ASSESSMENT OF THE UCF FACULTY INTERNATIONAL STUDIES ...

ASSESSMENT OF THE UCF FACULTY INTERNATIONAL STUDIES SUMMER INSTITUTE 2002

Marjorie Salazar

Kathleen Coleman Julia Pet-Armacost

OEAS-SR-02-004

July 24, 2002

Operational Excellence and Assessment Support University of Central Florida

12424 Research Parkway, Suite 225 Orlando, FL 32826-3207

(407) 882-0275 FAX: (407) 882-0288

Approved: _____________________________________________ Dr. Julia Pet-Armacost Interim Director

ASSESSMENT OF THE UCF FACULTY INTERNATIONAL STUDIES SUMMER INSTITUTE 2002

Marjorie Salazar

Kathleen Coleman Julia Pet-Armacost

OEAS-SR-02-004

July 24, 2002 ABSTRACT

The Office of International Studies conducted its third UCF Faculty International Studies Summer Institute (FISSI) from April 29 through May 3, 2002. An assessment plan was developed by the office of Operational Excellence and Assessment Support (OEAS) in order to quantify participant perceptions of the speakers and programs. The primary objective of collecting assessment data was to provide information that may improve future Institutes. The support provided by the OEAS office included designing and testing the assessment surveys, developing the protocol for the survey distribution, analyzing the results of the survey, and preparing the documentation of assessment results. The Office of International Studies was responsible for the distribution and collection of the surveys.

Thirty-three (33) faculty members participated in the FISSI. In general, they had moderate to high satisfaction with the workshops, having a combined average score of 2.23 out of 3.00 on all satisfaction attributes. Participants also felt they had a moderate to high knowledge gain due to the program offered through the Institute, with a combined average score of 2.09 out of 3.00 on all knowledge gain attributes.

The assessment results also identified some areas for improvement. In

particular, the participants only weakly agreed that they would recommend the Day Four Session II: Teaching 9:00 a.m. speaker for the next offering of the Institute. The participants also indicated that at the end of the Institute, they were the least knowledgeable in the following five areas:

1. Curriculum resources available on internationalization. 2. Current issues/content pertaining to different world areas. 3. Theories underlying conflict. 4. Peace-making concepts. 5. How instructional technology can be used in multicultural education.

OEAS-SR-02-004 i 8/12/2002

Acknowledgements Special thanks go to Dr. Mathilda Harris, the Director of the Office of International Studies, who provided the opportunity to assist in the development of the assessment plan. Thanks also go to Madelyn Flammia from the English Department who provided input into the design of the assessment plan and reviewed the survey instruments prior to their distribution.

OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCE AND ASSESSMENT SUPPORT Dr. Julia Pet-Armacost, Interim Director

Ms. Angela Albert, Assistant Director Dr. Pat Lancey, Coordinator, Statistical Research Ms. Marjorie Salazar, Senior Statistical Research Mr. Hector Lopez, Coordinator, Process Analysis Ms. Kathleen Coleman, Computer Support Specialist Ms. Laura Cleaver, Secretary Ms. Evelyn Conigliaro, Administrative Assistant

OEAS-SR-02-004 ii 8/12/2002

Table of Contents

Abstract .................................................................................................................... i Table of Contents..............................................................................................................iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND................................................................ 2 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE SURVEYS AND ANALYSES CONDUCTED ................. 3

2.1 Workshop Surveys..................................................................................... 3 2.2 Pre-Institute Self-Assessment ................................................................... 4 2.3 Post-Institute Self-Assessment.................................................................. 4

3.0 METHODOLOGY FOR ADMINISTRATION OF SURVEYS.................................. 5 4.0 ASSESSMENT RESULTS .................................................................................... 6

4.1 Workshop Surveys..................................................................................... 6 4.2 Pre-Institute Self-Assessment ................................................................... 8 4.3 Post-Institute Self-Assessment................................................................ 10 4.4 Comparison of Pre and Post Assessments ............................................. 12 4.5 Knowledge Gain as a Result of the Institute............................................ 14

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS…………………………………… .18 APPENDIX A: PROGRAM FOR THE UCF FACULTY INTERNATIONAL

STUDIES SUMMER INSTITUTE 19APPENDIX B: OEAS ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT: Assessment for UCF

Faculty International Studies Summer Institute 2000 24APPENDIX C: WORKSHOP SURVEYS 30APPENDIX D: PRE-INSTITUTE SELF-ASSESSMENT 40APPENDIX E: POST-INSTITUTE SELF-ASSESSMENT 42APPENDIX F: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 46APPENDIX G: DETAILED RESULTS OF EACH OF THE WORKSHOPS 48APPENDIX H: DETAILED RESULTS OF THE PRE-INSTITUTE SELF-

ASSESSMENT 79APPENDIX I: DETAILED RESULTS OF THE POST-INSTITUTE SELF-

ASSESSMENT 86

ASSESSMENT OF THE UCF FACULTY

OEAS-SR-02-004 iii 8/12/2002

INTERNATIONAL STUDIES SUMMER INSTITUTE 2002

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

The mission of the Office of International Studies (OIS) is to create an environment that facilitates the identification, development, promotion, coordination, and support of high quality international activities related to the academic mission of UCF. The OIS mission is realized through the implementation of goals and objectives related to the curriculum, faculty development, policies and planning, academic support, students and the community, funding, and external agencies. The office offers a variety of services to the UCF community including faculty opportunities (e.g., faculty research and travel support and joint research opportunities), student opportunities (e.g., study-abroad programs, student exchanges, and information on worldwide study-abroad programs), college and department support (e.g., cooperative agreement assistance, international scholars and visitors programs, joint curricular and research programs, internationalizing the curriculum, and funding assistance), collaboration among the public and private sectors in Florida (e.g., conference and workshops on international issues, networking opportunities, and procuring funding), and publications (e.g., newsletters).

The third UCF Faculty International Studies Summer Institute 2002 was held during the week of April 29th through May 3rd. The Institute offered workshops in both foundational international topics and cutting-edge issues that face all faculty teaching today. A primary goal of this year’s Institute was to provide training to assist the faculty participants in “internationalizing” their courses and research. The program included presentations by internationally recognized scholars, roundtable discussions, and a series of workshops. The last day of the program involved presentations by each of the participants on his/her preliminary plans for internationalizing two courses that were chosen by the participant when registering for the Institute (see Appendix A for a copy of the program). The Office of International Studies requested that the Operational Excellence and Assessment Support (OEAS) office assist in assessing the quality of the experience provided through the Institute by evaluating the speakers and the learning experience. The assessment uses various surveys completed by the participants. The OIS learning objectives for the participants were: The participants will

increase their awareness of the resources that exist to support internationalization of courses, achieve greater sensitivity to concerns of international students, achieve a better understanding of internationalism, recognize opportunities for internationalization, become advocates for internationalizing courses, have an increased ability to use technology to enhance internationalism (e.g.,

e-mail, internet, and databases), have an increased awareness of different cultural perspectives, better integrate international students into the classroom,

OEAS-SR-02-004 2 08/12/02

better understand conflict and know how to resolve it, and know how to address issues of multiculturalism in the classroom.

The work that was conducted by OEAS is described in the engagement

agreement in Appendix B. The Office of International Studies was responsible for reviewing and approving the surveys and distribution protocols prior to distribution, and then distributing and collecting the surveys. Survey design, data entry, statistical analysis, recommendations, and final report development were completed by OEAS.

Section 2 describes the workshop and self-assessment surveys that were

developed. The details of the administration of the surveys are discussed in Section 3 and the results of the surveys are provided in Section 4. Section 5 lists the major findings and Section 6 provides recommendations for improving the next offering of the Institute.

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE SURVEYS AND ANALYSES CONDUCTED Three types of survey instruments were used. The weeklong Institute consisted of nine workshops and other learning experiences. Surveys were developed to assess the quality of the workshops and the speakers. In addition, in order to provide an assessment of learning, both a Pre-Institute and Post-Institute Self-Assessment instrument were designed. Although direct measurement of learning (e.g., through the use of exams or graded assignments) would provide a stronger measure of student learning, these types of instruments are not generally acceptable for use within a workshop environment and were not chosen for assessing the Institute.

2.1 Workshop Surveys There were nine workshops/lectures conducted throughout the week. Each workshop was assessed using a common survey instrument (see Appendix C for copies of the survey). The survey consisted of seven questions about the content of the workshop and the quality of the presentation measured on a seven-point agreement to disagreement scale (strongly agree, agree, somewhat agree, neutral, somewhat disagree, disagree, strongly disagree). Each survey also included four open-ended questions soliciting information about what the participants learned, what they found valuable, what they did not find valuable, and suggestions for improvement. The response to each of the survey questions was coded using the convention shown in Table 1. The distribution of responses is shown for each of the seven questions for each of the workshops/lectures. The responses to the open-ended questions are also listed in separate tables.

A comparison of the workshops is shown in the main body of the report with a box plot graph using the average scores for each question for all speakers combined. Also, overall averages for the workshop are provided.

OEAS-SR-02-004 3 08/12/02

Table 1: Response Scale and Associated Codes Used for Workshop Surveys

Scale Item Numeric Code Strongly Agree 3 Agree 2 Somewhat Agree 1 Neutral 0 Somewhat Disagree -1 Disagree -2 Strongly Disagree -3

2.2 Pre-Institute Self-Assessment

Each participant was asked to complete a Pre-Institute Self-Assessment at the beginning of the week (see Appendix D for a copy of the survey). The survey was designed to assess each participant’s perception of his/her state of knowledge about and appreciation for infusing internationalization prior to attending the Institute. The survey consisted of nineteen questions related to attitudes and also to the objectives of the Institute stated in Section 1. The responses were measured on a seven-point agreement to disagreement scale (strongly agree, agree, somewhat agree, neutral, somewhat disagree, disagree, strongly disagree). The survey also included one open-ended question soliciting information about the participants’ expectations from the Summer Institute. The response to each of the survey questions was coded using the convention shown in Table 1. The participants were also asked to provide the last four digits of their social security number so that this Pre-Institute Self-Assessment could be matched to the Post-Institute Self-Assessment (described in Section 2.3). The distribution of responses is shown for each of the nineteen questions, the average score and standard deviation for each question is computed, and grouped average scores for knowledge and attitude are provided. The response to the open-ended question is also listed in a separate table.

2.3 Post-Institute Self-Assessment Each participant was also asked to complete a Post-Institute Self-Assessment at the end of the week (see Appendix E for a copy of the survey). The survey was designed with the same set of nineteen questions as the Pre-Institute Self-Assessment in order to assess each participant’s perception of his/her change in state of knowledge about and appreciation for infusing internationalization after attending the Institute.

OEAS-SR-02-004 4 08/12/02

Because the respondents may have originally believed that they were knowledgeable prior to the Institute and then found out that they knew less than they originally thought, the gap between the pre- and post-scores can be misleading and could actually be negative. As a result, two scales were used for each question. The first scale was identical to the Pre-Institute Self-Assessment (to allow the computation of gaps) and the second scale was used to assess the increase in knowledge, capability, or ability due to attending the Institute. The latter used the four-point scale and coding displayed in Table 2.

