Development of the Community College Internationalization Index

Abstract

To address the shortage of skilled workers in the 21st century, shifting demographics, competition for education funding, and the need to better serve underrepresented student populations, colleges and universities in the United States seek to increase internationalization efforts. While a number of instruments exist for measuring internationalization at the university level, few instruments are designed for measuring campus-level institutionalization, particularly at public community colleges. Moreover, current community college instruments are based on outdated literature or make use of qualitative tools that are not necessarily applicable in all settings. This study utilized an exploratory sequential mixed-method design to construct a quantitative instrument to measure institutional-level internationalization in public community college settings. Qualitative data were used to develop a theory of community college internationalization, from which the Community College Internationalization Index was developed. The CCII will be valuable for tracking public community colleges’ progress in internationalization efforts.

Keywords

internationalization of community colleges assessment mixed-methods research exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis validity reliability

Introduction

For the United States to fill the critical shortage of skilled 21st-century workers, the Obama administration set a goal of five million additional graduates from U.S. public associate colleges by 2020 (The White House, 2013). Also, the U.S. Department of Labor secured US$2.5 billion in funding to create the Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training Grant Program, directed to support evidenced-based innovative program development in these colleges (U.S. Department of Labor, 2011). Adding to the challenges of global market fluctuations and rapidly changing technology, community college stakeholders encounter shifting demographics as immigrant, refugee, and underrepresented populations increasingly access educational options offered at their local community college. These trends indicate that the rate at which Americans attain associate degrees will extend beyond the current 25% level in upcoming decades (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013).

In response, an estimated 21% of associate colleges have developed institutional internationalization plans, which compares with 55% of their university counterparts (American Council on Education [ACE], 2012). Educating skilled millennial employees necessitates public associate college planning and funding, but federal, state, and local higher education budgets have dwindled during the prolonged economic recession. Consequences include community colleges competing with K-12 education for funding, greater numbers of families receiving public assistance, and increasing numbers of elderly supported by social programs while taxpayers and government agencies have increased scrutiny necessitating evidenced-based demonstrations of tax dollar spending (Berdahl, Altbach, & Gumport, 2011; Townsend & Dougherty, 2006).

Purpose

Despite the expanded community college role, increasingly diverse student populations, and increased need for evidence-based demonstrations of institutional effectiveness, there currently are no quantitative instruments designed specifically to measure institutional internationalization at the community college level. The purpose of this article is to report on the development and validation of the Community College Internationalization Index (CCII), a quantitative instrument designed to meet this distinctive need, which is theoretically derived and reflective of recent global population shifts, immigration issues, technological advancements, geo-political transformations, and socioeconomic effects of a global economy.

The History of Instrumentation to Measure Internationalization

This section details the main reasons why current instrumentation is inadequate for measuring community college internationalization in today’s environment. First, current tools aim to measure constructs specific to university settings and stakeholders. In fact, a number of authors have discussed that, in the United States, the internationalization of higher education has been studied in 4-year institutions for decades, but has remained largely unaddressed in public associate college settings (Altbach & Knight, 2007; ACE, 2012; Berdahl et al., 2011; Brewer & Leask, 2012; Childress, 2009; Deardorff, 2006; de Wit & Merkx, 2012; Green & Siaya, 2005; Hudzik & Stohl, 2009; Klasek, 1992; Knight, 2004, 2012; Morais & Ogden, 2011). Table 1 displays current tools that have been developed for the assessment of internationalization-related constructs, each of which was developed in relation to university students and settings. Researchers have pointed out that instruments developed in a specific setting for a particular use may not be generalizable to another setting or use (DeVellis, 2012; Hudzik, 2011), or may simply be misaligned with the structure, mission, and goals of the different setting (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Current tools were intended to measure individual student competencies, perspectives, or attitudes, but none have been designed to measure institutional levels of internationalization such as curricular offerings, budgets, and/or policies related to internationalization. Thus, measurement setting and objectives are reasons why it would be inappropriate to use existing university instruments to measure institutional-level internationalization in a community colleges setting.

Table 1.

University Instruments That Measure Constructs Related to Internationalization.

