balagtas, ppango, reyes, ubiña, atweh rubric for internationalization
TRANSCRIPT
DEVELOPMENT OF A RUBRIC ON THE
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF TEACHER
EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS IN THE
PHILIPPINES AND BEYOND
Marilyn Ubiña-Balagtas
Bill Atweh
Marla C.Papango
Zenaida Q. Reyes
Marilou M. Ubiña
Rationale
Research Problems
Conceptual Framework
Methodologies
Recommendations
Results
DEVELOPMENT OF A RUBRIC ON THE
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF TEACHER EDUCATION
INSTITUTIONS(TEIs) IN THE PHILIPPINES AND
BEYOND
Conclusion
Significance of the Study
Outline
Rationale of the Study
This study was conceived to have a valid and reliable rubric that gauges the level of internationalization of Teacher Education Institutions (TEIs) in the Philippines and even beyond its borders for them to have a more objective basis in improving their programs and processes for global competitiveness.
1. What are the dimensions and indicators
of an internationalized teacher
education institution?
2. How valid is the rubric in determining
the level of internationalization of
teacher education institutions as
viewed by experts?
Research Problems
3. What is the intra-rater and inter-rater
reliability of the rubric in determining
the level of internationalization of
sampled TEIs?
Research Problems (cont’d.)
Rubric for Internationalization
Figure 1 shows all the
components of
internationalization based
on PNU’s areas of
commitment as NCTE and
the dimensions of
internationalization by
Padama et. al (2010),
which could also be the
areas of concern of TEIs in
the Philippines and other
nations.
Conceptual
Framework
Significance of the Study
1. The rubric is a user-friendly
instrument that will help TEIs in
the Philippines gauge their level of
internationalization.
2. The rubric developed in this study is a
more practical and efficient way in
determining the areas for improvement in
the programs and operations of TEIs for
them to reach a desired level of
internationalization.
Significance of the Study
Methodology
Design - descriptive-developmental research
Descriptive research. Describes the
process in developing the rubric on the
internationalization of TEIs.
Developmental research. The outcome of
this research is a valid and reliable rubric
that can be used by all TEIs in the
Philippines and even beyond to gauge the
level of internationalization of their
institutions.
Data Gathering Procedure
Development stage - designing of the rubric, its
components and indicators.
Evaluation stage - validation of the rubric and how its
reliability was established after it underwent a series of
revisions.
Planning stage - conceptualization of the research proposal
by the team of researchers
Finalization stage - final writing of the research report until it
is ready for dissemination and utilization.
Participants Of the eight (8) validators of the rubric, 6 were
based in the Philippines and 2 in Australia. They were purposively chosen based on the following criteria:
1. Participants should have been trained in education in other foreign institutions.
2. They have been in two or more countries.
3. They are educators in a teacher training institution.
4. They should be at least a master’s degree holder in education.
Validator’s Instrument
a 4-point rating scale that aims to solicit
the degree of acceptability of the
contents and indicators of an
internationalized institution based on the
knowledge and experience of the
validators
Instrument
considered all the ratings given by experts
considered every suggestion in the revision of the instrument
computed the mean of the ratings given by the validators
interpreted mean of ratings
acted on the mean of ratings
recommended deletion of item/s based on merit
Data Analysis
Analysis and Action Taken on the Ratings
of the Validators
Mean of Ratings
Interpretation Action Taken
4.00 Acceptable without
any revision
No action taken; the indicator was
retained without any revision
3 – 3.99 Acceptable with
minor revision
The indicator has been modified to a
little extent based on the suggestion of
any or all of the validators
2 -2.99 Acceptable with
major revision
The indicator has been modified to a
great extent based on the suggestion of
any or all of the validators
1.0 to 1.99 Not acceptable The indicator was changed or totally
deleted as per suggestion of any one or
all of the validators.
