A nemzetköziesedés jelentősége a felsőoktatásban

This Special Issue was conceived and developed following a series of international conferences held in Asia, with a particular focus on critically reflecting upon higher education development in the region from broader social and political economy perspectives. Some of the papers in this Special Issue were selected from presentations in the East Asia Social Policy (EASP) Research Network Conference successfully held in Taiwan in 2018, while others were chosen from international events held at Lingnan University in Hong Kong presenting critical reviews and reflections on internationalization, marketization and graduate employment of higher education in Asia. This introductory article puts the discussions of the selected papers in this issue in context, with critical reflections on the key issues being examined in these papers. The Special Issue is published when the world is still confronting the unprecedented global health crisis resulted from the outbreak of the COVID‐19 pandemic. This article discusses the higher education development trends in Asia through the massification, diversification and internationalisation processes in transforming the higher education system and examines how these development trends are affected by the COVID‐19 crisis.

Over the quarter century from 1950 to 1978 the number of tertiary-level students studying in foreign countries increased from 107,589 to 842,705-nearly eight times.' Between 1968 and 1978, the most recent 10-year period for which data is available, the increase was nearly 250 percent. If a straight-line projection is fitted to past numbers, overseas students will number nearly 21/2 million by the year 2000. From a quantitative standpoint, studying overseas has become important only since World War II. During the early postwar years, the number of overseas students remained constant and was a modest proportion of the total number of students in the world's rapidly expanding higher educational institutions. However, in recent years, while the rate of increase in numbers of overseas students has been high, the rate of increase in numbers of places in the world's higher educational institutions has begun to level off. Thus, since the early 1970s, the number of overseas students as a percentage of all students in the world has increased somewhat: from 2.0 percent in 1968 to 2.3 percent in 1978. Though many observers have commented on the rapid postwar increase in the number of overseas students, few have tried to explain that increase, and no serious attempts have been made to explain the considerable national differences in the numbers of students from other countries in

L'auteur analyse l'orientation de la politique engagee dans le secteur de l'enseignement superieur en Australie, qui a vu depuis 1980 une augmentation et une croissance exponentielle des inscriptions d'etudiants etrangers. Une analyse critique de cette internationalisation percue egalement comme etant une mondialisation de l'enseignement accompagne cette etude qui ne manque pas de traiter des questions relatives au financement des universites australiennes en comparaison avec d'autres pays anglophones presentant des conditions similaires.