Instrument	Author(s)	Construct
Beliefs, Events, and Values Inventory	Shealy (2004)	Intercultural beliefs
Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory	Kelly and Meyers (1992)	Intercultural ability
Global Awareness Profile	Corbitt (1998)	Appreciation of intercultural complexity
Global Beliefs in a Just World Scale	Lipkus (1991)	Cultural beliefs
Global Competence Aptitude Assessment	Hunter, White, and Godbey (2006)	Global awareness
Global Citizenship Scale	Morais and Ogden (2011)	Intercultural ability
Global Perspective Inventory	Braskamp (2015)	Cultural development
Global Proficiency Inventory	Braskamp, Braskamp, Merrill, and Engberg (2008)	Worldview
Intercultural Adjustment Potential Scale	Matsumoto et al. (2001)	Living/studying abroad
Intercultural Development Inventory	Hammer, Bennett, and Wiseman (2003)	Intercultural awareness
International Education Survey	DeDee and Stewart (2003)	International experiential effect
Miami University Diversity Awareness Scale	Mosley-Howard, Witte, and Wang (2011)	Diversity awareness
South Pacific Studies Abroad Survey	Tarrant (2010)	Study abroad effect

Source. Author’s compilation.

Second, the one existing quantitatively designed instrument that was designed for use in community college settings, “Measuring Internationalization at Community Colleges” (Green & Siaya, 2005), is outdated. This special report, which emerged from the American Council on Education (2012) mapping efforts, utilized data in the tool’s construction that were collected prior to the impact of September 11, 2001. Moreover, the literature review that guided tool development employed a 1990s body of work. Also, respondents to the survey represented leadership perspectives exclusively, with no voice given to other stakeholders. For these reasons, the tool may not adequately measure institutional levels of internationalization occurring in community colleges at the present time.

Third, the existing qualitative tools may not be suitable for community college settings. In particular, ACE provides several qualitative tools (rubrics, checklists, categories) available to educators and administrators through their website. In general, these tools were developed for use in university settings and constructs, with the exception of the Kapiolani Community College (KCC) matrix. This rubric is notable because it was developed while KCC was a member of a consulting organization to which KCC paid fees in exchange for a customized rubric (Community Colleges for International Development [CCID], 2013). In addition, KCC is located in Hawaii and serves high numbers of international students who transfer to the University of Hawaii. The unique demographic of KCC students, the offshore geographic location of KCC, and the fact that KCC paid a consultant for a service to gain assistance in internationalizing is not a situation that is typical of most U.S. community colleges, which suggests that this rubric may be of limited use for most community college institutions. Moreover, a general criticism about qualitative tools is that they represent a prescribed set of standards or best practices. Hudzik (2011, p. 22) has argued that the term best practice assumes that there is, in fact, an ideal approach. Furthermore, Hudzik posits that while effective models in a specific setting may be transferable to similar settings, this does not translate to the decisive approach. Best practices are proposed to provide an archetype that may be achievable only under particular conditions. Consequently, institutions that have chosen to accept the idea of, and seek to implement, best practices may inherently limit their innovative potential and institutional discovery because they are following a prescriptive template (Copeland, 2015).

Contextual Disparities

It is possible that instruments designed for use in university settings could be used in community colleges, but there are distinctions between these settings. For example, public associate colleges tend to serve greater numbers of nontraditional, undocumented, or immigrant students; have an open-door policy; are locally funded; and have high levels of local- and state-level accountability (Townsend & Dougherty, 2006; Valeau & Raby, 2007). In contrast, universities tend to have more expansive public profiles, admission standards, international interests, more frequent external partnering opportunities, and more alumni funding sources (Berdahl et al., 2011; Townsend & Dougherty, 2006). These differences affect what, who, and how to measure internationalization processes in these respective settings.