Results and Discussion Domains, Dimensions, and Indicators of an
Internationalized Teacher Education Institution
Domain Dimension No. of Indicators
1. Knowledge
Creation &Application
Curriculum and Instruction 10 +
Research Collaboration 6 +
2. Quality and
Excellence
Academic Standards and Quality 7 +
3. Culture of Sharing
and Service
Mobility and Exchanges for Students and
Teachers
5+
International and Intercultural
Understanding/Networking
5+
Cooperation and Development Assistance 6+
4. Growth, Efficiency
and Accountability
International Students Recruitment 3+
Facilities and Support System 7+
Diverse Income Generation 3+
Example:
Results and Discussion
Domains, Dimensions, and Indicators of an Internationalized
Teacher Education Institution
Research Problem # 1:
Domain: Knowledge Creation and Application
Dimension 1: Curriculum and Instruction
Indicator
Level of Internationalization Final
Rating
Means for
Verification
4 3 2 1 0
Internationalized to
Very High extent
Internationalized to
High extent
Internationalized to
some extent
Internationalized to
a little extent
Not at all
Internationalized
The institution has courses on foreign languages to understand the people of other countries. Examples English Spanish Japanese Korean French Chinese German Others (pls. specify)
• Curriculum Guide/ Program
• Curriculum/Course Prospectus
The institution
led at least 4
research
activities a year
done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions or
industries in
other countries
.
The institution
led only 3
research
activities a year
done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions or
industries in
other countries.
The institution
led only 2
research
activities a year
done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions or
industries in
other countries.
The institution
led only 1
research
activity a year
done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions or
industries in
other countries.
The institution
led NO research
activity a year
done in
collaboration
with any
educational
institution or
industry in
other countries.
Each indicator was described in its level of internationalization in terms of
its quality and quantity of evidence. It is presented in the form below:
Results and Discussion
Domain: Knowledge Creation and Application
Dimension 1: Curriculum and Instruction
Indicator
Level of Internationalization Final
Rating
Means for
Verification
4 3 2 1 0
Internationalized
to Very High
extent
Internationalize
d to High extent
Internationalize
d to some
extent
Internationalize
d to a little
extent
Not at all
Internationalize
d
The institution has courses on foreign languages to understand the people of other countries. Examples English Spanish Japanese Korean French Chinese German Others (pls. specify)
• Curriculum Guide/ Program
• Curriculum
/Course Prospectus
The
institution led
at least 4
research
activities a
year done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions or
industries in
other
countries .
The
institution led
only 3
research
activities a
year done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions or
industries in
other
countries.
The
institution led
only 2
research
activities a
year done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions or
industries in
other
countries.
The
institution led
only 1
research
activity a
year done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions or
industries in
other
countries.
The institution
led NO
research
activity a year
done in
collaboration
with any
educational
institution or
industry in
other
countries.
Research Problem # 1:
4
Internationalized
to a very high
extent
3
Internationalized
to a high extent
Each indicator was described in its level of internationalization in terms of
its quality and quantity of evidence. It is presented in the form below:
Results and Discussion
Domain: Knowledge Creation and Application
Dimension 1: Curriculum and Instruction
Indicator
Level of Internationalization Final
Rating
Means for
Verification
4 3 2 1 0
Internationalized
to Very High
extent
Internationalize
d to High extent
Internationalize
d to some
extent
Internationalize
d to a little
extent
Not at all
Internationalize
d
The institution has courses on foreign languages to understand the people of other countries. Examples English Spanish Japanese Korean French Chinese German Others (pls. specify)
• Curriculum Guide/ Program
• Curriculum
/Course Prospectus
The
institution led
at least 4
research
activities a
year done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions or
industries in
other
countries .
The
institution led
only 3
research
activities a
year done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions or
industries in
other
countries.
The
institution led
only 2
research
activities a
year done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions or
industries in
other
countries.
The
institution led
only 1
research
activity a
year done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions or
industries in
other
countries.
The institution
led NO
research
activity a year
done in
collaboration
with any
educational
institution or
industry in
other
countries.