Table 2: Response Scale and Associated Codes for Post-Institute Self-Assessment

Scale Item Numeric Code

Large Increase 3 Moderate Increase 2 Slight Increase 1 None 0

Each survey also included seven open-ended questions. The first question asked whether the Institute met their expectations (to compare against the Pre-Institute Self-Assessment). The remaining questions asked what was most valuable and least valuable about the Institute and asked for suggestions. The participants were also asked to provide the last four digits of their social security number so that this Pre-Institute Self-Assessment (described in Section 2.2) could be matched to the Post-Institute Self-Assessment. The distribution of responses for the seven-point scale is shown for each of the nineteen questions, the average score and standard deviation for each question are computed, and grouped average scores for knowledge and attitude are provided. Self-assessment questions 1, 2, 3, 12, and 14-19 were primarily related to a self-assessment of the knowledge level of the participants, and the remaining questions were related to self-assessments of the participants’ behaviors or attitudes. The change in knowledge and attitude due to attending the Institute is analyzed as follows. The distribution of responses provided by the four-point scale on the Post-Institute Self-Assessment is shown for individual questions. The average scores are also shown graphically. A multiple line graph is used to show the difference between the average pre- and average post-scores. In addition, a paired t-test is used to test if there is a significant difference between the pre- and post-means.

The responses to the first open-ended question on the Post-Institute Self-Assessment are paired with the responses on the Pre-Institute Self-Assessment to compare expectations with meeting expectations. The remaining open-ended questions are shown in three tables.

3.0 METHODOLOGY FOR ADMINISTRATION OF SURVEYS

The OEAS office designed the surveys described in Section 2.1 – 2.3 and reviewed them with the Office of International Studies (OIS). Electronic copies and paper copies of the survey instruments were provided by OEAS to OIS and the method and

OEAS-SR-02-004 5 08/12/02

timing of distribution was discussed. The copies of the instruments were prepared by OEAS and then OIS distributed and collected the instruments during the week of the Institute according to the following guidelines.

1. Workshop surveys: distributed and collected immediately following each

workshop. 2. Pre-Institute Self-Assessment: distributed and collected after the initial

introductions during the morning of the first day. 3. Post-Institute Self-Assessment: distributed and collected on the morning of

the last day of the Institute. 4.0 ASSESSMENT RESULTS There were 33 Institute participants and 5 mentors. The mentors were present only to serve as counselors to participants, and were not surveyed. The breakdown of participants and mentors by gender and college is provided in Table 3 (See Appendix F for a List of Participants). While all colleges participated in the program, the majority of the participants and mentors were from the College of Arts and Sciences (see Table 4).

Table 3: Gender of the Participants and Mentors

Female Male Participants 14 19 Mentors 4 1

Table 4: Source of Participants and Mentors

CAS COB COE COE&CS COHPA Participants 21 3 2 5 2 Mentors 3 1 1

4.1 Workshop Surveys Nine workshops were conducted during the weeklong Institute. The detailed results for each of the speakers and the participant’s written comments to the open-ended questions can be found in Appendix G. Table 5 shows the combined (across all speakers) average evaluation score for each question. A value equal to 3 indicates strongly agree, 2 indicates agree, and 1 indicates somewhat agree. When the scores were averaged over all workshops, the Overall Quality of Workshop Series equals 2.23.

OEAS-SR-02-004 6 08/12/02

Table 5: Mean Ratings for Combined Workshop Evaluations

Question Mean 1. Would recommend this speaker for a future Institute. 2.38 2. Material presented in a clear manner. 2.53 3. Topic was relevant to internationalizing courses. 2.45 4. The visual aids were effective. 1.98 5. The handout materials were useful. 2.15 6. Group discussions and participation were encouraged. 2.14 7. The roundtable encouraged the development of creative ideas. 1.96

Figure 1 shows the highest score, the lowest score, and the combined average score of all speakers on the seven questions. With the average ratings hovering around 2.0, it appears that the workshops, in general, were of moderate to high quality.

2.38 2.53 2.44

1.982.15 2.14

1.96

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Workshop Evaluation Question Number

Ave

rage

Rat

ing

Highest

Low est

Mean

Figure 1: Comparison of Highest, Lowest, and Average Rating for

Combined Workshop Evaluations

OEAS-SR-02-004 7 08/12/02

Figure 2 shows the average rating per workshop presentation on the likelihood to recommend question.

2.522.89 2.86

1.68

2.882.30

1.25

2.712.36

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

Day OneAM

Day OnePM

Day TwoAM

Day TwoPM

Day ThreePM

Day 4Session 1Research9:00 AM

Day 4Session 2Teaching9:00 AM

Day 4Session

1Research10:45 AM

Day 4Session 2Teaching10:45 AM

Figure 2: “Would you recommend this speaker for a future institute?” Average Ratings

From Figure 2 it is evident that the workshop on the afternoon of the first day was

viewed the most positively (2.89) followed closely by the workshop on day three (2.88). On the other hand, the participants had mixed feelings about the presentation on the day four Session 2: Teaching 9:00 AM. The participants only weakly agreed that they would recommend the speaker for the next offering of the Institute.

4.2 Pre-Institute Self-Assessment At the beginning of the Institute, each participant was asked to conduct a self-

assessment of his/her “state of knowledge” and “attitude” toward internationalization by responding to 19 questions. Self-assessment questions 1, 2, 3, 12, and 14-19 were primarily related to a self-assessment of the knowledge level of the participants, and the remaining questions were related to self-assessments of the participants’ behaviors or attitudes. Detailed responses and participant comments can be found in Appendix H. The average score and standard deviation on each question was computed. A value equal to 3 indicates strong agreement, 2 indicate moderate agreement, and 1 indicates weak agreement. Table 6 displays the mean and standard deviation for each of the 19 Pre-Institute Self-Assessment questions.

OEAS-SR-02-004 8 08/12/02

Table 6: Pre-Institute Self-Assessment Means and Standard Deviations

Question

Mean

Standard Deviation

1. I understand what internationalization means. 2.14 .89 2. I know many ways to internationalize courses. 1.14 1.63 3. I understand the concerns of international students. 1.54 1.32 4. I feel a responsibility to internationalize my courses. 2.08 1.23 5. I am conscious of cultural differences. 2.43 .79 6. I know how to deal with cultural communication differences. 1.43 1.37 7. I can teach understanding of alternative cultural

perspectives. 1.25 1.60

8. I encourage diverse values in class even when they run counter to my own.

2.29 .71

9. I take initiative in dispelling prejudices, stereotypes, and misconceptions in my classes.

2.21 .83

10. I recognize my own biases. 1.86 1.04 11. I try to see issues from other viewpoints in my classes. 2.00 .78 12. I know how to develop open and honest communication in

my classes. 1.75 1.14

13. I adjust my teaching methods with students from various cultural backgrounds.

1.43 1.23

14. I am knowledgeable about current issues/content pertaining to different world areas.

1.56 1.12

15. I am knowledgeable about theories underlying conflict. .54 1.71 16. I am knowledgeable about peace-making concepts. .50 1.58 17. I am knowledgeable about how instructional technology,

together with quality management, can be used in multicultural education.

.61 1.71

18. I am knowledgeable about curricular resources available on internationalization.

.43 1.43

19. I am knowledgeable about University resources/services related to International Studies available at UCF.

.64 1.37

In Figure 3, the average scores were sorted from largest to smallest so that

questions toward the right hand side of the graph indicate the weakest areas at the start of the Institute. In Figure 4, the standard deviations were sorted from smallest to largest so that the ones on the right hand side of the graph indicate the questions where there were the greatest differences in the opinions of the participants. At the beginning of the institute, participants were least knowledgeable about the methods and resources necessary to internationalize their classes.

OEAS-SR-02-004 9 08/12/02

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

Q5 Q8 Q9 Q1 Q4 Q11 Q10 Q12 Q14 Q3 Q6 Q13 Q7 Q2 Q19 Q17 Q15 Q16 Q18

Question Number

Average Rating

Figure 3: Pre-Institute Self-Assessment Average Ratings

0

1

2

Q11 Q5 Q9 Q1 Q10 Q14 Q12 Q4 Q13 Q3 Q6 Q19 Q18 Q16 Q7 Q2 Q15 Q17

Question Number

Stan

dard

Dev

iatio

n

Figure 4: Pre-Institute Self-Assessment Standard Deviations

4.3 Post-Institute Self-Assessment

At the end of the Institute, each participant was asked to conduct a self-

assessment of his/her “state of knowledge” and “attitude” toward internationalization by responding to the same 19 questions as in the Pre-Institute Assessment. Detailed responses can be found in Appendix I along with the responses to the open-ended questions. The average score and standard deviation on each question were computed. A value equal to 3 indicates strong agreement, 2 indicates moderate agreement, and 1 indicates weak agreement. Table 7 displays the mean and standard deviation for each of the Post-Institute Self-Assessment questions.

OEAS-SR-02-004 10 08/12/02

Table 7: Post-Institute Self-Assessment Means and Standard Deviations

Question

Mean

Standard Deviation

1. I understand what internationalization means. 2.56 .51 2. I know many ways to internationalize courses. 1.64 1.38 3. I understand the concerns of international students. 2.12 .78 4. I feel a responsibility to internationalize my courses. 2.36 .70 5. I am conscious of cultural differences. 2.6 .58 6. I know how to deal with cultural communication differences. 1.88 .67 7. I can teach understanding of alternative cultural

perspectives. 1.8 .96

8. I encourage diverse values in class even when they run counter to my own.

2.28 .68

9. I take initiative in dispelling prejudices, stereotypes, and misconceptions in my classes.

2.68 .56

10. I recognize my own biases. 1.80 1.19 11. I try to see issues from other viewpoints in my classes. 2.16 1.25 12. I know how to develop open and honest communication in

my classes. 2.20 .58


1.6 1.22


1.56 1.33

15. I am knowledgeable about theories underlying conflict. 1.04 1.70 16. I am knowledgeable about peace-making concepts. 1.08 1.71 17. I am knowledgeable about how instructional technology,

together with quality management, can be used in multicultural education.

1.56 1.26


1.64 1.29


1.76 1.23

In Figure 5, the average scores are sorted from largest to smallest so that

questions toward the right hand side of the graph indicate the weakest areas remaining at the end of the Institute. In Figure 6, the standard deviations were sorted from smallest to largest so that the ones on the right hand side of the graph indicate the questions (areas) where the greatest differences in the opinions of the participants still remain. As at the beginning of the institute, the methods and resources for internationalizing courses are rated as the weakest areas at the end of the institute. However, the mean ratings for those attributes increased substantially after the institute.

OEAS-SR-02-004 11 08/12/02

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

C9 C5 C1 C4 C8 C12 C11 C3 C6 C7 C10 C19 C2 C18 C13 C14 C17 C16 C15

Post-Institute Self-Assessment Question Numbers

Average Ratings

Figure 5: Post-Institute Self-Assessment Average Ratings

0

1

2

1 9 11 12 5 8 10 3 2 14 4 6 13 15 16 18 7 17 19

Post-Institute Self-Assessment Question Numbers

StandardDeviation

Figure 6: Post-Institute Self-Assessment Standard Deviations 4.4 Comparison of Pre- and Post-Institute Self-Assessments

Table 8 displays the pre- and post-institute self-assessment scores side by side, along with the difference in the scores as an indication of growth in knowledge. In order to determine where significant differences have occurred, a paired t-test with alpha equal to 0.05 was used to test the null hypothesis that the responses to the pre- and post-assessment were equal. The shaded rows indicate questions that had statistically significant differences from the pre- to the post-institute ratings.