The Institute of International Education (IIE) 2018 Open Doors report highlighted that the United States is the leading international education destination, having hosted about 1.1 million international students in 2017 (IIE, 2018a). Despite year over year increases, U.S. Department of State (USDOS, 2018) data show that for a third year in a row, international student visa issuance is down. This is not the first decline. Student visa issuance for long-term academic students on F visas also significantly dropped following the 9/11 attacks (Johnson, 2018). The fall in issuances recovered within 5 years of 2001 and continued to steadily increase until the drop in 2016. Taken together, the drops in international student numbers indicate a softening of the U.S. international education market. In 2001, the United States hosted one out of every three globally mobile students, but by 2018 it hosted just one of five (IIE, 2018b). This suggests that over the past 20 years, the United States has lost a share of mobile students in the international education market because they’re enrolled elsewhere. The Rise of Nontraditional Education Destination Countries Unlike the United States, the percentage of inbound students to other traditional destinations such as Canada, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, has remained stable since the turn of the 21st century. Meanwhile, nontraditional countries like the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Russia are garnering more students and rising as educational hotspots (Knight, 2013). The UAE and Russia annually welcome thousands of foreign students, respectively hosting over 53,000 and 194,000 inbound international university students in 2017 (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2019). This is not happenstance. In the past 5 years, these two countries, among others, have adopted higher education internationalization policies, immigration reforms, and academic excellence initiatives to attract foreign students from around the world. The UAE is one of six self-identified international education hubs in the world (Knight, 2013) and with 42 international universities located across the emirates, it has the most international branch campuses (IBCs) worldwide (Cross-Border Education Research Team, 2017). Being a country composed of nearly 90% immigrants, IBCs allow the UAE to offer quality higher education to its non-Emirati population and to attract students from across the Arab region and broader Muslim world. National policy and open regulations not only encourage foreign universities to establish IBCs, they alsoattract international student mobility (Ilieva, 2017). For example, on November 24, 2018, the national government updated immigration policy to allow foreign students to apply for 5-year visas (Government.ae, 2018). The Centennial 2071 strategic development plan aims for the UAE to become a regional and world leader in innovation, research, and education (Government.ae, 2019), with the long-term goal of creating the conditions necessary to attract foreign talent. Russia’s strategic agenda also intends to gain a greater competitive advantage in the world economy by improving its higher education and research capacity. Russia currently has two higher education internationalization policies: “5-100-2020” and “Export Education.” The academic excellence project, known as “5-100-2020,” funds leading institutions with the goal to advance five Russian universities into the top 100 globally by 2020 (Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation, 2018). The “Export Education” initiative mandates that all universities double or triple the number of enrolled foreign students to over half a million by 2025 (Government.ru, 2017). These policies are explicitly motivated by boosting the Russian higher education system and making it more open to foreigners. Another growing area is international cooperation. Unlike the UAE, Russia has few IBCs, but at present, Russian universities partner with European and Asian administrators and government delegates to create dual degree and short-term programs. Historically, Russia has been a leading destination for work and education migrants from soviet republics in the region, but new internationalization policies are meant to propel the country into the international education market and to attract international students beyond Asia and Europe. Future Trends in 21st Century International Education Emerging destination hotspots like the UAE and Russia are vying to become more competitive in the global international higher education market by offering quality education at lower tuition rates in safe, welcoming locations closer to home. As suggested by the softening of the U.S. higher education market, international students may find these points attractive when considering where to study. Sociopolitical shifts that result from events such as 9/11 or the election of Donald Trump in combination with student mobility recruitment initiatives in emerging destinations may disrupt the status quo for traditional countries by rerouting international student enrollment to burgeoning educational hotspots over the coming decades.

One consequence of the hype around globalization and education and debates on global political actors such as the World Bank, IMF and WTO—is that there has not been sufficient attention paid by education theorists to the development of a rigorous set of analytic categories that might enable us to make sense of the profound changes which now characterize education in the new millennium. 1 This is not a problema confined to education. Writing in the New Left Review, Fredric Jameson observes that debates on globalization have tended to be shaped by “…ideological appropriations— discussions not of the process itself, but of its effects, good or bad: judgements, in other words, totalizing in nature; while functional descriptions tend to isolate particular elements without relating them to each other.” In this paper we start from the position that little or nothing can be explained in terms of the causal powers of globalization; rather we shall be suggesting that globalization is the outcome of processes that involve real actors—economic and political—with real interests. Following Martin Shaw, we also take the view that globalization does not undermine the state but includes the transformation of state forms; “…it is both predicated on and produces such transformations.”3 Examining how these processes of transformation work, however, requires systematic investigation into the organization and strategies of particular actors whose horizons or effects might be described as global.

Internationalization of Higher Education

The Coronavirus pandemic 2019 (COVID-19) is hastily spreading, bringing pressure and challenges to international students and educators in a higher education institution who were locked down on campus during the COVID-19 outbreak. We sought to explore psychological experiences of international higher education students and educators during the COVID-19 pandemic in Eswatini. A qualitative phenomenological approach was adopted. Participants were 20 conveniently selected international higher education students and educators who were locked down on Campus from March 20 to September 25, 2020. The interviews were conducted face to face. Data were thematically analysed. The study was informed by the ecological systems theory. The psychological experiences of international higher education students and educators during COVID-19 pandemic were categorized in to four themes. Frist negative emotions present in early stages involving discomfort, anxiety and helplessness caused by isolation, fear and concern for safety. Second self-coping strategies included psychological and life adjustments, social distancing, acceptance of wearing of masks, hand sanitizing and online/blended learning. Third we reported growth under the crisis which included affection for family members, peers and self-reflection. Finally, we reported that positive emotions occurred concurrently with negative emotions. During the COVID-19 crisis positive and negative emotions of international higher education students and educators intertwined and co-occurred. Self-coping strategies and psychological growth played a crucial role in maintaining mental health of the students and educators. The international students and educators in a higher education institution appeared to be thriving in coping with the COVID19 crisis and lockdown situation which enhanced their participation in online/blended learning.

