Page 1 of 8
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol. 10, No. 1
Publication Date: January 25, 2023
DOI:10.14738/assrj.101.13780.
Wang, Y. & Wang, R. (2023). A Comparison of Internationalization Indicators of Evaluation for Higher Education among the Three
Quality Assurance Agencies in Taiwan. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 10(1). 60-67.
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
A Comparison of Internationalization Indicators of Evaluation for
Higher Education among the Three Quality Assurance Agencies in
Taiwan
Yang-Chih Wang
Assistant Professor,
College of Humanities and Social Sciences,
Southern Taiwan University of Science and Technology
Ru-Jer Wang
Professor, Department of Education,
National Taichung University of Education
ABSTRACT
In line with the internationalization of higher education, the quality assurance and
evaluation of higher education is a global phenomenon. It is critical to examine
whether internationalization is considered one of the crucial indicators in
evaluating higher education. The research aims to examine the
internationalization indicators and compare them in the three Quality Assurance
Agencies in Taiwan. The methods of documentary analysis and comparative
analysis were employed in the study. Based on the results, it can be concluded: in
terms of internationalization as an indicator for higher education evaluation, of
the three QA agencies in Taiwan, the TWAEA and the IEET take it into account; in
contrast, the HEEACT has it as part of its purposes. Because international
competence is essential in a globalized employment market, the university is
responsible for internationalizing its students. Although a diversity of evaluation
indicators is expected in Taiwan, some indicators are considered universal,
including internationalization.
Keywords: internationalization, higher education, Quality Assurance, evaluation,
Taiwan
RESEARCH BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
The evaluation of higher education is a global phenomenon (Steinhardt, Schneijderberg, Götze,
Baumann, & Krücken, 2017), and after that, the appearance of quality assurance agencies
worldwide. Almost the period, there has been increasing importance on the
internationalization of higher education (Altbach & Knight, 2007; Haddad, 2006).
Internationalization of higher education is seen as one of the ways a country responds to the
impact of globalization (Qiang, 2003). Higher education has become a natural part of
globalization (Kreber, 2009). As a result of this process, higher education can no longer be
viewed in a strictly national context. As internationalization matures, it becomes more critical
and complex (Knight, 2011). The issue of internationalization is thus raised in the evaluation of
higher education. It is essential to consider whether internationalization is considered one of
the crucial indicators in evaluating higher education.
Page 2 of 8
61
Wang, Y. & Wang, R. (2023). A Comparison of Internationalization Indicators of Evaluation for Higher Education among the Three Quality Assurance
Agencies in Taiwan. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 10(1). 60-67.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.101.13780
The study aims to examine the internationalization indicators and compare them in the three
Quality Assurance Agencies in Taiwan. The methods of documentary analysis and comparative
analysis were employed in the study.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The Emergence of Evaluation of Higher Education and the Appearance of Quality
Assurance Agencies
Evaluation of higher education can be traced to the accreditation systems in the USA, dating
from the late 19th and early 20th century (Woodhouse, 2004). Steinhardt, Schneijderberg,
Götze, Baumann, & Krücken (2017) has indicated that the quality assurance of teaching and
learning has become a primary subject in higher education worldwide. Most European
countries have introduced systematic quality assurance as part of an overall governance reform
(Serrano-Velarde, 2008).
In line with the emergence of the evaluation of higher education, we have seen that the
appearance of quality assurance agencies is typical worldwide. In 1991 the International
Network of Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE) was formed to share
quality assurance practices across countries (Woodhouse, 2004). Quality assurance agencies in
Asia are attempting to enhance their quality capacity through several internal and external
approaches (Hou, Ince, Tsai, & Chiang, 2015). Harvey (2006) indicated that national policies
and other external effects at the national level mediate the actions of the external agency.
During this period, we have seen the increasing importance of the internationalization of higher
education (Altbach & Knight, 2007; Haddad, 2006). Universities' international activities
dramatically expanded in volume, scope, and complexity in the past. These activities range from
traditional study-abroad programs, allowing students to learn about other cultures. (Altbach &
Knight, 2007; Qiang, 2003). Internationalizing higher education has been taken to mean
integrating international content or perspectives in academic disciplines (Kreber, 2009).