OEAS-SR-02-004 12 08/12/02

Table 8: Comparison of Pre- and Post-Institute Self-Assessment Means

Question

Pre Mean

Post Mean

Difference

1. I understand what internationalization means. 2.14 2.56 0.42 2. I know many ways to internationalize courses. 1.14 1.64 0.50 3. I understand the concerns of international students. 1.54 2.12 0.58 4. I feel a responsibility to internationalize my courses. 2.08 2.36 0.28 5. I am conscious of cultural differences. 2.43 2.60 0.17 6. I know how to deal with cultural communication

differences. 1.43 1.88 0.45

7. I can create understanding of alternative cultural perspectives.

1.25 1.80 0.55

8. I encourage diverse values even when they run counter to my own.

2.29 2.28 -0.01

9. I take initiative in dispelling prejudices, stereotypes, and misconceptions.

2.21 2.68 0.47

10. I recognize my own biases. 1.86 1.80 -0.06 11. I try to see issues from other viewpoints. 2.00 2.16 0.16 12. I know how to develop open and honest

communication in my classes. 1.75 2.20 0.45


1.43 1.60 0.17


1.56 1.56 -

15. I am knowledgeable about theories underlying conflict.

.54 1.04 0.50

16. I am knowledgeable about peace-making concepts.

.50 1.08 0.58

17. I am knowledgeable about how instructional technology, together with quality management, can be used in multicultural education.

.61 1.56 0.95


.43 1.64 1.21


.64 1.76 1.12

Note: Shaded questions significantly different from the pre- to post-institute at the 95% confidence level. Figure 7 displays the pre- and post-assessment scores on the same graph in order to depict the change in “knowledge” or “attitude” due to attending the Institute. The questions are ordered from the largest to the smallest gap in the average scores from the pre- to post-institute self-assessments.

OEAS-SR-02-004 13 08/12/02

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

Question Numbers

Average Rating

Pre-Assessment 0.430.50 0.540.610.64 1.141.251.43 1.431.541.561.75 1.862.002.08 2.142.212.29 2.43

Post-Assessment 1.641.08 1.041.561.76 1.641.801.60 1.882.121.562.20 1.802.162.36 2.562.682.28 2.60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Figure 7: Comparison of Pre- and Post-Institute Self-Assessment

Average Ratings

As mentioned before, self-assessment questions 1, 2, 3, 12, and 14-19 were primarily related to a self-assessment of the knowledge level of the participants, and the remaining questions were related to self-assessments of the participants’ behaviors or attitudes. The grouped average ratings over each subset of questions are provided in Table 9 below as an indicator of the “knowledge” and “attitude” at the beginning and the end of the institute. It is evident that the greatest gains were made in the “knowledge” area.

Table 9: Comparison of Pre- and Post-Institute Self-Assessment “Knowledge” and “Attitude” Means

Pre Post Difference

Average Knowledge Score 1.08 1.72 .46 Average Attitude Score 1.88 2.13 .25

4.5 Knowledge Gain as a Result of the Institute In addition, the participants were asked to assess their knowledge gain for each of the 19 questions. The detailed responses are also given in Appendix I. A value equal to 3 indicates a large increase, 2 indicates a moderate increase, and 1 indicates a slight increase. The average response to each question is shown in Figure 8.

OEAS-SR-02-004 14 08/12/02

2.652.33 2.29 2.25 2.22 2.21 2.21 2.17 2.13 2.08 2.08 2.04 2.04 2.00 2.00 1.88 1.79 1.74 1.63

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

I6 I1 I19 I5 I7 I2 I3 I13 I8 I14 I18 I4 I9 I11 I12 I15 I10 I17 I16

Knowledge Increase Question Numbers

Average Ratings

Figure 8: Overall Knowledge Increase or Attitude Change Due to the Institute Average Ratings

At the beginning of the Institute, the following were the four areas where the

participants felt the least knowledgeable (see Figure 3): Question 15: I am knowledgeable about theories underlying conflict. Question 16: I am knowledgeable about peace-making concepts. Question 17: I am knowledgeable about how instructional technology, together

with quality management, can be used in multicultural education. Question 18: I am knowledgeable about curricular resources available on

internationalization. The top four areas where there were the greatest differences among the

participants were as follows (see Figure 4): Question 2: I know many ways to internationalize courses. Question 7: I can create understanding of alternative cultural perspectives. Question 15: I am knowledgeable about theories underlying conflict. Question 17: I am knowledgeable about how instructional technology, together

with quality management, can be used in multicultural education. At the end of the Institute, on average the participants indicated that there was a

moderate to high increase in their level of knowledge in all nineteen areas surveyed (see Figure 7). The greatest increases were in the following five areas:

Question 3: I understand the concerns of international students. Question 16: I am knowledgeable about peace-making concepts. Question 17: I am knowledgeable about how instructional technology, together


internationalization. Question 19: I am knowledgeable about University resources/services related to

International Studies available at UCF. Using the paired responses to the Pre- and Post-Institute assessment, significant

differences (p≤0.05) were found in eight questions. Question 2: I know many ways to internationalize courses. Question 3: I understand concerns of international students.

OEAS-SR-02-004 15 08/12/02

Question 7: I can teach understanding of alternative cultural perspectives. Question 15: I am knowledgeable about theories underlying conflict. Question 16: I am knowledgeable about peace-making concepts. Question 17: I am knowledgeable about how instructional technology, together


internationalization. Question 19: I am knowledgeable about University resources/services related to

International Studies available at UCF. All of these results and the comments (see Appendices) indicate that considerable learning took place during the Institute. The top four weakest areas remaining at the end of the Institute included (see Figure 5):

Question 14: I am knowledgeable about current issues/content pertaining to different world areas. Question 15: I am knowledgeable about theories underlying conflict. Question 16: I am knowledgeable about peace-making concepts. Question 17: I am knowledgeable about how instructional technology, together

with quality management, can be used in multicultural education.

These results would indicate that while considerable learning took place, on average the participants were not as comfortable with their level of knowledge in these areas. The participants were also asked to indicate their expectations of the Institute prior to attending the Institute and then whether their expectations were met at the end of the weeklong Institute. Table 9 shows their paired responses.

OEAS-SR-02-004 16 08/12/02

Table 9: Pre- and Post-Institute Expectations My expectations from the UCF International Studies Summer Institute are:

Did the Institute meet your expectations?

The material in the binder must have page numbers, not just sections! We wasted way too much time searching for specific pages. OR, just do handouts at the time of the exercise!

Yes I hope to gain information specifically on creating a ____ ____ course and to gain perspective on globalization from our speakers.

Yes

Develop a greater understanding and appreciation for other cultures. Internationalize my courses!

Yes. I found many additional materials, activities, and research sources.

Time to step back and think about these issues. The presentations from the various faculty about how they internationalize their courses.

Yes-Intensive week-long focus on one subject/topic offers a terrific learning experience.

To expand my knowledge base on issues of instruction to culturally diverse students and conflict resolution.

Increased awareness of resources and approaches to course internationalization.

Yes, informative and provides the most collegial experience of any activity for faculty on the UCF campus.

Yes. Lots of time to work on project and explore funding opportunities.

Yes, it was great.

To gain knowledge re internationalizing research and applying for grants.

More than expectations. It was informative and socially very rewarding.

To learn how to integrate international and cultural awareness as a part of my class.

I would like to expand my knowledge of theories related to internationalization and globalization.

Not really.

Yes. To prepare a course. Yes. Barber exceeded expectations. Learn more about atmosphere of institutional support for internationalizing my courses at UCF.

I enjoyed meeting new people; loved Barber; but I never got to work on my course.

To learn effective ways to 'globalize' a course.Yes and no. It was somewhat rushed. Get various perspectives for my research project.

Yes; I enjoyed the keynote speaker.

Mrs. Stella Ting's presentations were great.

OEAS-SR-02-004 17 08/12/02

The information provided in the other sessions was also very valuable.

Learn how to create research partnerships. I look forward to the opportunity to improve even more.

It exceeded them and was even better than last year-a major achievement.

Know better both the concepts and issues surrounding globalization and multiculturalism and resources/services available on internationalization.

Yes. It provides resources and teaching tools helping faculty to develop their internationalization courses and research.

Be open to what happens--listen more attentively.

Yes, I learned about how to internationalize a course.

Yes, the speakers were excellent. Yes. It provided opportunity to explore the

difficulties and dynamics of communication across cultures and to reflect on the importance of addressing cross-cultural education.

Yes-and beyond. Made me think. The Institute, once again, exceeded my

expectations.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In general it appears from the participant’s comments and assessments that the workshops, speakers, and learning experiences were very good. It is recommended that the Director of OIS review the detailed results and comments in the Appendices to this report to determine which of the previous speakers may be candidates for the next Institute. If it is determined that a speaker should be invited to return to the next Institute, it would be helpful to provide the speaker with a copy of the assessment results so that they can better prepare for the next Institute.

The results indicate that in general the Institute had a positive learning effect on

the participants in many of the areas. It is recommended that the Director of OIS review the primary learning objectives of the Institute and use the detailed results from the Post-Institute Self-Assessment to evaluate whether or not the primary learning objectives were met. The Office of Operational Excellence and Assessment Support can assist with the evaluation if desired. This examination may lead to the identification of the need to provide additional learning opportunities not covered by the current speakers.

APPENDIX A:

OEAS-SR-02-004 18 08/12/02

PROGRAM FOR THE UCF FACULTY INTERNATIONAL STUDIES SUMMER INSTITUTE

DAY ONE MONDAY, April 29, 2002

UCF Student Union, Key West Room 218

OEAS-SR-02-004 19 08/12/02

8:00 – 8:30 a.m. Registration and Continental Breakfast 8:00 – 9:45 a.m. Overview of the Week Dr. Mathilda E. Harris, Director, Office of International Studies &

Faculty Mentors 9:50 – 10:00 a.m. Welcome and Introduction Provost Gary Whitehouse, UCF 10:00 – 12:00 noon Bridging the Culture Gap Part I: Decoding Intercultural

Misunderstandings Dr. Stella Ting-Toomey, Professor of Communication California State University at Fullerton 12:00 – 1:00 p.m. Lunch 1:00 – 2:30 p.m. Bridging the Culture Gap Part II: Perceiving and Collaborating

Across Cultures Dr. Stella Ting-Toomey 2:30 – 2:45 p.m. Break 2:45 – 4:00 p.m. Bridging the Culture Gap Part II (continued) 4:00 – 5:00 p.m. Free for individual projects or meeting with mentors

DAY TWO TUESDAY, April 30, 2002


8:30 – 9:00 a.m. Roundtable Discussions with Faculty Mentors and Assessment of Previous Day’ in Relationship to Individual Projects

9:00 – 10:00 a.m. Overview and Summary of Previous Day

Dr. Stella Ting-Toomey 10:00 – 12:00 noon Introduction

Ms. Lani Harris, Assistant Professor of Performance, UCF International Students and Scholars on Campus: Bridging the

Culture Gat at UCF Student skit followed by observation and discussion by Dr. Stella

