Succeeding in a Globalized World while Preserving Uniqueness: The Case of Quebec CEGEPs

Higher Education SeminarJanuary 15, 2013Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE)University of Toronto

OLIVIER BÉGIN-CAOUETTE, M.A.PhD student in Higher Education (Comparative, International and Development Education)

Outline Introduction

Globalization Technical education institutions (TEIs) TEIs’ internationalization

What are cegeps? History of Québec internationalization The current situation

Four contexts/challenges and innovations Globalization (2 innovations) Convergence (6 innovations) Peripherality of internationalization (2 innovations) Funding (2 innovations)

Conclusion

Universities as global actors The impact of globalization on TEIs

(commodification, international students, immigration, continuing education) (Levin, 2001)

Phases in the internationalization process (Raby & Valeau, 2007): recognition (1967), publication (1980), augmentation (1990), institutionalization (2000)

126% participation growth in study abroad programs between 2000 and 2006 (Institute for International Education, 2006)

70% of Canadian community colleges have an international office and 82% offer study abroad opportunities (ACCC, 2010).

Introduction

HISTORY OF CEGEPsOne classroom in a classical college

Slogan of the Liberal Party of Quebec during the Quiet Revolution

Cégep du Vieux-Montréal

The Royal Commission on Education (1961)

What are CEGEPs ?Collège d’Enseignement Général et Professionnel:

1) Accessibility and quality• First stage of higher learning

(pre-university training)• Gateway to the job market (technical training)

2) Consolidation of career choice

3) Support for regional development

A three-fold Mission

• 48 cegeps• 162,300 students• 29,110 adults• 8 pre-university programs• 130 technical/vocational programs

Cegep InternationalizationTHEME CHARACTERISTIC DATA

Policies Institutionalization Percentage of cegeps referring to internationalization in their strategic plan: 95%

Rationales Socio-cultural/Academic

Rationales for internationalizing education: Educate students to be open to the world Establish strategic partnerships with foreign institutions Enhance the reputation of the institution

Approach Activity-based International activities mentioned in institutional documents : Student mobility = 92% Teacher mobility = 87% International cooperation = 82% Recruitment of international students = 79% Internationalization of curricula = 76%

Strategies Organization 90% of cegeps have professional staff dedicated to internationalization 61% of cegeps have a director partly dedicated to internationalization

Programs 100% of cegeps offer language courses (other than English and French)

79% of cegeps integrate international components in regular programs 2 829 students have participated in student mobility activities (2,8% of

student population) Cegeps recruit 1 500 international students annually

FOUR CONTEXTS/CHALLENGES

Globalization (porosity in spatial scales) Innovation 1: Transnational collaborations Innovation 2: Local synergies

Convergence (5 levels, 6 innovations) Innovation 3: CCTT Innovation 4: Regional activity-based approach Innovation 5: DEC-BAC Innovation 6: Community of practice Innovation 7: Decentralization Innovation 8: Linguistic duality

Peripherality of international affairs Innovation 9: Academic rationales Innovation 10: Educative mission statements

Funding Innovation 11: Teacher mobility projects Innovation 12: Exportation of the educative model

FOUR CONTEXTS/CHALLENGES

Example: RAINOVA (Regional Approach to Innovation for VET and Learning Communities)

DEF.: Transplanetarity & Suppraterritoriality (Scholte, 2005)

Innovation 1: Transnational collaborations

GLOBALIZATION 1

Innovation 2: Local synergies - Cooperation with businesses, universities and other local organizations

International students at Cégep de Sept-Îles

Director of Cegep de l’Outaouais, Director of Centers of Youth-Employment and the rector of UQO

FOUR CONTEXTS/CHALLENGES

GLOBALIZATION 2

FOUR CONTEXTS/CHALLENGES CONVERGENCE

Levels of convergence Description Innovations

Archetypical Emerging Global Model of Universities (research)

***CCTT***Regional activity-based approach

Programmatic Bologna Process (LMD) DEC-BAC

Organizational Higher education institutions want to becoming universities

***Community of practice 

Cybernetic (governance) New Public Management and Autonomy Decentralization 

Linguistic Prominence of English Linguistic dualism

FOUR CONTEXTS/CHALLENGES

CONVERGENCE 1a

Emerging Global Model of Universities

Innovation 3: CCTT

(College Centers of Technological Transfer)

FOUR CONTEXTS/CHALLENGES

CONVERGENCE 1b

Region Activities %

Urban Student mobility 71%

Internationalization of curricula 29%

Peripherical Student mobility 42%

Recruitment of international students 17%

Rural Recruitment of international students 69%

Interational cooperation/ transfer of expertise 31%

Table 4. Percentage of cégeps giving priority to the following international activities according to their region (2010)

Emerging Global Model of UniversitiesInnovation 4: Regional activity-based approach

FOUR CONTEXTS/CHALLENGES

CONVERGENCE 2

PROGRAMMATIC CONVERGENCE (e.g. LMD)

Innovation 5: DEC-BAC (3+2)

FOUR CONTEXTS/CHALLENGES

CONVERGENCE 3

Government of Quebec Cegeps

Rationales Political, economic/socio-cultural Academic/socio-cultural

Approach Strategic/Programs Activity

Policies Strategy to Succeed in Internationalizing Education

International Policy

Strategic plans, International policies, Educative mission, Plans of action

Programs/ Strategies

PIEQ-I/PIEQ-II*Teacher mobility supports

OQAJ, OQWBJ, OFQJ, OQMJScholarship for short student

mobility staysArt activities support program

Excellence awards for international students

Exemption from tuition fees

Staff and budget for international activitiesSupport structures for domestic and

international studentsInternationalized professional

developmentInternationalized curricula, student mobility and international students

recruitmentScholar collaborations (teachers and

CCTT)Intercultural activities

International cooperation/transfer of expertise and providing education abroad

ORGANIZATIONAL CONVERGENCE

Innovation 6 : Community of practice

FOUR CONTEXTS/CHALLENGES

CONVERGENCE 4-5

CYBERNETIC (GOVERNANCE) CONVERGENCE: Innovation 7: Decentralization

LINGUISTIC CONVERGENCE : Innovation 8: Linguistic duality

International activities are less under the responsability of a single service or direction than before.• Student mobility = Academic Office• International cooperation = Services of Continuing Education• Research = CCTT• International students = Academic Office, Registrar, Students Services