Research Problem # 1:
4
Internationalized
to a very high
extent
3
Internationalized
to a high extent
Each indicator was described in its level of internationalization in terms of
its quality and quantity of evidence. It is presented in the form below:
Results and Discussion
Domain: Knowledge Creation and Application
Dimension 1: Curriculum and Instruction
Indicator
Level of Internationalization Final
Rating
Means for
Verification
4 3 2 1 0
Internationalized
to Very High
extent
Internationalize
d to High extent
Internationalize
d to some
extent
Internationalize
d to a little
extent
Not at all
Internationalize
d
The institution has courses on foreign languages to understand the people of other countries. Examples English Spanish Japanese Korean French Chinese German Others (pls. specify)
• Curriculum Guide/ Program
• Curriculum
/Course Prospectus
The
institution led
at least 4
research
activities a
year done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions or
industries in
other
countries .
The
institution led
only 3
research
activities a
year done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions or
industries in
other
countries.
The
institution led
only 2
research
activities a
year done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions or
industries in
other
countries.
The
institution led
only 1
research
activity a
year done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions or
industries in
other
countries.
The institution
led NO
research
activity a year
done in
collaboration
with any
educational
institution or
industry in
other
countries.
Research Problem # 1:
2
Internationalized
to some extent
1
Internationalized
to a little extent
Each indicator was described in its level of internationalization in terms of
its quality and quantity of evidence. It is presented in the form below:
Results and Discussion
Domain: Knowledge Creation and Application
Dimension 1: Curriculum and Instruction
Indicator
Level of Internationalization Final
Rating
Means for
Verification
4 3 2 1 0
Internationalized
to Very High
extent
Internationalize
d to High extent
Internationalize
d to some
extent
Internationalize
d to a little
extent
Not at all
Internationalize
d
The institution has courses on foreign languages to understand the people of other countries. Examples English Spanish Japanese Korean French Chinese German Others (pls. specify)
• Curriculum Guide/ Program
• Curriculum
/Course Prospectus
The
institution led
at least 4
research
activities a
year done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions or
industries in
other
countries .
The
institution led
only 3
research
activities a
year done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions or
industries in
other
countries.
The
institution led
only 2
research
activities a
year done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions or
industries in
other
countries.
The
institution led
only 1
research
activity a
year done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions or
industries in
other
countries.
The institution
led NO
research
activity a year
done in
collaboration
with any
educational
institution or
industry in
other
countries.
Research Problem # 1:
0
Not all
Internationalized
Each indicator was described in its level of internationalization in terms of
its quality and quantity of evidence. It is presented in the form below: Example:
Results and Discussion
Domain: Knowledge Creation and Application
Dimension 2: Research Collaboration
Indicator
Level of Internationalization Final
Rating
Means for
Verification
4 3 2 1 0 Internationalize
d to Very High
extent
Internationalize
d to High extent
Internationalize
d to some
extent
Internationalize
d to a little
extent
Not at all
Internationalize
d
The
institution
leads
research
activities
done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions
or industries
in other
countries.
Memorandum
of Agreement
or
Understan
ding
Completion
Report
The
institution led
at least 4
research
activities a
year done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions or
industries in
other
countries .
The
institution led
only 3
research
activities a
year done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions or
industries in
other
countries.
The
institution led
only 2
research
activities a
year done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions or
industries in
other
countries.
The
institution led
only 1
research
activity a
year done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions or
industries in
other
countries.
The institution
led NO
research
activity a year
done in
collaboration
with any
educational
institution or
industry in
other
countries.
Research Problem # 1:
Domains, Dimensions, and Indicators of an Internationalized Teacher
Education Institution
1. The institution leads
research activities done
in collaboration with
educational institutions
or industries in other
countries.
Each indicator was described in its level of internationalization in terms of
its quality and quantity of evidence. It is presented in the form below: Example:
Results and Discussion
Domain: Knowledge Creation and Application
Dimension 2: Research Collaboration
Indicator
Level of Internationalization Final
Rating
Means for
Verification
4 3 2 1 0 Internationalize
d to Very High
extent
Internationalize
d to High extent
Internationalize
d to some
extent
Internationalize
d to a little
extent
Not at all
Internationalize
d
The
institution
leads
research
activities
done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions
or industries
in other
countries.
Memorandum
of Agreement
or
Understan
ding
Completion
Report
The
institution led
at least 4
research
activities a
year done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions or
industries in
other
countries .