Consequently, higher education can no longer be viewed in a strictly national context (Qiang,
2003)
Internationalization of higher education is seen as one of the ways a country responds to the
impact of globalization, yet at the same time respects the nation's individuality (Qiang, 2003).
Internationalization of higher education is essential. As internationalization matures, it
becomes more critical and complex (Knight, 2011). However, its emergence is a relatively
recent phenomenon. Internationalization has become a key theme and widespread
phenomenon in higher education (Kreber, 2009). It is argued that internationalization should
be considered one of the critical indicators for quality agencies in their evaluation of higher
education institutions (Chen, Chen, & Padro, 2017; De Wit, 2010; Sae-Khow, 2014; Stohl, 2007;
Vargiu, 2014). It emphasizes the urgent demand for measurements of university
internationalization. It proposes a new approach to develop a set of internationally applicable
indicators for measuring university internationalization performance (Gao, 2015). Bezanilla,
Olalla, Castro, & Ruiz (2019) presents a comprehensive model for the analysis of the
implementation of competence-based learning in Higher Education. The model comprises
seven dimensions and a set of evaluation criteria. Indicators include the legal and
administrative context, the institutional context, the degree program planning process,
teaching practices and their assessment, and the review and improvement of the overall
Page 3 of 8
62
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 10, Issue 1, January-2023
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
process. This explanatory model can be beneficial to universities for assessing their level of
implementation of competency-based learning and identifying their strengths and areas for
development.
The Relevant Research
There is increasing literature on evaluation indicators of higher education (Azma, 2010;
Bezanilla, Olalla, Castro, & Ruiz, 2019; Chen et al., 2017; Sae-Khow, 2014; Vargiu, 2014). Some
of the literature are concerned with internationalization (Chen et al., 2017; Childress, 2009; De
Wit, 2010; Gao, 2015; Knight, 2011; Stohl, 2007). Some of the literature are concerned with
internationalization (Chen et al., 2017; Childress, 2009; De Wit, 2010; Gao, 2015; Knight, 2011;
Stohl, 2007). Concerning Taiwan, several relevant studies are in place (Chang & Lin, 2018; Chen
& Hou, 2016; Chin & Ching, 2009; Ching & Chin, 2012; Hou, 2014; Mok & Chan, 2016).
First, Chin & Ching (2009) proposed that internationalization indicators of Taiwan's higher
education are 12 dimensions. The indicators are institutional commitments, strategic planning,
funding, institutional policy and guidelines, organizational infrastructure and resources,
academic offerings and curriculum, internet presence, faculty and staff development,
international students and scholars, study abroad, campus life, and performance evaluation and
accountability(Chang & Lin, 2018).
Second, Chen (2009) studied five universities and came up with 74 indicators of
internationalization grouped into six dimensions: teachers, students, research, curriculum,
international visibility, and administration and campus. Chen found that the indicators used by
the accreditation organizations needed to be adequate concerning internationalization.
Besides, Cheng (2008) developed a set of indicators and a weighting system for internal and
third-party internationalization assessment at Taiwan's technology universities. Cheng's
indicators are organized into three levels. The six indicators and weightings on the first level
are strategy and planning (32%); structures and staff (12%); academic exchange and
cooperation (17%); curriculum and teaching (12%); support and service (12%); and
assessment and feedback (16.41%). The indicators and weights on the second level are as
follows: (a) "Strategy and Planning" consist of three parts: mission and vision (48%); goals and
objectives (27%); and budgeting and implementation (25%). There are thirteen third-level
indicators under these second-level indicators. (b) "Structures and staff" have two second-level
indicators: decision-making structures and human resources (56%); and faculty and students
(44%). These indicators contain eight third-level indicators. (c) "Exchange and cooperation"
contain two second-level indicators: academic affiliation and international collaboration
(64%); and international research activities (36%). There are thirteen third-level indicators
under these second-level indicators. (d) "Curriculum and teaching" contain two second-level
indicators: general programs (28%); and language programs (72%). There are eight third-level
indicators under these second-level indicators. (e) "Support and service" contains three
second-level indicators: general learning support and service (22%), daily support and service
(18%), and campus internationalization (60). There are eleven third-level indicators under
these second-level indicators. (f) "Assessment and feedback” contains two second-level
indicators: performance assessment (59%); and feedback mechanisms (41%). There are seven
third-level indicators under these second-level indicators.