In addition to the potential misalignment between community college needs and existing university developed instrumentation, there is less internationalization research that is both current and specific to community college settings upon which to build an instrument, when compared to university settings. For example, there are two practitioner-based volumes of New Directions for Community Colleges directed toward general practices and case studies in community college internationalization efforts (2007 and 2013). However, many of the essays in the 2013 volume refer to essays in the 2007 volume, which in turn references the seminal but dated report by Green and Siaya (2005), as previously discussed. The few existing peer-reviewed studies to be found in the internationalization literature exploring community college settings include topics related to how global events have affected planning (Frost, 2009), faculty job satisfaction (Mamiseishvili, 2011), and student study abroad participation (Twombly, Salisbury, Tumanut, & Klute, 2013; Zhang, 2011). The number of currently available community college resources is insufficient to adequately develop a quantitative instrument aimed at measuring institutional-level constructs in a community college setting, particularly when compared with those arising from university settings (Table 1).

Thus, there is a need for a quantitative instrument developed within community college contexts, informed by literature relevant to community college settings, interpreted in the context of existing global conditions, aligned with current technology, consistent with campus demographics, and informed by the worldwide geo-political shifts in which these associate-level graduates will seek employment. The CCII fills this assessment need.

Method and Findings

A two-phase exploratory sequential mixed-method research design was appropriate for this instrument development study because no instruments currently exist to assess internationalization processes at community college institutions, nor are theories or variables entirely known (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; DeVellis, 2012). Phase I research questions were addressed through qualitative inquiry for the purpose of developing a theoretical framework relevant to institutionalization on community college campuses. Phase II questions, related to instrument development, were addressed using quantitative methods.

Research Questions

To posit a theory and delineate constructs related to internationalization processes, Phase I qualitative research questions included the following:

Research Question 1: What are public associate college administrators’ perceptions regarding the process of internationalizing their respective institutions?

Research Question 2: How do internationalization plans develop in public associate college settings?

Research Question 3: How are dissimilar stakeholders engaged in internationalization processes in public associate college settings?

Instrument development was addressed during Phase II, driven by two quantitative questions:

Can an instrument that expands upon existing instruments that were designed to measure singular internationalization components in university settings be developed to measure public associate college internationalization holistically?

Can acceptable validity and reliability estimates be established for the newly created instrument to measure public associate college internationalization?

Consistent with the methods of instrument development and exploratory mixed-methods designs, data and results of both phases of the study were interpreted individually, each informing analyses of the other and emphasizing how results to both the qualitative and quantitative questions are connected (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011).

Phase I: Developing a Theory of Community College Internationalization

In addressing the qualitative research questions, Phase I of the study used a systematic grounded-theory approach to gather data based on emerging concepts arising out of interviews, utilizing a procedure known as theoretical sampling (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). To adequately investigate the spectrum of perspectives by which a theory could be demarcated, a wide range of institutional sizes, community types, geographic settings, and individual stakeholders were purposively selected (Creswell, 2013, 2014; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). Corbin and Strauss (2008) have proposed that individual experiences contextualized in a broader phenomenon can illuminate processes and linkages. Consequently, a well-delineated model of internationalization was more likely to emerge by obtaining insights from varying stakeholders. Ultimately, leaders or administrators will use the instrument, but their roles require them to make decisions on behalf of many individuals.

Participants/Phase I

The following criteria were applied to the sampling of institutions (Items 1-5) and individual participants (Item 6).

The institution was regionally accredited by a recognized agency such as the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS).

The institution employed a representative (staff, administrator, or faculty member) who was responsible for internationalization issues or duties.

The institution was a public associate college, commonly referred to as traditional community colleges, meaning that no degree higher than an associate degree was awarded (Carnegie Foundation, 2013).

Institutional members of the for-profit CCID organization were excluded (CCID, 2013).

Specialty schools (e.g., military, tribal, schools for the blind, U.S. territories) were excluded from the study.

Individual participants were at least 18 years of age and a member of any stakeholder group (student, faculty, staff, employer, administrator, leader, board member, or community partner) who had an internationalization experience with the institution. In the context of this study, community partners represented organizations for which a college had a relationship to offer educational or training opportunities to students or faculty. This may have included, for example, other colleges that partner for study abroad programs, or local social service organizations that partner for service-learning projects, refugee or immigrant training, or guest speaker exchanges.