The
institution led
only 3
research
activities a
year done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions or
industries in
other
countries.
The
institution led
only 2
research
activities a
year done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions or
industries in
other
countries.
The
institution led
only 1
research
activity a
year done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions or
industries in
other
countries.
The institution
led NO
research
activity a year
done in
collaboration
with any
educational
institution or
industry in
other
countries.
Research Problem # 1:
Domains, Dimensions, and Indicators of an Internationalized Teacher
Education Institution
Means for Verification
• Memorandum of
Agreement or
Understanding
• Completion Report
Each indicator was described in its level of internationalization in terms of
its quality and quantity of evidence. It is presented in the form below: Example:
Results and Discussion
Domain: Knowledge Creation and Application
Dimension 2: Research Collaboration
Indicator
Level of Internationalization Final
Rating
Means for
Verification
4 3 2 1 0 Internationalize
d to Very High
extent
Internationalize
d to High extent
Internationalize
d to some
extent
Internationalize
d to a little
extent
Not at all
Internationalize
d
The
institution
leads
research
activities
done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions
or industries
in other
countries.
Memorandum
of Agreement
or
Understan
ding
Completion
Report
The
institution led
at least 4
research
activities a
year done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions or
industries in
other
countries .
The
institution led
only 3
research
activities a
year done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions or
industries in
other
countries.
The
institution led
only 2
research
activities a
year done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions or
industries in
other
countries.
The
institution led
only 1
research
activity a
year done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions or
industries in
other
countries.
The institution
led NO
research
activity a year
done in
collaboration
with any
educational
institution or
industry in
other
countries.
Research Problem # 1:
Domains, Dimensions, and Indicators of an Internationalized Teacher
Education Institution
The institution led at
least 4 research
activities a year done in
collaboration with
educational institutions
or industries in other
countries.
Each indicator was described in its level of internationalization in terms of
its quality and quantity of evidence. It is presented in the form below: Example:
Results and Discussion
Domain: Knowledge Creation and Application
Dimension 2: Research Collaboration
Indicator
Level of Internationalization Final
Rating
Means for
Verification
4 3 2 1 0 Internationalize
d to Very High
extent
Internationalize
d to High extent
Internationalize
d to some
extent
Internationalize
d to a little
extent
Not at all
Internationalize
d
The
institution
leads
research
activities
done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions
or industries
in other
countries.
Memorandum
of Agreement
or
Understan
ding
Completion
Report
The
institution led
at least 4
research
activities a
year done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions or
industries in
other
countries .
The
institution led
only 3
research
activities a
year done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions or
industries in
other
countries.
The
institution led
only 2
research
activities a
year done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions or
industries in
other
countries.
The
institution led
only 1
research
activity a
year done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions or
industries in
other
countries.
The institution
led NO
research
activity a year
done in
collaboration
with any
educational
institution or
industry in
other
countries.
Research Problem # 1:
Domains, Dimensions, and Indicators of an Internationalized Teacher
Education Institution
The institution led
only 3 research
activities a year
done in
collaboration with
educational
institutions or
industries in other
countries.
Each indicator was described in its level of internationalization in terms of
its quality and quantity of evidence. It is presented in the form below: Example:
Results and Discussion
Domain: Knowledge Creation and Application
Dimension 2: Research Collaboration
Indicator
Level of Internationalization Final
Rating
Means for
Verification
4 3 2 1 0 Internationalize
d to Very High
extent
Internationalize
d to High extent
Internationalize
d to some
extent
Internationalize
d to a little
extent
Not at all
Internationalize
d
The
institution
leads
research
activities
done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions
or industries
in other
countries.
Memorandum
of Agreement
or
Understan
ding
Completion
Report
The
institution led
at least 4
research
activities a
year done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions or
industries in
other
countries .
The
institution led
only 3
research
activities a
year done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions or
industries in
other
countries.
The
institution led
only 2
research
activities a
year done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions or
industries in
other
countries.
The
institution led
only 1
research
activity a
year done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions or
industries in
other
countries.
The institution
led NO
research
activity a year
done in
collaboration
with any
educational
institution or
industry in
other
countries.