Ting-Toomey 12:00 – 1:05 p.m. No host lunch

OEAS-SR-02-004 20 08/12/02

1:00 – 3:30 p.m. Introduction

Mr. Pallavoor Vaidyanathan, Assistant Vice President, Office of Research, UCF

Research Without Boundaries Dr. M. J. Soileau, Vice President for Sponsored Research, UCF 3:30 – 5:00 p.m. Free for individual projects or meeting with mentors

DAY THREE WEDNESDAY, MAY 1, 2002


9:00 – 10:15 a.m. Roundtable Discussions Table 1: Globalism and the Global Economy Facilitator: Dr. Jean Kijek, Easter Europe Linkage Institute Table 2: Terrorism in the Setting of Globalization Facilitator: Dr. Madelyn Flammia, English Department Table 3: Multiculturalism and Globalization Facilitator: Dr. Stella Ting-Toomey, California State University at

Fullerton & Dr. Anna Lillios, English Department

10:15 – 10:30 a.m. Break 10:45 – 12:00 noon Keynote Address

Terrorism & Multiculturalism: The Impact on Higher Education Dr. Benjamin Barber, author of Jihad vs. McWorld

12:10 – 1:30 p.m. Lunch and continued discussion and questions with keynote

speaker Dr. Benjamin Barber

1:30 – 2:30 p.m. Roundtable facilitators present their discussions on how the

roundtable topics can be incorporated in the internationalization of courses and Dr. Barber reacts

2:30 - 3:30 p.m. Closing Remarks – Roundtable facilitators and participants

DAY FOUR THURSDAY, MAY 2, 2002


OEAS-SR-02-004 21 08/12/02

8:00 – 9:00 a.m. Roundtable Discussions with Faculty Mentors and Assessment

of Previous Day’s Activities—Working Continental Breakfast

9:00 – 10:30 a.m. Concurrent Sessions

SESSION 1: RESEARCH UCF Student Union, Egmont Key Room 224

Conducting and Funding International Research

Moderator: Dean Tom L. Keon, College of Business Administration

Panel: Dr. Karen Biraimah, Department of Educational Studies; Dr. Debra Reinhart, College of Engineering and Computer Science; and Dr. Pallavoor Vaidyanathan, Office of Research SESSION II: TEACHING New Classroom Building, Room 101 Utilizing the Internet to Internationalize Courses Dr. Steve Sorg, Center for Distributed Learning, UCF

10:30 - 10:45 a.m. Break

10:45 - 12:15 p.m. Concurrent Sessions SESSION 1: RESEARCH New Classroom Building, Room 101 On-Line Resources for International Research Ms. Donna Goda, Reference Librarian SESSION II: TEACHING UCF Student Union, Egmont Key Room 224 Implications and Methods of Internationalizing Courses Moderator: Dr. Madelyn Flammia, English Department Panel: Dr. Richard Ajayi, Finance Department; Dr. Richard Cornell, Educational Research Department; Dr. Jean Kijek, Eastern Europe Linkage Institute; Dr. Mark McMeley, Office of International Studies

12:15 – 5:00 p.m. Free for individual projects or meeting with mentors

DAY FIVE Friday, MAY 3, 2002 UCF Student Union

OEAS-SR-02-004 22 08/12/02

Pegasus Ballroom

8:00 a.m.—1:30 p.m. Free for individual and teamwork 1:30 p.m.—4:30 p.m. Reception and Faculty Presentations of course and research

transformations (Provost, Deans, and Department Chairs are invited)

APPENDIX B

OEAS ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT Assessment for UCF Faculty International Studies Summer Institute 2002

OEAS-SR-02-004 23 08/12/02

Operational Excellence and Assessment Support

OEAS ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT Title: Assessment for UCF Faculty International Studies Summer Institute 2002 Sponsor: Mathilda Harris, Director, Office of International Studies

Madelyn Flammia, English Department Overview: The Office of International Studies is providing its second offering of the

UCF Faculty International Studies Summer Institute. An assessment plan is needed to evaluate the participant satisfaction with the speakers and program, and to assess the overall value of the educational experience provided through the Institute. The sponsor has requested that the Office of Operational Excellence and Assessment Support (OEAS) be engaged to develop survey instruments to conduct this assessment. This involves designing and testing the surveys, developing the protocol for their distribution, and potentially analyzing the results of the survey on a cost-sharing basis. The Office of International Studies will be responsible for the distribution and collection of the surveys. The primary objective of the surveys is to assess the participant outcomes in order to improve the program for future offerings.

Background:

The mission of the Office of International Studies (OIS) is to create an environment that facilitates the identification, development, promotion, coordination, and support of high quality international activities related to the academic mission of UCF. The OIS mission is realized through the implementation of goals and objectives related to the curriculum, faculty development, policies and planning, academic support, students and the community, funding, and external agencies. The office offers a variety of services to the UCF community including faculty opportunities (e.g., faculty research and travel support and joint research opportunities), student opportunities (e.g., study-abroad programs, student exchanges, and information on worldwide study-abroad programs), college and department support (e.g., cooperative agreement assistance, international scholars and visitors programs, joint curricular and research programs, internationalizing the curriculum, and funding assistance), collaboration among the public and private sectors in Florida (e.g., conference and workshops on international issues, networking opportunities, and procuring funding), and publications (e.g., newsletters).

For the second time, OIS is offering the UCF Faculty International Studies Summer Institute 2002 during the week of April 29th through May 3rd. The Institute will offer workshops in both foundational international topics and cutting-edge issues that face all faculties teaching today. A primary goal of this year’s Institute is to provide training to assist the faculty participants in “internationalizing” their courses. The program will include presentations by internationally recognized scholars, roundtable

OEAS-SR-02-004 24 08/12/02

discussions, and a series of workshops. The last day of the program will involve presentations by each of the participants on his/her preliminary plans for internationalizing two courses that were chosen by the participant when registering for the Institute. The Office of International Studies is interested in assessing the quality of the experience provided through the Institute. In particular, the Office would like to conduct evaluations of the speakers and also to assess the value of the overall program. The latter assessment would involve evaluating the participant outcomes where OIS hopes that the participants will

increase their awareness of the resources that exist to support internationalization of courses, achieve greater sensitivity to concerns of international students, achieve a better understanding of internationalism, recognize opportunities for internationalization, become advocates for internationalizing courses, have an increased ability to use technology to enhance internationalism (e.g.,

email, internet, and databases), have an increased awareness of different cultural perspectives, better integrate international students into the classroom, better understand conflict and know how to resolve it, and know how to address issues of multiculturalism in the classroom.

The Office of International Studies has requested that the OEAS office be

engaged to design the survey instruments. The work proposed by OEAS involves designing the survey instruments, testing the surveys, and developing the protocol for distribution. The Office of International Studies will be responsible for reviewing and approving the survey and distribution protocols prior to distribution, and then distributing and collecting the surveys. Data entry, statistical analysis, recommendations, and final report development will be provided by OEAS on a cost-sharing basis (cost proposal is shown below) if desired. The primary objective of the surveys is to assess outcomes in order to improve the Institute for future offerings. Task Structure:

The following tasks provide a general structure for the engagement. 1.0 Determine the goals of the surveys, intended use, and dimensions of

analysis. 2.0 Develop draft surveys for review and approval by the Director of

International Studies. 3.0 Test the survey instruments and revise as appropriate 4.0 Develop the protocol for distribution for review and approval by the

Director of International Studies. 5.0 *Enter data from the surveys into database and conduct statistical

analyses. 6.0 *Develop recommendations. 7.0 *Prepare written report and presentation on survey results. *Tasks 5-7 will be conducted by OEAS only upon agreement by OIS.

OEAS-SR-02-004 25 08/12/02

Schedule:

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Task 1.0 Task 2.0 Task 3.0 Task 4.0 Distribution by OIS Task 5.0 Task 6.0 Task 7.0

Deliverables:

OEAS will deliver electronic copies of the survey instruments to OIS prior to the start of the Institute. If OIS agrees, then OEAS will deliver a written report and a final presentation that describe the analysis, findings, and recommendations of the engagement. The draft final report and presentation would be offered approximately eight weeks after work is authorized to commence. Reports: OEAS will deliver a final report in the format of the OEAS Technical Report series. The sponsor will make the final report available for distribution through OEAS subject to review and approval. OEAS will make periodic informal oral reports to the sponsor on the progress of the work based on a mutually agreed upon schedule. Cost Proposal (for within-unit surveys): The Office of Operational Excellence and Assessment Support will design and test survey instruments at no charge as a service to any administrative or academic unit. The unit will reimburse all printing and distribution costs to OEAS if conducted by OEAS. The labor and production costs associated with data entry, analysis, and development and printing of the summary report will be shared equally between the unit and the OEAS office. The estimated costs for data entry, analysis and report generation are provided below. Agreement to sharing the costs for data entry, analysis, and report generation: OEAS: Office of International Studies: _________________________________ _________________________________ Julia Pet-Armacost Mathilda Harris Director, OEAS Director, OIS

OEAS-SR-02-004 26 08/12/02

Work Elements Hours Rate/hour Total Cost OEAS (50%) OIS (50%)Supervision and Review (Director)

8 $53.44 $427.52 $213.76 $213.76

Data Entry (Computer Support Specialist)

8 $13.77 $110.16 $55.08 $55.08

Analysis (Coordinator of Statistical Research)

20 $23.32 $466.40 $233.20 $233.20

Report Generation (Coordinator of Statistical Research)

8 $23.32 $186.56 $93.28 $93.28

Report Production (Secretary) 4 $10.73 $42.92 $21.46 $21.46 Total Reimbursement Due to OEAS $616.78 Personnel:

Key Sponsor Contacts:

Mathilda Harris, Director, Office of International Studies Madelyn Flammia, English Department

OEAS Personnel: Dr. Julia Pet-Armacost, Director of OEAS Ms. Kathleen Coleman, OEAS Computer Support Specialist Ms. Marjorie Salazar, Coordinator of Statistical Research

Confidentiality: The work conducted under this engagement agreement is intended for the sole

use of the sponsor. OEAS will not disclose any information developed without the permission of the sponsor. Normally, the final report is published as an OEAS Technical Report and made available to the public. However, the sponsor must approve any such technical report. Because the OEAS office reports to Academic Affairs, periodic reports are made to the Provost and the President regarding the status of OEAS activities. Work on this project will likely be discussed in one or more of those periodic reports.

OEAS-SR-02-004 27 08/12/02

Agreement: The undersigned agree that the structure presented above describes the nature

and scope of the work to be accomplished during this engagement. Changes to the scope or direction of work will be accompanied by a modification to this agreement.

FOR:

OEAS: Office of International Studies: _________________________________ _________________________________ Julia Pet-Armacost Mathilda Harris Director, OEAS Director, OIS _________________________________ _________________________________ Date Date

OEAS-SR-02-004 28 08/12/02

APPENDIX C WORKSHOP SURVEYS

OEAS-TR-02-004 29 08/12/02

OEAS-SR-02-004 30 08/12/02

Not

App

licab

le

The UCF International Studies Summer Institute 2002

Your opinions about each of the speakers and workshops are important to us in planning our activities for next year. Please assist us by completing the following survey.