In addition, to facilitate a more representative community college sample, institutions were selected based upon geographic location, enrollment size, and community setting (suburban, rural, or urban-serving communities). Ultimately, 15 U.S. community colleges were selected for inclusion in the study sample. Using U.S. Census Bureau (2013) geographical distinctions, two of the 15 institutions selected were located in the Northeast, three in the Midwest, four in the West, and six in the South. In regard to institutional size, the sample was constructed to include one small, three medium, seven large, and four very large colleges (Carnegie Foundation, 2013). In regard to community type, four institutions were in suburban settings, eight in rural settings, and three were defined as urban-serving campus locations (Carnegie Foundation, 2013).

To yield a complex picture of internationalization, 29 participants were selected across all relevant stakeholder groups. Thirteen were faculty, three were staff, nine held leadership positions, three were students, and one fit the criteria for community partners. Faculty members represented a variety of departments in the humanities, arts, and social sciences, as well as business, science, and mathematics. Student participants contributed immigrant and veteran perspectives. Staff members provided student service, athletics, and campus ministry representation. Leadership included administrators in workforce development/continuing education and degree awarding departments as well as institutional foundation capacities. There were between one and 10 participants per institution. Twelve institutions were represented by one participant. Two institutions were represented by two participants. One institution had three participants. One institution had 10 participants. Participant gender was 51% female and 49% male. Most interviews (75%) lasted 15 to 20 min, while the remainder continued between 30 and 60 min. Figure 1 displays participant roles.

Figure 1.

Phase I participants’ institutional roles. Note that WFD refers to work-force development programs.

Procedures/Phase I

Data were comprised of interview transcripts and related documents. To obtain dense data, the interview protocol included open-ended questions guided by a literature review with more specific follow-up questions as appropriate. Questions were posed in relation to the stakeholder’s role. Analysis of transcript data used a grounded-theory approach with MAXQDA® (Version 11) qualitative software. Data were deconstructed and reconstructed vis-à-vis coding, theoretical sampling, asking questions of the data, and constant comparisons processes (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Creswell, 2013, 2014).

The analyses revealed two dominant typologies: recognition and integration of internationalization processes. Context was brought into the qualitative analysis so that interrelationships could be determined among and between stakeholder groups and institutional settings relative to specific variables (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). These processes were critical to development of a well-grounded theory and constructs upon which to develop the instrument’s dimensions, clarification of what should be measured, and determining the level of specificity of the analysis (DeVellis, 2012). Consideration of the span of each construct, typologies, and connections that were illuminated during coding processes was requisite to facilitate the generation of sufficient and adequate pool items for the CCII during Phase II.

Results/Phase I

Results of qualitative analyses were distilled into a narrative theory, which was developed into an overarching definition and operationalized constructs that portray public associate college internationalization processes by which to guide instrument development (Table 2). The theory begins with students at all levels of preparedness entering the college as these open-door institutions strive to meet local community needs by way of degrees, certificates, or personal enrichment programs. In relation to internationalization, some stakeholders interact with external constituents responding to immigrant or refugee student needs, while others participate in study abroad or limited partnering opportunities. Students may encounter elements of internationalization, but efforts are uneven and fragmented across the institution.

Table 2.

Phase I Definition and Operationalized Constructs of the CCII.

Phase I definition of public associate college internationalization
The recognition of worldwide cultural changes and the progression of integrating community need for multicultural dimensions into the offerings of public associate college programs and student services.
Construct	Operationalization
Rationales	Reasons that public associate colleges fund, plan, or strategize for internationalization. In particular, perceived demand for globally prepared graduates, acknowledgment of changing worldwide and community cultural demographic shifts, and student program success and completion.
Assessment	What, who, and how institutions measure their internationalization progression over prescribed time intervals either within or across institutional units or stakeholders.
Obstacles	Challenges encountered by public associate college stakeholders during the process of internationalization; particularly related to leadership and organizational strategies, geographic location, and campus infrastructure and resources.
Community Exchange	Institutional response to local training and educational needs as a result of economic change or development and shifting demographics.
Curriculum	Educational and training offerings to increase students’ access to global or multicultural perspectives, skills, or credentials.
Faculty Practices	Roles faculty assume or activities in which they engage as they sustain or expand institutional internationalization processes.
Institutional Formation	Leadership roles, strategizing, and planning that embed internationalization processes into the overarching institutional mission and culture.
Student Development	Roles students assume, or are expected to assume, and services accessed by students as they seek to benefit from the level of internationalization throughout the institutional units.