Research Problem # 1:
Domains, Dimensions, and Indicators of an Internationalized Teacher
Education Institution
The institution led only 2 research
activities a year done in collaboration
with educational institutions or industries
in other countries.
Each indicator was described in its level of internationalization in terms of
its quality and quantity of evidence. It is presented in the form below: Example:
Results and Discussion
Domain: Knowledge Creation and Application
Dimension 2: Research Collaboration
Indicator
Level of Internationalization Final
Rating
Means for
Verification
4 3 2 1 0 Internationalize
d to Very High
extent
Internationalize
d to High extent
Internationalize
d to some
extent
Internationalize
d to a little
extent
Not at all
Internationalize
d
The
institution
leads
research
activities
done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions
or industries
in other
countries.
Memorandum
of Agreement
or
Understan
ding
Completion
Report
The
institution led
at least 4
research
activities a
year done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions or
industries in
other
countries .
The
institution led
only 3
research
activities a
year done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions or
industries in
other
countries.
The
institution led
only 2
research
activities a
year done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions or
industries in
other
countries.
The
institution led
only 1
research
activity a
year done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions or
industries in
other
countries.
The institution
led NO
research
activity a year
done in
collaboration
with any
educational
institution or
industry in
other
countries.
Research Problem # 1:
Domains, Dimensions, and Indicators of an Internationalized Teacher
Education Institution
The institution led only 1 research
activity a year done in collaboration with
educational institutions or industries in
other countries.
Each indicator was described in its level of internationalization in terms of
its quality and quantity of evidence. It is presented in the form below: Example:
Results and Discussion
Domain: Knowledge Creation and Application
Dimension 2: Research Collaboration
Indicator
Level of Internationalization Final
Rating
Means for
Verification
4 3 2 1 0 Internationalize
d to Very High
extent
Internationalize
d to High extent
Internationalize
d to some
extent
Internationalize
d to a little
extent
Not at all
Internationalize
d
The
institution
leads
research
activities
done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions
or industries
in other
countries.
Memorandum
of Agreement
or
Understan
ding
Completion
Report
The
institution led
at least 4
research
activities a
year done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions or
industries in
other
countries .
The
institution led
only 3
research
activities a
year done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions or
industries in
other
countries.
The
institution led
only 2
research
activities a
year done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions or
industries in
other
countries.
The
institution led
only 1
research
activity a
year done in
collaboration
with
educational
institutions or
industries in
other
countries.
The institution
led NO
research
activity a year
done in
collaboration
with any
educational
institution or
industry in
other
countries.
Research Problem # 1:
Domains, Dimensions, and Indicators of an Internationalized Teacher
Education Institution
The institution led NO research activity a
year done in collaboration with
educational institutions or industries in
other countries.
Domain/
Dimensions Indicators
Domain 1: Knowledge Creation and Application
1. Curriculum
and Instruction
The institution: 1.1 has an Inclusive Curriculum
1.2 has courses on foreign languages to understand the people of other countries.
1.3 offers courses that may serve as a venue for understanding and appreciation of the culture of other countries.
1.4 has customized programs that are responsive to the demands of different sectors, agencies or organizations here and abroad.
1.5 has programs delivered in different modalities that could allow students from other countries to take courses at their own time and place .
1.6 has information and communication technologies that could facilitate efficient and effective learning.
1.7 has its own laboratory to test theories or theorize from experiences.
1.8 provides the students special learning experiences where they could appreciate the culture of other tribal groups/classes or races.
1.9 has created a joint curriculum or course program with foreign institutions/universities.
1.10 updates regularly the syllabus of course offerings to integrate the new trends and address pressing issues around the globe that have implications to education.
1.11 Others, not captured by the list
Research Problem # 1:
Domain/ Dimensions
Indicators
Domain 1: Knowledge Creation and Application
2. Research
Collaboration
The institution:
2.1 leads research activities done in collaboration with
educational institutions or industries in other countries. 2.2 has faculty, students or administrative staff who
participate in international studies as researchers. 2.3 has faculty, students or administrative staff who
participate in international studies as respondents. 2.4 conducts studies on international comparative education
to understand differences between and among nations. 2.5 organizes international conferences where research
studies are presented or disseminated. 2.6 contributes to the growing body of knowledge
recognized abroad.