DAY ONE PM

Speaker: Dr. Stella Ting-Toomey

Topic: Bridging the Culture Gap Part II: Perceiving andCollaborating Across Cultures

Presentation and Roundtable Discussions

2. The material was presented in a clear manner.

3. The topic was relevant to internationalizing courses.

4. The visual aids were effective.

5. The handout materials were useful.

6. Group discussions and participation were encouraged.

7. The roundtable encouraged the development of creative ideas.

1. I would recommend this speaker for a future Summer Institute.

Stro

ngly

Agr

ee

Agre

e

Som

ewha

t Agr

ee

Neu

tral

Som

ewha

t Dis

agre

e

Dis

agre

e St

rong

ly D

isag

ree

8. What was the most important thing related to internationalizing your courses that you learned from this session?

9. What did you find most valuable about this session?

10. What did you find least valuable about this session?

Thank You!

aaaa a a aa

aaaa a a aa

aaaa a a aa

aaaa a a aa

aaaa a a aa

aaaa a a aa

aaaa a a aa

11. Please list any additional comments or suggestions you may have.

Please indicate how much you agree or disagreewith the following statements.

OEAS-SR-02-004 31 08/12/02

OEAS-SR-02-004 32 08/12/02

OEAS-TR-02-004 33 08/12/02

OEAS-SR-02-004 34 08/12/02

OEAS-SR-02-004 35 08/12/02

OEAS-SR-02-004 36 08/12/02

OEAS-SR-02-004 37 08/12/02

APPENDIX D PRE-INSTITUTE SELF-ASSESSMENT

OEAS-SR-02-004 38 08/12/02

OEAS-SR-02-004 39 08/12/02 OEAS-SR-02-004 39 08/12/02

APPENDIX E POST-INSTITUTE SELF-ASSESSMENT

OEAS-SR-02-004 40 08/12/02

OEAS-SR-02-004 41 08/12/02 OEAS-SR-02-004 41 08/12/02

OEAS-SR-02-004 42 08/12/02

OEAS-SR-02-004 43 08/12/02

APPENDIX F LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

OEAS-SR-02-004 44 08/12/02

International Studies Summer Institute April 29—May 3, 2002

List of Participants

Name Department College Phone E-mail Dr. Rodney Alvarez History CAS 407-823-2224 [email protected] Dr. Angeline Bushy Nursing COHPA 904-255-7423 [email protected] Dr. Lynn Casmier-Paz

English CAS 407-823-5390 [email protected]

Dr. Richard Denning Engineering Technology COE&CS 407-823-4747 [email protected] Dr. Jerome Donnelly English CAS 407-823-2260 [email protected] Dr. Avelino Gonzalez

Engineering COE&CS 407-823-5027 [email protected]

Dr. Maria de Jesus Gonzalez

Art CAS 407-823-4995 [email protected]

Dr. Anthony Grajeda English CAS 407-823-5701 [email protected] Dr. David Gurney Teaching and Learning

Principles COE 407-823-2017 [email protected]

Dr. Kerstin Hamann Political Science CAS 407-823-2085 [email protected] Dr. Peter Hancock Psychology CAS 407-823-2310 [email protected] Dr. Christine Hanlon School of

Communication CAS 407-823-4550 [email protected]

Dr. Richard Harmon Theater CAS 407-823-0366 [email protected] Dr. Ronnie Hawkins Philosophy CAS 407-823-6514 [email protected] Dr. Larry Hudson Teaching and Learning

Principles COE 407-823-2848 [email protected]

Dr. Suzanne Jaeger Philosophy CAS 407-823-5408 [email protected] Dr. Gene Lee Industrial Engineering &

Management Systems COE&CS 407-823-2308 [email protected]

Dr. Marie Leticee Foreign Languages & Literatures

CAS 407-823-5936 [email protected]

Dr. Julia Listengarten

Theater CAS 407-823-3858 [email protected]

Dr. Barry Mauer English CAS 407-823-6252 [email protected] Ms. Lauryn Migenes Management COB 407-823-4586 [email protected] Mr. Christopher Niess

Theater CAS 407-823-4873 [email protected]

Dr. Hoon Park Finance COB 407-823-2660 [email protected] Dr. Luis Rabelo Industrial Engineering &

Management Systems COE&CS 407-882-0091 [email protected]

Mrs. Maria Redmon Foreign Languages & Literatures

CAS 407-823-5738 [email protected]

Dr. Elizabeth Sommer

English CAS 407-823-2284 [email protected]

Dr. Nancy Stockdale History CAS 407-823-4482 [email protected] Dr. Aysar Sussan Management COB 386-254-4412 [email protected] Dr. Martine Vanryckeghem

Communicative Disorders

COHPA 407-823-4808 [email protected]

Dr. Gwendolyn Walton

Electrical & Computer Engineering

COE&CS 407-823-3276 [email protected]

Mr. Li Wei Music CAS 407-823-6894 [email protected] Dr. Bruce Wilson Political Science CAS 407-823-6772 [email protected] Dr. Hong Zhang History CAS 407-823-5972 [email protected]

CAS=College of Arts & Sciences COB=College of Business COE=College of Education COE&CS=College of Engineering & Computer Science COHPA=College of Health & Public Affairs

OEAS-TR-02-004 45 08/12/02

mailto:[email protected]

































APPENDIX G DETAILED RESULTS FOR EACH OF THE WORKSHOPS

OEAS-SR-02-004 46 08/12/02

Workshop #1 Speaker: Dr. Stella Ting-Toomey (Day One Morning) Bridging the Culture Gap Part I: Decoding Intercultural Misunderstandings

Question 1: I would recommend this speaker for a future Summer Institute.

Q1

178

1 1 0 0 009

1827

StronglyAgree

Agree Somew hatAgree

Neutral Somew hatDisagree

Disagree StronglyDisagree

Question 2: The material was presented in a clear manner.

Q2

19

71 0 0 0 0

09

1827

StronglyAgree




Question 3: The topic was relevant to internationalizing courses.

Q3

177

2 0 0 0 009

1827

StronglyAgree




Question 4: The visual aids were effective.

Q4

147

2 1 1 1 109

1827

StronglyAgree




Question 5: The handout materials were useful.

OEAS-SR-02-004 47 08/12/02

Q5

156 2 0 1 1 0

09

1827

StronglyAgree




Question 6: Group discussions and participation were encouraged.

Q6

22

3 1 0 1 0 009

1827

StronglyAgree




Question 7: The roundtable encouraged the development of creative ideas.

Q7

83 4 2 1 0 0

09

1827

StronglyAgree




Average Scores on Each Question:

2.52 2.67 2.581.93 2.24 2.67

1.83

0.001.002.003.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Question Number

Average Rating

Open-ended Question 1: What was the most important thing related to internationalizing your courses that you learned from this session?

Reinforced ideas of some cultural stereotypes-this is unintentional but a little frustrating.

OEAS-SR-02-004 48 08/12/02

Learning more about cultural differences. Use Ppt. The need to be sensitive. Culture differences in communications. Diversity. It is always beneficial to be reminded of how the majority of world’s people

communicate; this provides the ultimate context into which our course takes place.

Power distance model. To be sympathetic to others anxiety. Reiterated concepts already known. Perceptions of culture and its application. Interesting observations about individualistic versus collectivistic values. N/A. Acknowledging different perspectives. Raised good questions and conscientiousness. Conflict. Intercultural communication skills different cultural value systems. Sensitivity to cultural aspects.

Open-ended Question 2: What did you find most valuable about this session?

The exercises were very instructive; her enthusiasm is great. Reminder of importance of mindfulness in working across cultures. How to approach the problems. Characteristic of cultural models; reaction of individuals to a society they do not

know and don't understand. The cultural perspectives. How to categorize the types of cultural comm. Promoted awareness of cultural diversity. The levels of cultural awareness and their impact on our actions. Concrete concepts. Emphasis on differences within cultures. Excellent background info. Group activities info on small power distance versus large power distance. Cultural perceptions. Cultural models. 1st exercise. Interaction. Learning and understanding the concepts.

Open-ended Question 3: What did you find least valuable about this session?

A ton of communication theory gets boring and is so reductive. Perhaps too much time on each exercise but they were good. Very general; very elementary. Exercises. Handouts could be distributed in a more organized manner.

OEAS-SR-02-004 49 08/12/02

No page numbers on material! Open-ended Question 4: Please list any additional comments or suggestions you may have.

She's great but perhaps more clarification that we're not reinforcing stereotypes.

Very good. Great job! Expand the discussions to institutional culture, departmental culture, and

discipline culture.

OEAS-SR-02-004 50 08/12/02

Workshop #2 Speaker: Dr. Stella Ting-Toomey (Day One Afternoon) Bridging the Culture Gap Part II: Perceiving and Collaborating Across Cultures


Q1

16

2 0 0 0 0 00

9

18

StronglyAgree




Question 2: The material was presented in a clear manner. Q2

15

3 0 0 0 0 00

9

18

StronglyAgree




Question 3: The topic was relevant to internationalizing courses. Q3

105

1 0 0 0 00

9

18

StronglyAgree




Question 4: The visual aids were effective. Q4

13

40 1 0 0 0

0

9

18

StronglyAgree




OEAS-SR-02-004 51 08/12/02

Question 5: The handout materials were useful. Q5

9 71 0 0 0 0

0

9

18

StronglyAgree




Question 6: Group discussions and participation were encouraged. Q6

14

2 0 0 0 1 00

9

18

StronglyAgree




Question 7: The roundtable encouraged the development of creative ideas. Q7

5 70 1 0 0 0

0

9

18

StronglyAgree




Average Scores on Each Question

2.89 2.83 2.56 2.61 2.47 2.59 2.23

0.001.002.003.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Question Number

Average Rating

OEAS-SR-02-004 52 08/12/02

Open-ended Question 1: What was the most important think related to internationalizing your courses that you learned from this session?

Perception of differences & sameness. Group discussion; aspects of deep culture. Understanding how differences occur. N/A. Don't teach courses. N/A Understanding of cultural relativism and the importance of cultural adaptation

and integration in workplace/teaching classroom environments. Altering perceptions. The ease with which suitable accommodations can be thought of & put into

practice. Open-ended Question 2: Overall, what did you find most valuable about this session?

Good. Speaker’s explanation. Learning more about how different styles of persons and statements were

understood and misunderstood. Cultural model discussion. Learning to deal with differences. I am on the right tract-reaffirmed teaching practices! Presentation of conceptual frameworks and ways of accommodating those with

cultural practices different from one's own. Open-ended Question 3: What did you find least valuable about this session?

Good. Final ways of looking exercise was a little overdone. Pictures at the end. The undercurrent of talking among participants--it was distracting and very

possibly a drain on Stella's energy. Open-ended Question 4: Please list any additional comments or suggestions you may have.

Please papers in order. Presentational aids (projector) could be improved. Turn off the projection when

it isn't supportive. This afternoon's session was more interesting and the exercises were very

useful and appropriate and interesting. Would consider adding a short segment after the initial presentation of Low &

High Context Behaviors to help participants separate the two before doing the self-assessment. Some participants seemed to need a little bridge.