Note. CCII = Community College Internationalization Index.

Phase II: Developing an Instrument to Measure Community College Internationalization

To address the quantitative research questions, Phase II constituted an eight-step instrument development procedure proposed by DeVellis (2012) that addressed two essential psychometric properties. The first, external validity, was established by employing an expert review and concurrent validity analyses. The second, internal reliability, was evaluated by computing Cronbach’s coefficient alpha and evaluating confirmatory factor analytic results (DeVellis, 2012; Nunnally, 1978). A final ninth step has been added here to present a scoring key, which makes the instrument useful to practitioners for the assessment of internationalization in community college settings. The details of the methodology are reported elsewhere (Copeland, 2015) and summarized below.

Participants/Phase II

Public associate college leaders and administrators believed to be likely to be involved in internationalization at their institutions were identified as potential participants via an Internet search of publicly available institutional websites. A stratified sampling procedure was used that yielded a list of potential participants across 24 states. To optimize analyses related to instrument psychometric properties during Phase II, a sample of 300 respondents was targeted (DeVellis, 2012; Nunnally, 1978; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). Consequently, a recruitment e-mail was deployed via SurveyMonkey® to 2,000 prospective participants who met the inclusion criteria. One reminder e-mail was also sent to nonrespondents during the 3-week period the anonymous survey remained accessible. One hundred eighty-one respondents (9% response rate) accessed the survey. Eighty-nine respondents provided complete data, which were included in the final analyses. Table 3 displays the roles and institutional demographics in relation to Phase II respondents.

Table 3.

Phase II Subjects (N = 89) Role and Institutional Demographics.

Institutional role (n = 89)	%
President	1.1
Vice president or associate/assistant vice president	10.0
Provost or associate/assistant provost	1.1
Director or associate/assistant director	31.1
Dean or associate/assistant dean	23.3
Program lead/manager/coordinator or chairperson	22.2
Librarian	1.1
Other (Trade, vocational education, personal enrichment, English Second Language programs)	10.0
Institutional department (n = 80)	%
Senior administration	22.5
Academics or college transfer	52.5
Student services	17.5
Workforce development or community development	7.5
Estimated Full-time Enrollments (n = 86)	%
0 to 500 (Very small)	4.7
501 to 1,999 (Small)	17.4
2,000 to 4,999 (Medium)	27.9
5,000 to 9,999 (Large)	25.6
10,000 or more (Very large)	24.4

Procedures and results/Phase II

The following steps were followed in the process that led to the development of the instrument.

Step 1. Establish what is to be measured.

Clarifying what was to be measured, and at which level of specificity, was based upon a well-grounded theory with delineated boundaries that was developed from Phase I data analyses (DeVellis, 2012).

Step 2. Develop an item pool.

An initial 80-item pool formed of written declarative statements that represented the instrument’s purpose and reflective of the theory developed in Phase I was constructed (DeVellis, 2012). Interview transcripts, quote summaries, posited constructs, and operational definitions were used to inform item construction in a manner to ensure content validity, and refinements to wording effectiveness occurred during this step (Copeland, 2015).

Step 3. Determine scale format.

Decisions about scale format, length, and instructions for use were informed by the choice of target participants for the study (public associate college leaders), noting that Likert-type scales successfully measure sentiments (DeVellis, 2012; Nunnally, 1978). Moreover, to enhance instrument reliability, scales with more gradations are recommended (DeVellis, 2012). Following these guides, response options were developed on a continuum ranging from 0% to 100%, at 10% intervals, where prospective respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement to each statement. Additional refinements occurred to reduce the length of the instrument, resulting in a 52-item pool that reflected eight posited constructs: definitions or rationales (9 items), assessment (4 items), obstacles (4 items), community exchange (3 items), curriculum (6 items), faculty practices (6), institutional formation (9 items), and student development (11 items).

Step 4. Expert review.

For the purpose of both increasing content validity and decreasing the instrument’s size, 34 experts were identified by means of a literature review, professional groups, or through professional contacts (DeVellis, 2012). Each of these individuals had researched and/or been employed in the realms of community college research, internationalization of community colleges, community college leadership, internationalization of higher education, internationalization assessment, instrument development, or a combination of these specialty areas. Ultimately, 10 experts provided survey responses and feedback for use in three analyses.