Research Problem # 1:
Domain/ Dimensions
Indicators
Domain 2: Quality and Excellence
3. Academic Standards
and Quality
The institution:
3.1 is level three accredited by nationally known accrediting body
3.2 benchmarks its curricular or extra-curricular activities with national
international standards .
3.3 has become the benchmark of other institutions.
3.4 has faculty and administrators who have high profile (i.e. recognized
for their expertise here and abroad).
3.5 has faculty, administrators and staff with special trainings or
exposures abroad.(e.g . conferences)
3.6 is recognized in international society (e.g. cited in international
publications as a good institution for learning).
3.7 has faculty and administrators who are recipients of scholarships,
fellowships or grants abroad.
3.8 Others, not captured by the list
Research Problem # 1:
Domain/ Dimensions
Indicators
Domain 3: Culture of Sharing and Service
4. Mobility and
Exchanges for Students
and Teachers
The institution: 4.1 has students studying in other institutions abroad for some of their
courses delivered online or face-to-face. 4.2 has foreign students studying in the institution taught online or face-
to-face. 4.3 has faculty members who taught abroad for faculty exchange or
served as consultants abroad. 4.4 has faculty from foreign institutions who are teaching some courses
for the students of the institution. 4.5 has visiting professors from other countries that do academic works
in the institution. 4.6 Others, not captured by the list
Research Problem # 1:
Domain/ Dimensions
Indicators
Domain 3: Culture of Sharing and Service
5. International
and Intercultural Understandi
ng/
Networking
The institution:
5.1 has Memorandum of Agreements or Memorandum of
Understandings with institutions from other countries for any
international or intercultural understanding/networking.
5.2 has twinning programs with foreign institutions.
5.3 participates in international assemblies or activities for the promotion
of one’s culture.
5.4 organizes both curricular and/or extra-curricular multicultural
activities.
5.5 and its faculty, students or administrative staff are active members of
international organizations.
5.6 has a Center for Multicultural Education/ Foreign Students
Organization that serves as venue for the understanding of the culture
of different nations
5.7 has accredited foreign students’ organizations.
5.8 Others, not captured by the list
Research Problem # 1:
Domain/ Dimensions
Indicators
Domain 3: Culture of Sharing and Service
6. Cooperation
and Development
Assistance
The institution:
6.1 is engaged in international academic networks/alliance, consortia, or links with other universities and colleges in other countries.
6.2 is engaged in formulating policies to achieve academic, scientific, economic, technological or cultural ties with other colleges/ universities abroad or NGOs on education ( e.g. ASEAN,APEC,NGO)
6.3 receives funding for the promotion of cultural understanding / international learning/ecumenical or inter-religious activities.
6.4 has international development projects commissioned by international agencies ( World Bank, UNESCO, ADB, -Aid, AFAP, etc.)
6.5 opens its programs to foreign students from less developed countries that have satisfied the entry requirements.
6.6 offers scholarships/grants for foreign students who come from less developed countries.
6.7. Others, not captured by the list
Research Problem # 1:
Domain/ Dimensions
Indicators
Domain 4: Growth, Efficiency, and Accountability
7. International
Students Recruitment
The institution:
7. 1 has educational programs, course offerings, syllabi and policies for admission and retention of students that are available online.
7.2 has responsive computerized or online system in recruiting, screening, enrolling international students.
7.3 has a responsive system to address inquiries of prospective foreign students.
7.4 Others, not captured by the list
Research Problem # 1:
Domain/ Dimensions
Indicators
Domain 4: Growth, Efficiency, and Accountability
8. Facilities and
Support System
The institution:
8.1 has classrooms equipped with the state-of-the-art technologies
8.2 has its own library with the convergence of complete and
updated materials/facilities both print and non-print.
8.3 has sufficient number of licensed fulltime librarians in all its
sections.
8.4 has a dormitory for local and foreign students with complete
amenities.
8.5 has provision for guidance and counseling of foreign students.