Hungary is a member of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) and follows a three-cycle higher education system based on the Bologna Process. Raising the number of international and domestic PhD students improves the position of Hungarian universities in international competition for higher education. There are around ten thousand full-time doctoral students; nearly 32% are internationals in Hungary, according to the Central Statistical Office. A great number of higher education institutions develop doctoral programs to attract more domestic and international students, hence, it is significantly important to get to know about students’ motivation to enrol in doctoral study in Hungary. This study was conducted in 2023 and examined international and domestic students’ motivation using the two-factor model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation proposed by the self-determination theory of human motivation. A questionnaire was administered to 100 international doctoral students, 45 males and 55 females, aged 25 to 45, and to 100 domestic doctoral students, 38 males and 62 females, aged 25 to 48 to explore the motivation to attend a Hungarian university. The results of the study show that the respondents endorsed more items on intrinsic motivation than on extrinsic motivation. There is a significant difference in motivation among domestic and international doctoral students at Hungarian universities. Domestic students demonstrate a higher level of motivation to get knowledge and a higher level of introjected regulation. International doctoral students show a higher level of amotivation compared to domestic students. The existing literature on international education is mostly focused on the skills and benefits students gain, but there has been limited research on doctoral students' motivation. At the same time, knowledge about international and domestic doctoral students' motivation can be used in program development which fits more to the motivational characteristics of doctoral students.

Mapping Comparative Education after Postmodernity

This essay is a call for world-systems analysis of education. Increasingly, the field of comparative education is moving toward more sophisticated examinations of education in relationship to economic, political, and social forces. Studies of the ecology of educational institutions and processes, however, often fail to take into account an international context of transactions. To date, most macro studies of education have taken the nation-state as the basic unit of analysis.' An examination of the international forces impinging upon education systems is no less essential than an examination of the international economic order would be to an

What Does Globalization Mean for Educational Change? A Comparative Approach

The COVID-19 pandemic has inflicted a tremendous impact on international higher education (Coffey et.al., 2020; IIE, 2020; Jayadeva, 2020; Mok et al., 2021). We assume that it will lead to some structural transformation in student mobility and international education. To foresee such structural transformation, we propose a comprehensive framework to monitor the changes not only in destination countries but also in source countries, and not only at institutional level (meso), but also at individual level (micro) and government level (macro). As a case study utilizing this framework, we present some analytical results of international student surveys conducted in the USA and Japan at the beginning of 2021: more than 400 international students shared their experiences and choices during the pandemic. We compare the responses not only by study destination (the USA and Japan) but also by student home country income level (World Bank classification). We examine the influence of government policies, institutional responses, and the relation of their host and home countries on their responses.As the result of the analysis, we found out that, in both the USA and Japan, the most serious issue perceived by the majority of international students is financial difficulty. Its main causes derive from loss or decrease of part-time jobs, decrease in scholarships, and disruption of remittance. The difficulty is more strongly felt by students from low or lower-middle-income countries than those from upper-middle-income countries.Their future plan has also been greatly affected by the COVID-19: 64 percent of the respondents in the USA and 87 percent of those in Japan who had planned to find employment in their study destination replied that they changed their plan because of the decrease in job offers, internship, interview and part-time job opportunities, caused by the COVID-19.Although most international students are rather satisfied with online classes, insufficient interaction between instructor and students and/or among students and unstable internet connection are among the issues reported by the international students.Regarding the future inflow of international students from their home country to their current study country, 63 percent of the respondents in the USA and 58 percent in Japan predict that it will decrease. Remote learning and decrease in employment opportunities in the study country are among the top reasons for their negative prediction.Although international higher education has expanded in the last twenty years (OECD, 2020), we may witness its decline in the near future. Many higher education institutions may struggle with the increased needs of online education and its price setting. Values and Cost-effectiveness of face-to-face “real” education will be reexamined by international students. Employment prospects and enhancement of employability will become more important in students’ choice of study destination. Employability is closely related to “soft skill” and “tacit knowledge,” which are likely to be acquired through face-to-face communication. Higher education institutions will be required to respond to such demand of international students.