First, each expert ranked the applicability of individual items as high, moderate, or low in relation to the posited constructs. The intraclass correlation coefficient, R, was utilized as an internal indicator of reliability, with an established acceptable level of R = .60 (Multon, 2010). Using a two-way random model and average measures, R = .556 was obtained, and the confidence interval statistics 95% CI = [.344, .718], which includes R = .60. In combination, these results may be interpreted as fair interrater reliability and suggested that approximately 95 of 100 rater samples would result in R measures between .344 (low) and .718 (high).

Second, each expert assigned individual items into one of eight categories, which represented the posited constructs derived during Phase I. Thirty-five of the 52 items (67%) were categorized similarly by two thirds of the experts, providing evidence of content validity. Consequently, these 35 items were retained for additional refinements prior to becoming the modified version of the instrument.

Third, experts were invited to provide commentary, both generally about the item pool and its operationalized constructs, and in relation to specific items. Feedback informed modifications with the goal of increasing content validity. Criticism emerged along three central themes: operationalized definitions; wording choices, clarity, or grammar, and potential data collection obstacles. Items were refined based upon the feedback. The modified 35-item instrument reflected four dimensions: institutional formation (15 items), curriculum (10 items), faculty practices (three items), and student development (seven items).

Step 5. Concurrent validity.

Five relevant and previously validated items that align to the two items on the developed instrument were integrated into the item pool, with modified wording to parallel the current instrument’s intended purpose, to assess concurrent validity (Braskamp, 2015; DeVellis, 2012; Morais & Ogden, 2011; Prieto, 2012), which was analyzed during Step 6.

Step 6. Survey administration and concurrent validity analyses.

As described above, a recruitment e-mail (and one reminder e-mail, if appropriate), including a link to the SurveyMonkey® instrument, was sent to 2,000 prospective participants who met the inclusion criteria. Data analysis was conducted on the responses of 89 participants who provided complete data. Concurrent validity was assessed for two dimensions (faculty practices and student development) through the inclusion of five pool items from three previously validated instruments (Braskamp, 2015; Morais & Ogden, 2011; Prieto, 2012). The other theorized dimensions (leadership, assessment, and community engagement practices) were not included as concurrent validity items because previously validated instruments that appropriately align to the purpose of the instrument do not currently exist. Interitem correlations were computed between five CCII items and the corresponding prevalidated items resulting in values between r = .681 and .859, indicating moderately strong positive correlations and suggesting that the developed pool items, in relation to their respective hypothesized dimension (faculty practices and student development), measure what they were intended to measure.

Step 7. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFA and CFA).

Preliminary EFA and EFA were conducted to guide selection of pool items that may eventually lead to optimal instrument structure and reliability (see Copeland, 2015, for details). Using a criterion based on factor loadings obtained during EFA (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013), the 35 items were reduced to a preliminary 30-item scale. The scale consisted of the following dimensions: (a) student development (direct and indirect) with eleven items, (b) institutional formation with eight items, (c) assessment (internal and external) with six items, and (d) amplifying efforts with five items. This refined scale was advanced to CFA procedures for further modification in relation to reliability.

Step 8. Concluding confirmatory factor analyses.

Final CFA serves to refine scale length and determine reliability, which is established utilizing Cronbach’s coefficient alpha (see Copeland, 2015, for details). This measure is computed for each dimension and its respective items. If a particular dimension demonstrates a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of at least .70 but no higher than .89, the dimension is considered acceptable for instrument purposes (DeVellis, 2012) and items in that respective dimension are considered balanced (Churchill, 1979). If not, balancing strategies are used, which may include corrected item-total correlation values, detection of items demonstrating distinguishably low or high variances, or an item mean value that is far removed from midrange of its respective dimension. For items identified as possibly causing an imbalance, the item was removed from its dimension, and Cronbach’s alpha was recomputed to determine whether the dimension achieved an acceptable alpha level without the item. If that were the case, the item remained omitted from the subscale. If an acceptable level of Cronbach’s alpha was not achieved by removal of the particular item, then the item did not cause the imbalance and was replaced into the subscale (see Copeland, 2015, for details). The results after rebalancing efforts revealed a 20-item four-dimensional scale. Three of the four dimensions demonstrated acceptable reliability levels: student development (eight items; two subdimensions; α = .890 each), assessment (six items; two subdimensions; α = .846 and .876, respectively), and amplifying efforts (three items; α = .877). The fourth dimension, institutional formation (three items; α = .914) exhibited a less delineated structure because it demonstrated an alpha level beyond the acceptable upper threshold of .89. Table 4 reports reliability results, and the appendix displays the final 20-item pool.