OEAS-SR-02-004 53 08/12/02

Workshop #3 Speaker: Dr. Stella Ting-Toomey (Day Two Morning) International Students and Scholars on Campus: Bridging the Culture Gap at UCF

Question 1: I would recommend this speaker for a future summer Institute. Q1

18

3 0 0 0 0 007

1421

StronglyAgree





15

6

0 0 0 0 00

7

14

21

StronglyAgree





127

2 0 0 0 007

1421

StronglyAgree





9 10

1 0 1 0 007

1421

StronglyAgree




OEAS-SR-02-004 54 08/12/02


611

1 1 0 0 007

1421

StronglyAgree





13

4 1 1 0 1 007

1421

StronglyAgree





Q7

94 4 1 1 0 0

07

1421

StronglyAgree





2.86 2.71 2.48 2.24 2.16 2.30 2.00

0.00

1.002.00

3.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7Question Number

Average Rating

OEAS-SR-02-004 55 08/12/02


To recognize problems with international students and ways to deal with it. Interaction & discussion with the students was beneficial. Perceptions of international students. Consideration for diversity. Cultural sensitivity in teaching/classroom environment. To be sure that the internationalizing of a course must be written so that non-

English speaking readers understand all of the information. Excellent content. Understanding the diversity of international students. The different dimensional values/distance/rituals (content issues). Perspectives of the international students; perspectives on nonverbal

communication in other cultures. That apparently there is no model on how to do it--the session talked about

diversity and heterogeneity of students rather than how to internationalize courses.

Don't know what I expected but this was very good. Mindfulness. The focus on examining different perspectives. The importance of leading students to assess their own identities and review

their own experiences in relationship to several models. Open-ended Question 2: Overall, what did you find most valuable about this session?

Dr. Ting is a great mentor-her examples and exercises are very practical and show her point clearly. After getting comfortable with her style, she is very informative, instructive, and has very good qualities.

Discussion about student’s issues. Learning different perspectives between professors and international students. Exercises of multi-cultural habits. The skit put on by international students. Great speaker. Same as above. Interesting though how Dr. Ting-Toomey's name illustrates

some of these dimensions. Discovering my colleagues' different perspectives on her 'identify'. Talking with faculty about how they deal with integrating international students. Examples from students-'play'. Need for sensitivity. Same. It brought out the need for communication to all faculty at UCF the challenges

international students & scholars face and helpful responses to those challenges on the part of faculty. It seems that administrative policy needs to be generated re info. Delivery to departments. Although the discussion did not directly point to low levels of hospitality (low-context, normal, large US metro university behavior) on the part of American students, I have repeatedly heard international students contrast the inclusiveness toward American & other visitors in their countries and the lack of friendliness toward internationals by the US students. Incoming internationals need orientation re culturally current US behavior, too. When a US student doesn't smile & say hi, they need to see

OEAS-SR-02-004 56 08/12/02

its not personal-it's the system here, before they go through emotional upsets. Open-ended Question 3: What did you find least valuable about this session?

Presentational aids were often difficult to see. Role exercises. The visual and materials should be better identified by the use of page numbers

or tabs. Some wasted time-moving more slowly than last year.

Hands-on role games and simulations-just don't like them. Much of the discussion with the students went round in circles. "Grab a partner you don't know and do an activity'-by day 2 this is

overwhelming. I would never ask my students to do this amount of no motive; fast response communication-it's intimidating. Would be better to model other methods for making groups work.

Went over time at lunch. N/A.

Slide show at end was too dark--bad projector.

Open-ended Question 4: Please list any additional comments or suggestions you may have.

International students group-very good initiative! Very useful discussion. Thank you. I appreciated the demonstration by UCF international students showing how

cultural sensitivity can be an issue in our intercultural environment. I wish the presenter could bring some more theoretical issues.

Handouts should be introduced and the purpose explained prior to distribution. Improve organization of notebook/handout materials so easy to find. Keep up

the pace (monochromic time). Better at the last-images were very involving. I've been going back and forth on whether I like the relative informality of the

sessions so far compared to last year-think I'm deciding 'yes'. Longer exposure to Dr. Ting-Toomey in more in formal sessions will be very helpful.

Material could have been condensed-sometimes too many examples, belabored the point. Discussions sometimes too long, no new perspectives added.

Could have been condensed and the time better spent. I am time sensitive-start and stop on time, please. Refrain from reading the transparencies. It was a pleasure to have Stella as the main presenter for several days. Besides

being highly qualified, she is kind, good humored, and pleasant. Thank you!

OEAS-SR-02-004 57 08/12/02

Workshop #4 Speaker: Dr. M. J. Soileau (Day Two Afternoon) Research Without Boundaries


Q1

7 73 0 2 1 0

0

10

20

StronglyAgree





Q2

115 2 1 1 0 0

0

10

20

StronglyAgree





Q3

7 5 2 1 1 2 00

10

20

StronglyAgree





Q4

1 0 0 0 0 0 10

10

20

StronglyAgree




OEAS-SR-02-004 58 08/12/02


Q5

6 5 4 2 1 0 00

10

20

StronglyAgree





Q6

4 5 3 0 0 2 00

10

20

StronglyAgree





Q7

5 61 2 1 2 0

0

10

20

StronglyAgree





1.682.16

1.47

0.00

1.65 1.50 1.25

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Question Number

Average Rating


OEAS-SR-02-004 59 08/12/02

Explained the broad field opportunities for sponsored research in all

areas. Benefits of getting help. I am almost revitalized-almost. Not sure. Research! I need to send out some papers! This was a good motivator! NA. Get to know the UCF resources for grant and opportunities to develop

internationalization courses. Opportunities. N/A.

Open-ended Question 2: Overall, what did you find most valuable about this session?

The honesty and clear details by MJ Soileau were excellent. The information. Clarification of scholarly work as my own not UCF's. Motivated me to finish some projects! Answers to questions re copyright & property rights & lack of financial

incentives. Discussions on overhead. Useful info about grant proposal writing. Granting procedures. Reinforced my idea that I am only valued for $ at some quarters of UCF.


Nothing. Much did not seem applicable to me at the time. A little dry. A constrictive, bureaucratic tone that, while it was realistic, was not

inspirational. Too science/$ oriented.


Pass out an outline. Perhaps a roundtable discussion rather than a lecture format. More on grants related to liberal arts. Good information. This had almost no relevance to people in humanities.

OEAS-SR-02-004 60 08/12/02

Workshop #5: Speaker: Dr. Benjamin Barber (Day Three) Terrorism & Multiculturalism: The Impact on Higher Education


Q1

16

0 1 0 0 0 00

9

18

StronglyAgree





Q2

16

1 0 0 0 0 00

9

18

StronglyAgree





Q3

16

1 0 0 0 0 00

9

18

StronglyAgree





Q4

30 1 1 0 0 0

0

9

18

StronglyAgree




OEAS-SR-02-004 61 08/12/02


40 0 2 0 0 0

0

9

18

StronglyAgree





0

9

18

StronglyAgree





12

2 1 1 0 0 00

9

18

StronglyAgree




Average Scores on Each Question 2.88 2.94 2.94

2.00 2.002.73 2.56

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Question Number

Aver

age R

atin

g Open-ended Question 1: What was the most important thing related to internationalizing your courses that you learned from this session?

Reiteration of past concepts. That my personal teaching goals are not idiosyncratic-as they sometimes are

seen to be by some colleagues--but rather are of significance for the shaping of

OEAS-SR-02-004 62 08/12/02

our future. The importance of education; education=key to power and success. A 'deep' thoughtful day-tired. Presenting a variety of perspectives. Enjoyed the presentation and the discussion. Emphasis on the importance of education and our role as educators to global

artisanship, importance of democracy. His extremely articulate support of educators-especially in the humanities. Importance of allowing students to face up to seeing the world through the eyes of

others. The 'real politik' model-this is the way the world is-helps ground our work in the

classroom-as either advocate or critique. Need to maintain concentration on multicultural and global dimensions of

education. To use education as positive means to cultivate students to make them aware

that what 'global' means to them. Complexification.


The intelligence, knowledge, and clarity of the presenter. The speaker's knowledge of the topic. Good information-actually a great end of day discussion! A tremendously effective speaker; dynamic. Informing envelope & certain capitalism. His ingenious framework for understanding globalization. The insights on world issues and how to bring this to the classroom. Barber privileged culture (language, arts, media, etc.) in his model for

understanding globalization, which I very much welcomed. Depth of presentation of the topics. Get a broader view re globalization. Nice to have such an enthusiastic/informative individual. Very much appreciated.


N/A. Nothing. Shorter period. None-he's great. Extremely valuable talk and discussion overall. Less time for interaction.


Thank you for bringing us such a dynamic, informed, purposeful speaker. Great speaker! Wish there had been more time for less formal discussion with Dr. Barber. Thank you! Please bring him back. Suggest someone making a report of comments. A very inspiring lecture.

OEAS-SR-02-004 63 08/12/02

The guy is real good, albeit a bit too Clintonesque. I enjoyed the session very much.

This was worth the whole week alone. Such that everything else is pure bonus-excellent.

OEAS-SR-02-004 64 08/12/02

Workshop #6: Speaker: Dean Tom L. Keon (Day Four Session I: RESEARCH) Conducting and Funding International Research Question 1: I would recommend this speaker for a future Summer Institute.

Q1

4 51 0 0 0 0

0

5

10

StronglyAgree





Q2

64

0 0 0 0 00

5

10

StronglyAgree





Q3

7

20 0 0 0 0

0

5

10

StronglyAgree





Q4

1 0 0 1 0 0 00

5

10

StronglyAgree




OEAS-SR-02-004 65 08/12/02


Q5

1 1 1 0 0 0 00

5

10

StronglyAgree





Q6

7

20 0 0 0 0

0

5

10

StronglyAgree





Q7

4 40 1 0 0 0

0

5

10

StronglyAgree





2.30 2.60 2.78

1.502.00

2.782.22

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7Question Number

Average Rating


Very informative discussion.

OEAS-SR-02-004 66 08/12/02

Collaborative International Funding. Emphasis on 'just doing it'.


Technical Information. Exchange of ideas. Opportunity for grants.


Most of the stuff covered I already knew. Open-ended Question 4: Please list any additional comments or suggestions you may have.

Would like to see a breakdown of how to draft a proposal.

OEAS-SR-02-004 67 08/12/02

Workshop #7: Speaker: Dr. Steve Sorg (Day Four Morning Session 2: TEACHING) Utilizing the Internet to Internationalize Courses Question 1: I would recommend this speaker for a future Summer Institute.

Q1

25

30 1 0 1

0

6

12

StronglyAgree





Q2

3

8

1 0 0 1 00

6

12

StronglyAgree





Q3

4 51 2

0 1 00

6

12

StronglyAgree





Q4

4 52 0 0 1 0

0

6

12

StronglyAgree




OEAS-SR-02-004 68 08/12/02


Q5

4 4 30 0 1 1

0

6

12

StronglyAgree





Q6

25

1 0 0 1 2

0

6

12

StronglyAgree





Q7

25

30 1 0 2

0

6

12

StronglyAgree





1.251.85 1.62 1.83

1.380.82 0.92

0.00

1.002.00

3.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Question Number

Average Rating


Some good web sites/search engines.

OEAS-SR-02-004 69 08/12/02

Learning more about use of web sites. Nothing. The workshop emphasized the haphazard approach our students take to

'research' on the web-and ways to remedy this ongoing problem. Provided sites and links that will assist us in guiding our students to learn how to assess and judge web sites for credibility and content, etc. This is crucial.


Some. How to effectively use web sites. Nothing.


It was all valuable. By 9:20, all that had been said was that Google was a search engine worth using

and that clicking on 'tips' was a basic strategy. The bulk of the remaining time was spent on Web Quest, suitable for elementary and high school teachers perhaps, but of no detectable value to me.

