Internationalization assessment in schools: Theoretical contributions and practical implications

Abstract

Cosmopolitan, international capital has become an integral ingredient in the set of competencies considered to provide a competitive edge and to be required for affective citizenship in the 21st century. Recently, internationalization of education has become a more common phenomenon in local schools around the world, serving as a tool to provide youth with cosmopolitan capital and relevant capabilities for the future. Although the academic debate on international schools and internationalization is flourishing, few attempts have been made to characterize and measure the intensity of the internationalization process at the school level outside the International Baccalaureate (IB) context. This article focuses on the need for internationalization assessment in schools, and presents a theoretical framework and an initial set of indicators for such assessment. The purpose of this study is to propose a new direction in educational policy research, which reflects the increased political and economic salience of internationalization in schools.

The global–local nexus: desired history curriculum components from the perspective of future teachers in a conflict-ridden society

“…Indeed, we show that university students, who come from higher socio-economical backgrounds, hold more globalized views than do their peers studying in colleges. When cosmopolitan capital (Weenink, 2008;Yemini, 2012) becomes a vital ingredient in the competitive advantage, education systems around the globe should proactively seek to provide it, especially to disadvantaged populations, as a means to promote social mobility.…”

“…Today, in contrast, higher education institutions and workplaces seek out students and employees with global mindedness, forcing schools to prepare internationalized graduates. Indeed, international (cosmopolitan) capital in Bourdieu's terms has become a desirable asset for middle-income families in developed as well as developing countries (Hayden, 2011;Yemini, 2012;Yemini, Bar-Nissan, & Shavit, 2014). Moreover, children raised in the technological, dynamic present environment live and study in a global world using contemporary tools, devices and skills.…”

internationalising the curriculum: assessing faculty, departments, and schools on their efforts

“…Internationally mobile means that students would be able to understand and communicate across ideologies and cultures; global perspective means that students understand that problems are global in scope not just local; peace-oriented means that students understand that peace means collective security or international security (Oxenham, 1982). The IAUPs efforts are still ongoing as the run-up to the 2014 IAUP tri-annual meeting suggests (Teichler, 2004;Brandenburg and de Wit, 2011;Yemini, 2012;King, 2014). The delay is not surprising given the lofty yet difficult (and unclear) goals proposed by the IAUP.…”

Combining innovation and sustainability: an educational paradigm for human development on earth

“…With respect to the last criterion above presented, Yemini (2012) has proposed that the internationalisation in schools should involves important goals which can be summarized as: (1) evaluating teachers' , students' and other stakeholders' opinions, attitudes and beliefs on a range of learning opportunities; (2) monitoring internationalization activities in schools according to the proposed framework together with validity studies; (3) mapping the gaps in teacher training in order to identify and develop generic skills and competencies related to internationalization; (4) expanding this course of study in the context of different populations in developed and developing countries; (5) secondary analysis of schools with diverse levels of internationalization to identify parameters that assist and encourage this phenomenon; and (6) long-term follow-up of students and teachers to track transformations in their views of internationalization.…”