8.6 provides medical and dental support for its local and foreign faculty
members, staff, and students .
8.7 has amenities/support system for its foreign students, faculty, and visitors
8.8 Others, not captured by the list
Research Problem # 1:
Domain/ Dimensions
Indicators
Domain 4: Growth, Efficiency, and Accountability
9. Diverse Income
Generation
The institution:
9.1 has generates alternative sources of income like offering educational programs or creating publications patronized by international institutions and industries.
9.2 has income generating projects (IGP) in partnership with foreign agencies or institutions.
9.3 has a specific budget coming from its partner educational institutions from other countries.
9.4 Others, not captured by the list
Research Problem # 1:
No. Domain/
Dimension
No. of
Indicators Action Taken
Domain 1. Knowledge Creation and Application
1 Curriculum and
Instruction 10
All indicators were revised to a
little extent as per suggestion of the
validators
2 Research
Collaboration 6
Three (3) had minor revisions as
per suggestion of the validators
while the other three (3) did not
have revisions.
Domain 2. Quality and Excellence
3
Academic
Standards and
Quality
7 All indicators were accepted
without revision
VALIDATION RESULTS OF THE RUBRIC
Research Problem # 2:
No. Domain/ Dimension No. of
Indicators Action Taken
VALIDATION RESULTS OF THE RUBRIC
Domain 3: Culture of Sharing and Service
4 Mobility and Exchanges
for Students and Teachers 5 - 1
One (1) was modified and another one (1) was
deleted for it can be encompassed by another
indicator under the same domain and
dimension as per suggestion of the validators.
The other three (3) indicators did not have any
revisions.
5
International and
Intercultural
Understanding/
Networking
5
Two (2) indicators were modified as per
suggestion of the validators while the other
three (3) were not revised at all.
6 Cooperation and
Development Assistance 6 + 1
One (1) was modified as per suggestion of the
validators while five (5) were not revised at all.
Then one (1) was added as a result of the
reclassification of an indicator in domain 9.
Research Problem # 2:
No. Domain/ Dimension No. of
Indicators Action Taken
VALIDATION RESULTS OF THE RUBRIC
Domain 4. Growth, Efficiency, and Accountability
7 International Students
Recruitment 3
All indicators were accepted without
any revision
8 Facilities and Support
System 7 + 2
Two (2) more indicators were added
based on the suggestions of the validator
to split into two statements two
indicators, which were complex in their
scope. Six (6) indicators were revised as
per suggestion of the validators.
9 Diversity Income
Generation 3 - 1
One (1) was revised and reclassified
under domain 6 as per suggestion of the
validators
Research Problem # 2:
Summary of Intra-Rater Reliability Coefficients
Raters TEI in the Philippines
TEI in
Australia
Rater 1 Rater 2 Rater 3 Rater 4 Rater 5
Rater 1 0.88 - - - -
Rater 2 - 0.77 - - -
Rater 3 - - 0.67 - -
Rater 4 - - - 0.71 -
Rater 5 - - - 0.62
The coefficients that range from 0.62 to 0.88 , which are
all significant at 0.01 level of confidence indicate that
the rubric has moderate to high intra-rater reliability.
Research Problem # 3:
Reliability of the Rubric
Even if the raters rated the same institution twice using
the same rubric for an interval of one week, reliability was
still not that high (if target is at least 0.85 reliability
coefficient for standardized instrument for all its users) .
This could be due to the absence of the actual data or
documents for verification when the tryout of the rubric
was done .
Although the four of the raters were personally engaged
in the accreditation of their institution at the time that
they rated also its level of internationalization, the raters
still need to have the actual listing of data obtained from
the suggested means for verification in order to arrive
at a more reliable rating of their institution.
Research Problem # 3:
Reliability of the Rubric
Summary of Inter-Rater Reliability
Correlations
Raters Sampled TEI in the Philippines
Rater 1 Rater 2 Rater 3 Rater 4
Rater 1 - 0.52 0.69 0.62
Rater 2 0.52 - 0.76 0.53
Rater 3 0.69 0.76 - 0.55
Rater 4 0.62 0.53 0.55 -
The table shows that the inter-rater reliability coefficients for the
rubric range from 0.52 to 0.76 indicating moderate to high inter-rater
reliability.
