of Integrating Virtual Internationalization of Higher Education. This part evaluates the level of integrating Virtual Internationalization strategies. Thirteen survey questions were created for participants to respond 1 = Yes and 2 = No. Part 4: Challenges of Integrating Virtual Internationalization. This section measures Virtual Internationalization challenges that include 14 items. Administrator’s responses were measured on a five Likert-type scale of 1= Strongly Disagree, 2= Disagree, 3= Undecided, 4= Agree, 5= Strongly Agree. Open-ended question. The last question in the survey was an open-ended question, “If you have any other challenges that are not mentioned above, please specify them.” 108

Survey Translation After the proposal was approved by both the Human Subject Committee at the University of Kansas and the researcher’s PH.D. Committee Members, a six-step protocol was followed to translate and adapt the survey: 1. Forward Translation (English-Arabic) Four translators who were professional and familiar with terminology of the area covered by the survey, the purpose of the study and the target audience created the forward translation. The translators were knowledgeable of the English-speaking culture, but their mother tongue was Arabic. 2. Expert Review A bilingual translator in (English and Arabic languages), who is an expert in the Virtual Internationalization subject, reviewed the survey after the forward translation process. The aim of this step was to resolve the inadequate expressions or concepts of the translation. 3. Back-translation Using the same approach in the forward translation, the survey was translated back to English by the expert. In the back-translation step, the emphasis was on cultural and conceptual equivalence and not solely on the linguistic equivalence. 4. Pre-testing In this step, the respondents who were representative samples of those who will be administered the survey took the test. The number of pre-test respondents were 13, both male and female, and they were asked what they thought the question was asking and what comes to mind when they heard a specific term or phrase.

109

5. Final Version and Documentation The final version of the survey was the result of the previous steps. In this step, the researcher created an electronic version of the survey. 6. Documentation The final English version and the first English version were given to a native English speaker to examine for any significant differences between the two versions. There were no significant differences found between the two versions (see Appendices C and H). Validity and Reliability Reliability Reliability is a requirement that is responsible for the consistency, dependability, and replicability of the results of research (Zohrabi, 2013). Reliability in statistics refers to the overall consistency of the measure. According to Thorndike (2005), reliability refers to the accuracy of the measurement procedure. Creswell (2009) defined reliability as whether scores for an item on an instrument are internally consistent, whether they are stable over time, and whether there is consistency in the test administration and scoring. The researcher tests the reliability of the survey to ensure internal consistency of the information collected by using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) with the help of Cronbach’s alpha. In this study, the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient was calculated to evaluate the internal consistency of the survey items within each of the three dimensions: administrator’s knowledge and experience about Virtual Internationalization, university’s integration of Virtual Internationalization strategies, and the challenges preventing the effective integration of Virtual

110

Internationalization strategies. Results of the calculated Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients indicate that the survey items within each dimension were highly consistent and reliable. Details of the reliability evaluation results are listed below. Eight items measured the dimension of administrators' current level of experience with the Virtual Internationalization of higher education. The coefficient of Cronbach’s Alpha for this measure is .908. Thirteen items measured the dimension of universities' integration of Virtual Internationalization strategies. The coefficient of Cronbach’s Alpha for this measure is .906. Fourteen items measured the dimension of challenges preventing effective integration of Virtual Internationalization strategies. The coefficient of Cronbach’s Alpha for this measure is .945. The high values of Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients indicate that all items within each dimension are measured in the same construct. Validity Validity means that the interpretation of results are supported by evidence and theory (Shillingburg, 2016). It is explained as “the extent to which any measuring instrument measures what it is intended to measure” (Thatcher, 2010, p. 124) and depends on “whether one can draw meaningful and useful inferences from scores on the instruments” (Creswell, 2014, p. 141). Practically, it creates the relationship between the measuring instrument and the purpose of measuring. Moreover, valid measures require correct inferences observed from the scores to create a reliable construct: “A testing instrument can reliably measure something other than the supposed construct, but an unreliable measure cannot be valid” (Thanasegaran, 2009, p. 37). 111

Leung (2015) adds that validity is the appropriateness of the tools, processes, and data in measuring a sample and in addressing the context of a study. Validity is divided into three categories, which are the criterion-related validity or predictive validity, face and content validity, and construct validity. The first one probes if the scores match with a criterion measure and assess whether they correlate with other results (Creswell, 2010). Content validity means investigating if the items measured are the content that they were specifically designed to measure (Creswell, 2010). Finally, construct validity checks the extent to which a measure is consistent with the theoretically derived hypothesis that correlates with the measured concept (Thatcher, 2010). Shillingburg (2016) argues that construct validity “refers to the skills, attitudes, or characterizes of individuals that are not directly observable but are inferred on the basis of their observable effects on behavior” (p. 4). Furthermore, construct validity involves measuring a series of attributes that hypothesize a relationship between the construct of interest and related ones. Thus, a researcher must generate a hypothesis, choose a measure that represents the construct of interest, and then perform an empirical study to establish the hypothesized relationship (Shillingburg, 2016). To make sure the items of the survey were valid and could measure accurately the level of Virtual Internationalization strategies integration in KSA and UAE universities, the researcher went to Dubai to meet a group of experts in the field of virtual learning and virtual mobility at Manipal University and ZU (associate professors and assistant professors) who reviewed and tested the items. Based on their suggestions, modifications were made to increase the accuracy of the items. After that, an associate professor who is a specialist in Communication Systems at the University of Technology of Kaiserslautern, Germany reviewed the second version of the survey items. The construct of the survey was reviewed, and the feedback was provided by five faculty 112

members at the University of Kansas whose fields are in education technology, design, and educational psychology and research. The survey was applied after the reviewers agreed that the survey seemed well designed and would work reliably to measure the level of Virtual Internationalization strategies integration in higher education. Since most of the participants were Arabic speakers, a forward-translation (EnglishArabic) was made by professionals and familiar with the terminology of the area covered by the survey, the purpose of the study, and the target participants. The translators were knowledgeable of the English-speaking culture, but their mother tongue was Arabic. Next, a bilingual, in English and Arabic languages and an expert in the Virtual Internationalization subject, reviewed the survey after the forward translation process. This step aimed to resolve any inadequate expressions or concepts in the translation. Using the same approach in the forward translation, the survey was translated back to English by the expert. In the back-translation step, the emphasis was on cultural and conceptual equivalence and not just on the linguistic equivalence. Thirteen male and females were administered the survey, and asked what they interpreted the content of each question to be. The final English version and the first English version were given to a native English speaker to examine for any significant differences between the two versions. There were no significant differences between the two versions. The final drafts of both the Arabic and English versions were reviewed by the researcher and sent to the Human Subjects Committee. Data Analysis The research questions were analyzed using different types of data analysis methods. To answer the research questions, the SPSS program (Version 24) was used to conduct linear regression and independent samples t test analyses, and all analyses were conducted using p