We need MACS in labs! Open-ended Question 4: Please list any additional comments or suggestions you may have.

More time should be allowed to this phase of the institute. Would like a real scholar, researcher to do this session, or an experienced

librarian like Donna Goda. I already know how to search the web-perhaps you should specialize further for

more advanced people. Wish to have some specific tools to help develop internationalization courses.

OEAS-SR-02-004 70 08/12/02

Workshop #8: Speaker: Ms Donna Goda (Day Four Afternoon Session 1: RESEARCH) On-line Resources for International Research


Q1

52

0 0 0 0 00

4

8

StronglyAgree





3 31 0 0 0 0

0

4

8

StronglyAgree





6

1 0 0 0 0 00

4

8

StronglyAgree





7

0 0 0 0 0 00

4

8

StronglyAgree




OEAS-SR-02-004 71 08/12/02


52

0 0 0 0 00

4

8

StronglyAgree





Q6

41 1 0 0 0 0

0

4

8

StronglyAgree





Q7

20 0 0 0 0 0

0

4

8

StronglyAgree





2.71

2.292.86 3.00 2.71 2.50

3.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Question Number

Average Rating

OEAS-SR-02-004 72 08/12/02


Library resources. Way to access databases. Databases, how to use them and find them. Very useful info-I always learn something new.


Learned a number of new ways to find info on databases. Very useful. Ditto. Ms. Goda went through some of the best database search engines in my field.

She also taught me how to request interlibrary loans from home. Open-ended Question 3: What did you find least valuable about this session?

Nothing. Open-ended Question 4: Please list any additional comments or suggestions you may have.

Pace could be a little slower. Most useful session I have been. She has been the only one asking us about our

courses and she could plug our classes into a corresponding database.

OEAS-SR-02-004 73 08/12/02

Workshop #9: Speaker: Dr. Madelyn Flammia (Day Four Afternoon Session 2: TEACHING) Implications and Methods of Internationalizing Courses


Q1

63 2 0 0 0 0

0

6

12

StronglyAgree





9

30 0 0 0 0

0

6

12

StronglyAgree





83

0 0 0 0 00

6

12

StronglyAgree





9

30 0 0 0 0

0

6

12

StronglyAgree




OEAS-SR-02-004 74 08/12/02


9

30 0 0 0 0

0

6

12

StronglyAgree





2 2 1 30 0 0

0

6

12

StronglyAgree





2 1 0 2 0 0 00

6

12

StronglyAgree





2.362.75 2.73 2.75 2.75

1.38 1.60

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Question Number

Average Rating

OEAS-SR-02-004 75 08/12/02


Fantastic presentations. Experiences of others who done the internationalization of exchange programs. That other faculty, Dr. Ajayi in particular, is challenging students to make drastic

improvements in their understanding of the world. Informational. Idea of integration v. addition of international elements.


Study abroad info. The specific requirements of international activities. Insight into programs already in place at UCF. Very good.


None was noted. N/A.


Each of these presenters really could have used more time. Perhaps they could present individually so they don't need to divide the time.

OEAS-SR-02-004 76 08/12/02

APPENDIX H DETAILED RESPONSES TO THE PRE-INSTITUTE SELF-ASSESSMENT

OEAS-SR-02-004 77 08/12/02

Question 1: I understand what internationalization means.

Q1

23

0 3 2 0 0 00

102030

StronglyAgree




Question 2: I know many ways to internationalize courses.

Q2

17

0 29

0 0 00

102030

StronglyAgree




Question 3: I understand concerns of international students.

Q3

17

0 2 2 5 2 00

10

20

30

StronglyAgree




Question 4: I feel a responsibility to internationalize my courses.

Q4

8 7 83 1 1 0

0102030

StronglyAgree




OEAS-SR-02-004 78 08/12/02

Question 5: I am conscious of cultural differences.

Q5

136 5 1 0 1 0

0102030

StronglyAgree




Question 6: I know how to deal with cultural communication differences.

Q6

5 10 101 0 1 1

0102030

StronglyAgree




Question 7: I can teach understanding of alternative cultural perspectives.

Q7

413

60 2 2 1

0102030

StronglyAgree




Question 8: I encourage diverse values in class even when they run counter to my own.

Q8

12 124 0 0 0 0

0102030

StronglyAgree




OEAS-SR-02-004 79 08/12/02

Question 9: I take initiative in dispelling prejudices, stereotypes, and misconceptions in my classes.

Q9

11 14

1 2 0 0 00

102030

StronglyAgree




Question 10: I recognize my own biases.

Q10

715

2 3 1 0 00

102030

StronglyAgree




Question 11: I try to see issues from other viewpoints in my classes.

Q11

714

5 1 0 0 00

102030

StronglyAgree




Question 12: I know how to develop open and honest communication in my classes.

Q12

8 114 4 1 0 0

0102030

StronglyAgree




OEAS-SR-02-004 80 08/12/02

Question 13: I adjust my teaching methods with students from various cultural backgrounds.

Q13

5 8 122 0 0 1

0102030

StronglyAgree




Question 14: I am knowledgeable about current issues/content pertaining to different world areas.

Q14

5 10 92 0 1 0

0102030

StronglyAgree




Question 15: I am knowledgeable about theories underlying conflict.

Q15

0

133 5 2 3 2

0102030

StronglyAgree




Question 16: I am knowledgeable about peace-making concepts.

Q16

18 7 5 4 1 2

0

10

20

30

StronglyAgree

Agree SomewhatAgree

Neutral SomewhatDisagree


OEAS-SR-02-004 81 08/12/02

Question 17: I am knowledgeable about how instructional technology, together with quality management, can be used in multicultural education.

Q17

29 6 4 3 2 2

0102030

StronglyAgree




Question 18: I am knowledgeable about curricular resources available on internationalization.

Q18

1 6 93 6 3 0

0102030

StronglyAgree




Question 19: I am knowledgeable about University resources/services related to International Studies available at UCF.

Q19

010 8

2 6 2 00

102030

StronglyAgree




Open-ended Question 1: Please tell us your expectations for the UCF International Studies Summer Institute.

The material in the binder must have page numbers, not just sections! We wasted way too much time searching for specific pages. OR, just do handouts at the time of the exercise!

I hope to gain information specifically on creating a ____ ____ course and to gain perspective on globalization from our speakers.

Develop a greater understanding and appreciation for other cultures. Internationalize my courses!

To expand my knowledge base on issues of instruction to culturally diverse

OEAS-SR-02-004 82 08/12/02

students and conflict resolution. Increased awareness of resources and approaches to course internationalization. Lots of time to work on projects, explores funding opportunities. To gain knowledge re to internationalizing research and applying for grants. To learn how to integrate international and cultural awareness as a part of my

class. I would like to expand my knowledge of theories related to internationalization and

globalization. To prepare a course. Learn more about atmosphere of institutional support for internationalizing my

courses at UCF. To learn effective ways to 'globalize' a course. Get various perspectives for my research project. Learn how to create research partnerships. I look forward to the opportunity to improve even more. Know better both the concepts and issues surrounding globalization and

multiculturalism and resources/services available on internationalization. Be open to what happens--listen more attentively.

OEAS-SR-02-004 83 08/12/02

APPENDIX I DETAILED RESULTS FROM THE POST-INSTITUTE SELF-ASSESSMENT

OEAS-SR-02-004 84 08/12/02

Current Knowledge/Ability/Capability Question 1: I understand what internationalization means.

Q1

1411

0 0 0 0 005

10152025

StronglyAgree





Q2

7 95 3

0 0 105

10152025

StronglyAgree




Question 3: I understand the concerns of international students.

Q3

9 106

0 0 0 005

10152025

StronglyAgree





Q4

12 10

30 0 0 0

05

10152025

StronglyAgree




OEAS-SR-02-004 85 08/12/02


Q5

16

8

1 0 0 0 005

10152025

StronglyAgree





Q6

3

17

41 0 0 0

05

10152025

StronglyAgree





Q7

5

13

51 1 0 0

05

10152025

StronglyAgree

SomewhatAgree

SomewhatDisagree

StronglyDisagree


Q8

10 12

30 0 0 0

05

10152025

StronglyAgree




OEAS-SR-02-004 86 08/12/02


Q9

18

61 0 0 0 0

05

10152025

StronglyAgree





Q10

4

17

2 1 0 0 105

10152025

StronglyAgree





Q11

11 11

2 0 0 0 105

10152025

StronglyAgree





Q12

7

16

2 0 0 0 005

10152025

StronglyAgree




OEAS-SR-02-004 87 08/12/02


Q13

3

15

4 2 0 0 105

10152025

StronglyAgree





Q14

610

4 3 1 1 005

10152025

StronglyAgree





Q15

49

52 2 2 1

05

10152025

StronglyAgree





Q16

58

51

41 1

05

10152025

StronglyAgree




OEAS-SR-02-004 88 08/12/02


Q17

610

3 4 2 0 005

10152025

StronglyAgree





Q18

611

4 2 1 1 005

10152025

StronglyAgree





Q19

8 8 62 0 1 0

05

10152025

StronglyAgree




OEAS-SR-02-004 89 08/12/02

Knowledge Gain Scale Question 1: I understand what internationalization means.

Q1

10 12

2 005

10152025

Large Increase Moderate Increase Slight Increase No Increase


Q2

11 9

2 2

05

10152025


Question 3: I understand the concerns of international students.

Q3

9 12

2 105

10152025



Q4

9 92 3

05

10152025


OEAS-SR-02-004 90 08/12/02


Q5

126 6

005

10152025



Q6

16

61 0

05

10152025



Q7

9 11

2 105

10152025



Q8

8 11

3 105

10152025


OEAS-SR-02-004 91 08/12/02


Q9

7 106

005

10152025



Q10

7 8 6 3

05

10152025



Q11

612

60

05

10152025



Q12

8 8 61

05

10152025


OEAS-SR-02-004 92 08/12/02


Q13

10 10

2 205

10152025



Q14

116 5 2

05

10152025



Q15

7 96

205

10152025



Q16

6 7 7 4

05

10152025


OEAS-SR-02-004 93 08/12/02


Q17

6 8 6 3

05

10152025



Q18

107 6

105

10152025



Q19

136 4 1

05

10152025


OEAS-SR-02-004 94 08/12/02

Materials Question 20: To what extent do the materials provided in the Notebook and CD ROM

appear helpful to you in relation to internationalizing your courses or research?

Q20

710

3 1 03

05

10152025

Very helpful Somew hathelpful

Neutral Not veryhelpful

Not at allhelpful

Don't Know

Question 21: To what extent were the materials organized in a useful way?

Q21

118

3 1 0 105

10152025

Very useful Somew hatuseful

Neutral Not veryuseful

Not at alluseful

Don't Know

Question 22: To what extent did you find it useful to have the materials primarily presented in a CD ROM rather than in a notebook?

Q22

16

2 3 1 0 2

05

10152025

Very useful Somew hatuseful

Neutral Not veryuseful

Not at alluseful

Don't Know

Open-ended Question 23: Please explain why you did or did not find it useful.

More information less storage space. I would've been interested in additional research-based articles. I expect they will be useful; I intend to go through the materials later-not enough

time this week, but it's good to have these resources. I'm a MAC person and could not open many of the files. Easily accessible customized for each individual's project. Easier to use.