Research Problem # 3:
Reliability of the Rubric
Although the raters were asked to rate the level of internationalization of the whole University right after they went through the accreditation of their respective programs, which is a process that also requires perusal of actual documents, their differences in their ratings to some indicators of internationalization may just be limited to their knowledge of the programs and processes in their respective college and not really of their knowledge of the entire University.
Research Problem # 3:
Reliability of the Rubric
Descriptive Statistics of the Ratings of the Five Raters to the Level of
Internationalization of Sampled TEIs
Statistics/
Interpretation
Sampled Institution
Philippines Australia
Rater 1 Rater 2 Rater 3 Rater 4 Rater 5
Mean 1.8868 2.0000 2.0943 2.4717 3.57
Standard
Deviation 1.21940 1.30089 1.49697 1.17020 0.67
Over-all Level of
Internationalization 2 2 2 2 4
Interpretation Internationalized
to Some Extent
Internationalized
to Some Extent
Internationalized
to Some Extent
Internationalized
to Some Extent
Internationalized
to a Very high
extent
Further analysis was done to know how the four (4) raters judged
the level of internationalization of their institutions.
Research Problem # 3:
Reliability of the Rubric
Descriptive Statistics of the Ratings of the Four Raters to the Level of
Internationalization of a Sampled TEI in the Philippines
Sources of
Variation Sum of Squares df
Mean Square F Sig.
Between
Groups
8.642 3 2.881
1.694 0.169
Not significant
at 0.05 level
Within
Groups
353.660 208 1.700
Total 362.302 211
Research Problem # 3:
Reliability of the Rubric
The result reveals that the difference in the ratings of the four raters to the level of
internationalization of their institution is not significant, which means that they rated their
institution consistently as internationalized to some extent (Level 2 out of 4 levels of
internationalization).
Conclusions
1. The results reveal that the researchers who
were the ones who developed the rubric with
reference to the framework of Padama et.al
(2010) came up with acceptable descriptions of
each level of internationalization. Their own
exposures to TEIs in other countries have
enabled them to capture the qualities of a world-
class TEI as viewed by the validators who
accepted almost all the descriptions they
provided in the rubric.
Conclusions
2. The test of validity of the rubric in
internationalizing TEIs show a good start
considering its novelty. Validators who have
been exposed to many TEIs in the world and
who have travelled to different countries as a
learner, observer, and a consultant confirmed
the acceptability of the indicators of
internationalization and the descriptions for
each level of internationalization.
Conclusions
3. The rubric, considering its novelty, has
moderate to high intra-rater and inter-rater
reliability which is a good start for the
instrument in gauging the level of
internationalization of any TEI in the
country and even beyond its borders.
Recommendations
1. Since the purpose of this development study
is to have a standardized rubric that
encompasses all elements of an
internationalized TEI not only as viewed in
the Philippines but also beyond its borders,
further validation of experts from other
countries particularly from normal schools at
least in the Asia-Pacific region is
recommended.
Recommendations
2. Follow up study is also needed to test its
criterion-related validity, where the results
of the level of internationalization of the
institution using the rubric could be
compared to the ratings of the institution
using another instrument, for example,
the instrument used by the accreditors of
institutions with programs in teacher
education.
Recommendations
3. The rubric should have follow-up tryouts
using actual perusal of documents for
verification from other normal schools at
least in the Asia-Pacific region to further
test its reliability until it gets at least 0.85
reliability coefficients from all users so
that it could really claim validity and
reliability in gauging the level of
internationalization of TEIs not only in the
Philippines but also beyond its borders.
Thank you to all our validators and
those who helped us prepare this
paper! A special gratitude is
extended to Dr. Edith Padama, Dr.
Twila G. Punsalan, and Prof. Jean
B. Borlagdan for their inputs to
this research.
Copyright 2011 by Balagtas, M.U. et.al this
September 2011. Anyone interested to
refer to this material or to its instrument
may ask permission from the authors or
cite them as a source.
Contact Numbers:
mobile: 09209532926 or email at