Globalisation is driving the internationalisation of higher education, promoting open access to universities, enhancing educational programs with an international focus, and stronger presence in the international higher education market. Thus, globalisation stimulates the internationalisation of universities. For universities to attract international students successfully, it is necessary to understand general issues regarding the decision-making process. The study aims to analyse the benefits of studying abroad at a Hungarian university among international students. To fulfil the aim of this study, a questionnaire was administered to 100 international students, aged 18 to 38. The study results showed that international students had been looking for benefits while studying abroad, such as personal development, cultural experience, career prospects, and the possibility of travelling. Some benefits were also related to social and economic factors such as access to unique courses and knowledge, positive country image, safety situation, and affordable living costs in Hungary. The decision to study at a Hungarian university was made according to such benefits, including a desired program of study, comfortable facilities, flexible schedule, admission criteria, opportunity to improve English language skills, good reputation of the university, European degree, supportive environment, related costs, and future career prospects. At the same time, different age groups of international students considered the importance of benefits differently. Also, different groups of international students based on perceived social family status paid attention to different benefits. The findings of this study can be used for the promotion of Hungarian universities internationally to attract more international students with benefits that they look for when studying abroad.


 
 
 International student mobility has been increasingly subject to turbulences in politics, culture, economics, natural disasters, and public health. The new decade has witnessed an unprecedented disruption to international student flows and welfare as a consequence of the COVID-19 outbreak. COVID-19 has laid bare how fragile the current transactional higher education model is, in Australia and in other major destination countries like the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand. This health crisis hitting international education presents a range of challenges for host universities. In such a fallout, the connection between university communities and international students is more critical than ever. This connection is vital not only to university’s operations and recovery but more importantly, to international students’ learning and wellbeing. This in turn will have longer term impacts on host countries’ and universities’ sustainable international recruitment and reputation as a study destination. Therefore, it is timely to reflect on how we view and conceptualize the way we engage and work with international students. This article presents a new frame for conceptualizing the teaching, learning, and engagement for international students, which emphasizes people-to-people empathy and people-to-people connections.
 
 
 
 Conceptualize Student Connection Through Formal and Informal Curriculum
 Dis/connection has been argued to play “an important role in shaping international students’ wellbeing, performance and life trajectories” (Tran & Gomes, 2017, p. 1). Therefore, it is important to frame international student connectedness not only within the context of formal teaching and learning on campus, but also in a broader setting, taking into account the dynamic, diverse, and fluid features of transnational mobility.
 Some of the primary dimensions of international student connection vital to their academic and social experience and wellbeing have been identified as:
 • Connection with the content and process of teaching and learning• Bonding between host teachers and international students• Engagement with the university communities• Interaction between domestic and international students and among international peers• Integration into relevant social and professional networks, the host community, and the host society• Connection with family and home communities• Online and digital connection
 Based on interviews with around 400 international students, teachers, and international student support staff across different research projects, I identified four main principles underpinning effective engagement and support for international students. Most participants stressed the importance of understanding international students’ study purposes, needs, expectations, and characteristics in the first place in order to meaningfully and productively engage with and cater for this cohort (Tran, 2013). Second, effective teaching of and engagement with international students is based on understanding not only their academic needs but also other aspects that are interlinked with their academic performance, including pastoral care needs, mental health, employment, accommodation, finance, life plans, and aspirations. Third, a sense of belonging to the content of teaching and learning and the pedagogy used by teachers is essential to international students’ engagement with the classroom community. In this regard, connection is intimately linked to international students being included and valued intellectually and culturally in teaching and learning, and in being treated as partners (Green, 2019; Tran, 2013) rather than ‘others’ in the curriculum. Fourth, to position international students as truly an integral component of campus communities, it is essential to develop explicit approaches to engage them not only academically and interculturally, but also mentally and emotionally, especially during hard-hitting crises in international education such as the 2019–2020 COVID-19 outbreak, the 2003 SARS epidemic, and the 2001 September 11 attacks.
 Productive Connectedness
 The lack of engagement between international and domestic students is often identified as a primary area for improvement for universities that host international students, especially in Anglophone countries (Leask, 2009). While international education is supposed to strengthen people-to-people connections and enrich human interactions, ironically it is this lack of connection with the local community, including local students, that international students feel most dissatisfied about in their international education experience. To support and optimize the learning and wellbeing of international students, productive connectedness is essential. Productive connectedness is not simply providing the mere conditions for interaction between domestic and international peers (Tran & Pham, 2016). These conditions alone cannot ensure meaningful and real connectedness but can just lead to artificial or surface engagement between international students and the host communities. Productive connectedness is centered around creating real opportunities for international and local students to not only increase their mutual understandings, but importantly also to reciprocally learn from the encounter of differences and share, negotiate, and contribute to building knowledge, cultural experiences, and skills on a more equal basis. In this regard, productive connectedness is integral to optimizing teaching and learning for international students.
 Teaching and Learning for International Students
 Over the past 15 years, I and my colleagues have undertaken various research on conceptualizing the teaching and learning process for international students, an evolving and dynamic field of scholarship (Tran, 2011; Tran, 2013a, 2013b; Tran & Nguyen, 2015; Tran & Gomes, 2017; Tran & Pham, 2016). Figure 1 summarizes the six interrelated dimensions of teaching and learning for international students emerging from our research: connecting, accommodating, reciprocating, integrating, “relationalizing,” and empathy.
 