OEAS-SR-02-004 95 08/12/02

I have a MAC and it wouldn't work. Social science models; business stuff. My CD did not work. The research was not relevant. The material in the binder was not organized in an accessible way. The articles for

my research on the CD Rom were interesting, but not directly relevant. This electronic form made things immediately accessible. Very useful. Out of sequence. No more notebooks please. Have not yet viewed.

Open-ended Question 24: Please list any additional comments or suggestions you may have regarding the MATERIALS.

More info for research grants for social sciences and humanities. We were totally ignored.

More research based articles. Smaller notebook with less material. I have some concerns about copyright-need proper citations for articles. Very well organized. Did not use all of it. It would be great to have more culture & humanities and less science & social

science. Why is there nothing addressing the issue of cultural appropriation? It is a concern

related to ethnicity. Thank you, it is a great experience and conference. None.

Mentors Question 25: To what extent did you find the mentors helpful to you in relation to

internationalizing your courses or research?

Q25

13

5 3 30 0

05

10152025

Very helpful Somew hathelpful

Neutral Not veryhelpful

Not at allhelpful

Don't Know

Open-ended Question 26: Overall, what did you find most valuable about having mentors?

Friendly. Insight was logistics of setting up a study abroad course. Small group discussions about daily events. It was good to meet someone who had a background in these ideas.

OEAS-SR-02-004 96 08/12/02

Simply as someone who has been through the Institute and thus able to assist those of us new to it.

Helpful in synthesizing the day's events. Getting information about receiving funding. Obtaining information on grants. Insight from an experienced faculty member who is successful in this field. Helped locate grant. Personalization. Meeting new people. Encouragement. Their willingness to help. Very friendly and supportive. Their knowledge and insight. The ability to have questions answered. A good sounding board for presentation ideas. Their presence. Safety net for posters and opportunity for group problem solving.

Open-ended Question 27: What did you find least valuable about having mentors?

Did not know how to organize group discussion and their conclusions. Not really enough time to make use of the mentor and still get something together

for Friday, but I don't see this as a problem- a lot of these ideas and the material are appropriate for use over the entire year. I was glad to have access to a mentor.

Some repetitive with their presentations. Yes. N/A. They were not always able to help in a specific research or teaching area. I understand mentors don't have to be in your field, but it would be much helpful if

mentors would provide theoretical orientation consultancy. Not sufficient time to work with the mentors. How to use them. They cannot possibly be experts in our fields. Having a mentor with knowledge in

cross-cultural communication & logistics would, of course, be ideal. That said, they provide a positive, helpful, friendly presence that enriches the experiences of the participants.

Open-ended Question 28: Please list any additional comments or suggestions you may

have regarding the MENTORS.

Ms. Sean C. Kijek was very rude to me and some of her comments were not only rude but hostile. She is authoritarian and gets angry when she is contradicted.

Yes, I enjoyed the meetings talking with faculty and attending the sessions. Friendly and accessible. Always eager to be helpful and available. Since Vaidy is in the Office of Research, it would have been helpful if they had

scheduled sessions to find research grants during the Institute. Comments on proposals are welcome!

My mentor worked out very well for me. Time spent with fellow faculty members. Very good. My mentor was great, but 2 other mentors were very rude, especially Dr. Kijek.

OEAS-SR-02-004 97 08/12/02

As an International Scholar, Vaidy's views and ideas were especially pertinent. In general, the use of mentors can prove to be a highly effective method of

developing skills among groups of learners. Open-ended Question 29: Did the Institute meet your expectations? Please explain.

Yes. Yes. Yes. I found many additional materials, activities, and research sources. Time to step back and think about these issues. The presentations from the

various faculty about how they internationalize their courses. Yes-Intensive weeklong focus on one subject/topic offers a terrific learning

experience. Yes, informative and provides the most collegial experience of any activity for

faculty on the UCF campus. Yes. Yes, it was great. More than expectations. It was informative and socially very rewarding. Not really. Yes. Yes. Barber exceeded expectations. I enjoyed meeting new people; loved Barber; but I never got to work on my course. Yes and no. It was somewhat rushed. Yes; I enjoyed the keynote speaker. Mrs. Stella Ting's presentations were great. The information provided in the other

sessions was also very valuable. It exceeded them and was even better than last year-a major achievement. Yes. It provides resources and teaching tools helping faculty to develop their

internationalization courses and research. Yes, I learned about how to internationalize a course. Yes, the speakers were excellent. Yes. It provided opportunity to explore the difficulties and dynamics of

communication across cultures and to reflect on the importance of addressing cross-cultural education.

Yes-and beyond. Made me think. The Institute, once again, exceeded my expectations.

Open-ended Question 30: What did you find most valuable about the Institute?

Yes. Yes. Yes. I found many additional materials, activities, and research sources. Time to step back and think about these issues. The presentations from the

various faculty about how they internationalize their courses. Yes-Intensive weeklong focus on one subject/topic offers a terrific learning

experience. Yes, informative and provides the most collegial experience of any activity for

faculty on the UCF campus. Yes. Yes, it was great. More than expectations. It was informative and socially very rewarding.

OEAS-SR-02-004 98 08/12/02

Not really. Yes. Yes. Barber exceeded expectations. I enjoyed meeting new people; loved Barber; but I never got to work on my course. Yes and no. It was somewhat rushed. Yes; I enjoyed the keynote speaker. Mrs. Stella Ting's presentations were great. The information provided in the other

sessions was also very valuable. It exceeded them and was even better than last year-a major achievement. Yes. It provides resources and teaching tools helping faculty to develop their

internationalization courses and research. Yes, I learned about how to internationalize a course. Yes, the speakers were excellent. Yes. It provided opportunity to explore the difficulties and dynamics of

communication across cultures and to reflect on the importance of addressing cross-cultural education.

Yes-and beyond. Made me think. The Institute, once again, exceeded my expectations.

Open-ended Question 31: What did you find least valuable about the Institute?

Group sessions. All the evaluation forms. The keynote. Nelly dominating sessions at expense of faculty. Poster making. Last three days. The International students demonstration. Fine. Funding session--too much science; communication sessions--could be cut in half

and get same valuable information and I already know how to search the web! Mentors. Having to spend all of Friday on the poster session. Too much time was wasted. N/A. The afternoon devoted to research. The research 'workshops'. Seemed to loose people by Thursday. The only session that was not superior was the first one conducted on using

technology to internationalize courses. We each stated what we hoped to accomplish in the session; we should have submitted our want-lists weeks before so the presenter could offer us something relevant and substantial.

Open-ended Question 32: Please offer your opinion and suggestions concerning the

scheduling (dates) of the Institute.

More hands on courses dedicated to teach more efficient methods. It is very difficult for the most out of the Institute when we have to stay up past

midnight the first three nights to finish grading. It is the only schedule that would work for most faculty members. Since this is grading week, I found it very difficult to give the Institute my individual

attention. Best and probably the only week available.

OEAS-SR-02-004 99 08/12/02

Dates good! Some sessions were too long. Skip Friday session-graduate is a problem (overlap) Worked out fine. Please don't put last day on same day as graduation; make last day shorter. Having the Institute all on campus was much better. Good. Fine. Break it out over a weekend. Tough to finish grading. Not a very good week. The dates are fine. Although it is a very busy time, this is the week. We don't have to have 8:00-9:00 session for meeting with mentors if such a

session is held in the afternoon. It would be better if the Institute did not fall on the days when grades are due to the

Registrar's office. Good dates-in fact, the only feasible dates. Excellent time slot. Use Mon-Thu (not during graduation). The present schedule is the best I can think of.

Open-ended Question 33: Please offer your opinion and suggestions concerning the

quality of the facilities.

Excellent. Rooms in the Student Union are too cold! Larger rooms and auditoriums made discussions difficult. Good. Very conducive to Institute gatherings/meetings. Excellent use of rooms, etc. Excellent. Perfect. Great. Good. All good. Good. Fine. Terrific. Facilities were great. Fine. The facilities were excellent. I found an exchange among faculty members in such programs is very important. I

wish we could have more time to get to know each other and have meaningful exchanges among us. It would benefit our teaching and research.

Facilities were very nice and appropriate. Excellent. Outstanding-but need a headquarters office as some of us read old schedule. The facilities were excellent-much better than last year. The variety of meeting

places (3) was good, too.

OEAS-SR-02-004 100 08/12/02

Open-ended Question 34: Please offer your opinion and suggestions concerning the management and structure of the program.

Very good except for Ms. Kijek. I missed the intensity of last year's Institute, starting out with a dynamic (if

upsetting) speaker, but otherwise things were well structured. Very organized. It was obvious that the OIS staff worked very hard to provide us

with this opportunity. Good. I would have enjoyed hearing both the research and the teaching talks. It seems to be run really well-well organized. Excellent organization, scheduling, timing of events. Remarkable for superior

quality of administrative effectiveness. Very well organized. Time! Maybe some extra time to work on projects. Great job. Good job Maria, Tony & Calston. Thank you all. More time to work on courses; less 'orientation' info about campus. Well done. Well-organized. Less time on Friday for poster session. Keep doing the same things as well as ever. The program was well planned and executed. Timing and levels were appropriate

and meaningful. Good management. Not sure yet-start poster session earlier and end earlier. Tillie is a first-rate administrator, one of the best at UCF. Management is invisible

and responsive to faculty interests, temperaments, and needs. The support staff (Tony, Maria, Joan, Nellie, etc.) is exceptionally pleasant, effective, and helpful. Tillie is outstanding in her competence.

Open-ended Question 35: What changes or additions would you like to see in future

Institutes?

Maybe if it were possible to establish the next institute outside the university. Continued dynamic speakers; possibly more small-group interaction on selected

topics. Put the faculty presentations earlier in the week to give us a frame of reference

from which to think about options for our courses. I'm not sure when the OIS could hold it's Institute but the last week of the spring

semester is a tough time to give it the time it deserves. Additional attention to contemporary international issues. More research issues/topics. None. Less social science models; more talks by folks like Barber, proposing valid

solutions for educational problems. To focus more on arts. Critical discussion about cultural appropriation. More opportunities for inter-faculty

discussion. More roundtable discussion. There are many more things one might like but there is only a limited time. The use

of the Institute is that it changes and evolves year by year. To invite some cultural anthropologists for workshop.

OEAS-SR-02-004 101 08/12/02

More attention on the mechanics of actual internationalizing a course. Fewer 'workshops'. M-Thu only. Cannot think of any.

Open-ended Question 36: Please list any additional comments or suggestions you may

have.

This has been an exhausting week. I'm afraid I have no suggestions at this time. Good job overall!

Thank you for the experience. I enjoyed it. Thanks! Loved it. Attempt to draw into the Institute faculty who are resistant to internationalizing

courses. The poster competition is loaded with a lot of people who have others make their

posters, I.e. Peter's and Cris’. They both had students do the poster! I would like to express my gratitude to D. Harris and her assistants for this great

experience! Thanks! At banquet, let the faculty talk with each other over the meal. It was again an excellent experience for which I am very grateful to the organizers. Very nicely done. The speakers (outside) are excellent and stimulating. The 'fill-in workshops' are

somewhat boring and retreads. I find these pretty much a waste of time. Keep going.

OEAS-SR-02-004 102 08/12/02

ASSESSMENT OF THE UCF FACULTY INTERNATIONAL STUDIES ...

Documents