Table 4.

Final Confirmatory Factor Analaysis (20 Items).

Dimension	Subdimension (if applicable)	No. of items	Alpha	Interitem correlation range
Student Development	Direct	4	.890	.584-.808
Student Development	Indirect	4	.890	.614-.691
Institutional Formation		3	.914	.737-.808
Assessment	Internal	3	.846	.589-.716
Assessment	External	3	.876	.625-.795
Amplifying Efforts		3	.877	.609-.807

Note. Boldfaced value represents α > .90.

Sample size and communalities

The sample size obtained in Phase II (N = 89) necessitated consideration of germane sample size perspectives because CFA is a type of structural equation modeling that is sensitive to small sample sizes (e.g., DeVellis, 2012; Hogarty, Hines, Kromrey, Ferron, & Mumford, 2005; MacCallum, Widaman, Preacher, & Hong, 2001; Mundfrom, Shaw, & Ke, 2005; Nunnally, 1978; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). To determine whether a delineated structure resulting from a small-sized sample is stable and convincingly reliable, communality and factor loading analyses may be used.

These alternate approaches, which are addressed by a number of researchers (e.g., DeVellis, 2012; Hogarty et al., 2005; MacCallum et al., 2001; Mundfrom et al., 2005; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013), indicate that for structure with high communalities or high factor loadings, smaller sample sizes are acceptable. In particular, if each item’s communality is at least .60 or if the mean level of the communalities is at least .70, small sample size impact is reduced. Moreover, if the number of variables (items) that load on each factor is at least three or if there are a small number of delineated factors (three to five) and five to seven variables (items) represent each factor, then the structure is deemed as stable. Applying these criteria to the current study, the CCII structure may be considered stable. In particular, the current study indicated that 27 of the 29 retained items revealed communalities over .60 whereas all items combined to an average communality of .72. In relation to a loading criterion, the final structure in the current study contained four dimensions (factors), of which each included at least three items.

Step 9. Scoring key

The scoring key was devised to provide a clear-cut calculation for both dimensional and total scores. Specifically, each dimension is scored by summing the responses for each item in the dimension and dividing by the number of items in the dimension, yielding a measure of the perception of the degree to which that dimension has been addressed in the target institution. Similarly, a total CCII score is calculated by summing the responses for all items and dividing by the total number of items in the instrument, which is 20. Thus, items for each dimension and the total will range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating the perception of stronger internationalization effort. This set of scores will be useful for longitudinal tracking of internationalization efforts within an institution and also for comparisons across institutions.

Mixed-Methods Results

Results of the qualitative and quantitative phases of the study were interpreted holistically so that qualitative analyses informed quantitative instrument design and the results of the quantitative analyses were extended beyond psychometric properties to assess the degree to which the statistical results further expanded the initial qualitative findings (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011).

Answering Phase I Qualitative Research Questions

Qualitative data analyses culminated in a theory and posited constructs in relation to the overarching question: What are public associate college administrators’ perceptions regarding the process of internationalizing their respective institutions? To answer this question, findings were summarized into a guiding definition and operationalized constructs of community college internationalization that informed what was to be measured and at which level of specificity during instrument development. Although findings that contributed to these definitions arose from all stakeholder perspectives, the results were contextualized from the perspective of institutional leaders because ultimately these stakeholders would administer the CCII, on behalf of their institutional stakeholders. Table 2 displays these findings.