• 10% of cegeps are Anglophone• 50% of Anglophone and 46% of Francophone cegeps have signed

teacher mobility agreements• Francophone cegeps target France, Europe and Latin America• Anglophone cegeps target Asia, Africa and the United States• 36% of international students come from France• 60% come from Francophone countries (including France)

FOUR CONTEXTS/CHALLENGES PERIPHERALITY

Internationalization is not a priority for most institutions (Raby & Valeau, 2007). Student mobility remains low (ACCC, 2010). Innovation 9: Academic rationales Innovation 10: Educative mission statements

FOUR CONTEXTS/CHALLENGES FUNDING

Innovation 11: Teacher mobility (Bégin-Caouette, 2012) Example: Fellowship for teacher

mobility (funded by the Government of Quebec and administered by Cégep Internaitonal)

Johnson, D. (2006). Comparing the trajectories of educational change and policy transfer in developing countries. Oxford Review of Education, 32(5), 679–696

FOUR CONTEXTS/CHALLENGES FUNDING

Shift from AID to TRADE (Altbach & Knight, 2007) and tight budgets.

Innovation 12: Exporting the educative model Example: Certificate of college

education (AEC)○ 13% of cegeps○ 1,100 students○ Middle East and Asia○ Business Management, Civil

Engineering Technology, Computer Management, Logistics and Freight Transport.

CONCLUSIONHow can TEIs succeed in a globalized world while preserving their specificity?

• RELEVANCE = THINK LOCAL, ACT GLOBAL

• ***Local relevance: • local synergies, regional activity-based aproach, DEC-BAC, etc.

• National/Provincial relevance: • community of practice

• Global relevance: • research (CCTT), exporting educative model, transnational

collaborations, etc.

• (Educational relevance): • academic rationales, educative mission statements, teacher

mobility projects, etc.

¿QUESTIONS?

ACCC - Association of Canadian Community Colleges (2010). Internationalize Canadian colleges and institutes: the first national report on mobility and international education. [http://www.accc.ca/english/index.htm].

Altbach, P.G. & Knight, J. (2007). The Internationalization of Higher Education: Motivations and Realities, Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3/4), 209-305.

Buhler, P. (2004). Universités et mondialisation, Commentaire, No 106, pp. 345-360. Bégin-Caouette, O. (2012). The internationalization of in-service teacher training in Quebec cegeps: an institutional perspective, Prospects, 42(1),

41-63. Bégin-Caouette, O. (2011). Approaches, Rationales, Programs and Strategies in the Internationalization of College Education: The Case of Quebec

Cegeps, Major Research Paper, University of Ottawa, 50 p. Bégin-Caouette, O. (2011). Les classements internationaux comme mécanisme de gouvernance de la mondialisation universitaire, Revue

canadienne de la mondialisation, 1(2), 60-75. Boggs, G.R. & Irwin, J. (2007). What Every Community College Leader Needs to Know: Building Leadership for International Education, New

Directions for Community Colleges, 138, 25-30. Cégep International (2011a. Profil des activités internationales des CÉGEPs 2010, [http://www.cegepinternational.qc.ca/fichiers/39291-Profil-des-

activites-internationales-des-CÉGEPs-2010.PDF]. Gacel-Avila, J. (2005). The Internationalisation of Higher Education : A Paradigm for Global Citizenry, Journal of Studies in International Education,

9(2), 121-136. Johnson, D. (2006). Comparing the trajectories of educational change and policy transfer in developing countries. Oxford Review of Education,

32(5), 679–696. King, R. (2009). Governing Universities Globally, Gheltenham : Edward Elgar Publishing, p. 150. Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization Remodeled: Definition, Approaches and Rationales, Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(5), 5-31. Knight, J. (1999). “Internationalisation of Higher Education” in OECD, Quality and Internationalisation in Higher Education, Paris: OECD, 13-27. Levin, J.S. (2001). Globalizing the community college, New York: Palgrave, 248 p. Ministère de l’Éducation (2002). Pour réussir l’internationalisation de l’éducation, plan stratégique, Québec : Gouvernement du Québec. Olds, K. (2009). « Associations, Network, Alliances, etc : Making Sense of the Emerging Global Higher Education Landscape », Conférence donnée

à l’Association internationale des universités, Mexique, 2009. Raby, R.L. & Valeau, E. (2007). Community College International Education: Looking Back to Forecast the Future, New Directions for Community

Colleges, 138, 5-14. Salmi, J. (2009). Le défi d’établir des universités de rang mondial, Washington : Banque mondiale, 122 p. Sassen, S. (2009), La globalisation. Une sociologie, nrf essais Éditions Gallimard, Paris. Scholte, J.A. Globalization a critical introduction, Second Edition, Palgrave, London, 2005, 492 pages. Usher, A. & Savino, M. (2009). A global survey of international rankings and leagues tables in Tight, M., Mok, K.H., Huisman, J., Morphew, C.C.

(Dir.), The Routledge international handbook of higher education, New York : Routledge, pp. 5-15.

REFERENCES