 Connecting
 It is critical in effective teaching and learning for international students that conditions are provided to engage them intellectually, culturally, socially, and affectively. Curriculum, pedagogies, and assessment activities should aim at supporting international students to make transnational knowledge, skills, experience, and culture, as well as people-to-people connections (Tran, 2013).
 Accommodating
 Effective teaching and learning for international students cannot be achieved without an effort to understand their purposes to undertake international education, their cultural and educational backgrounds, their characteristics, their identities, and their aspirations. Good teaching and learning practices in international education are often built on educators’ capacities to tailor their curriculum and pedagogies to cater to international students based on an understanding of their study purposes, backgrounds, and identities.
 Reciprocating
 Reciprocal learning and teaching is integral to international education (Tran, 2011). It is centered around positioning international students as co-constructors of knowledge and educators as reciprocal co-learners (Tran, 2013b). It refers to extending beyond mutual understanding and respect for diversity, to validate and reciprocally learn from diverse resources, experiences, and encounters of differences that international classrooms can offer. This is vital to making international students feel included and valued as an integral part of the curriculum and the university community.
 Integrating
 Integrating refers to the purposeful incorporation of international examples, case studies, materials, and perspectives into the curriculum. Strategies to diversify the teaching and learning content and pedagogies are closely connected with de- Westernizing the curriculum and moving away from Euro-centric content (Tran, 2013a). Integrating contributes to enriching students’ global awareness, world mindfulness, and intercultural competence, which are central to internationalizing student experience and outcomes.
 “Relationalizing”
 “Relationalizing” is crucial in assisting domestic and international students to develop open-minded and ethno-relative perspectives. Engaging students in a comparing–contrasting and reflexive process about professional practices, prior experiences, and cultural norms in different countries represents a critical step in assisting them to develop multiple frames of reference and build capacities to relationally learn from richly varied perspectives and experiences that an international classroom can offer.
 Empathy
 International students’ sense of belonging to the classroom and university community significantly depends on the empathy local teachers and students display toward them. Teachers can develop activities that enable students to develop an understanding and empathy toward what it feels like to be an international student in an unfamiliar academic and social environment, studying in a language that is not their mother tongue. One of the teacher-participants in our research shared an activity she used to help all students develop empathy:I asked for volunteers, I’d speak to them in English and they had to answer in their language. The group had to try and figure out from their body language and tone of voice what they were actually saying to me...But what I try and make them understand that part of the reason we’re doing that, not in English, is because it’s like excluding the local students and it’s making them look like foreigners and to understand the challenge.
 Conclusion
 Effective practices in engaging, teachin

Comparative Education: From Theory to Practice, or Are You A: \neo.* or B:\*. ist?