The second qualitative question posed: How do internationalization plans develop in public associate college settings? The answer to this question arises from results of qualitative analyses that suggested internationalization plans developed as corollaries to student success efforts. These strategies were often sheathed beneath essential institutional functions and generally disjointed, but internationalization plans emerged because stakeholders perceived particular student needs related to globalization and internationalization, and stakeholders sought to respond to these needs in a manner that optimized student success. While analyses often pointed to planning efforts aligned with existing student success pedagogy such as learning communities, experiential and service learning, and tutoring (Center for Community College Student Engagement, 2012), other discoveries underscored unique and organic efforts across all of the 15 institutions.

For example, one small-sized institution in rural Virginia offered faculty travel grants outside the United States for the purpose of curricular development. Notably, the funding was provided through the institutional foundation from a local donor who recognized that this rural community college could not readily offer travel opportunities for students. Instead, up to three faculty were awarded funding each year by which to develop curriculum that could affect many more students than the number that could ever travel due to costs, job, and family duties. Thus, faculty were expected to collaborate with faculty at the institution(s) being visited to develop curriculum related to specific programmatic offerings at the home institution. In one instance, a textiles faculty member visited a South American institution, during which the home-faculty member encountered tree species and manufacturing processes not present in the United States and the current curriculum. Upon return, the faculty member worked within the department to modify the existing home curriculum to include these insights. Ultimately, the curricular addition was intended to enhance students’ future employment prospects.

The third qualitative research question posited: How are dissimilar stakeholders engaged in internationalization processes in public associate college settings? The answer to this question is that stakeholders engaged in internationalization processes because they perceived their efforts would augment student success, enhance students’ employability, or increase students’ global competency. Moreover, engagement occurred in relation to an individual stakeholder’s role. For example, if a faculty member perceived that there were immigrant or international students present in their classroom along with locally born students, the faculty member often responded by involving students with each other collaboratively so that both local and foreign-born students could gain communication skills and team-building dynamics. This occurred in humanities courses as well as mathematics and science courses. In a different instance, a stakeholder in a leadership position noted that faculty were often underresourced as they attempt to bring perspectives that are more global into their classroom discussions. This particular stakeholder mediated an exchange between local service agencies and faculty members so that refugee- and immigrant-guest speakers could visit relevant classroom settings, such as sociology and religion courses, to provide first-person perspectives to students. A quote from a student-support stakeholder at yet another institution best summarizes the overall sentiment expressed by participants:

Our main goal is to support student success. So if students were to state that they needed some sort of more internationalized or global training at our institution I think the institution would be most likely to respond to that.

Answering Phase II Quantitative Research Questions

Instrument development was addressed with the two quantitative questions. The first is, can an instrument that expands upon existing instruments that were designed to measure singular internationalization components in university settings be developed to measure public associate college internationalization holistically? Here, holistic refers to whether the spectrum of singular stakeholder perspectives discovered in Phase I is present in the resulting tool developed in Phase II. In this regard, constructs that were revealed in Phase I analyses were indeed present after Phase II analyses, with the exception of institutional formation and leadership. This may be because efforts to internationalize tend to be bottom-up and fragmented as reported by participants in both phases of the study. Moreover, the CCII used development strategies to build on existing tools that assess only singular components such as student competencies or study abroad, but leadership and governance dimensions are potentially numerous.

The second quantitative research question is, can acceptable validity and reliability estimates be established for the newly created instrument to measure public associate college internationalization? As reported above, quantitative analyses resulted in a 20-item CCII that encompasses four dimensions. Validity (content and construct) was demonstrated through expert review analyses and concurrent validity strategies, respectively. Reliability was demonstrated by communalities, the number of variables (items) that load on each factor (dimensions), and the number of delineated factors (dimensions). Specifically, three CCII dimensions were clearly delineated and consisted of student development (eight items; two subdimensions; α = .890 each), assessment (six items; two subdimensions; α = .846 and α = .876, respectively), and amplifying efforts (three items; α = .877). The fourth dimension, institutional formation (three items; α = .914), exhibited less clear structure. In combination, both validity and reliability have been demonstrated on the CCII instrument.

Interpreting Results

Two main observations have been made in relation to the qualitative results of the study. First, student success as a rationale for community college internationalization efforts was prominently observed across the community colleges that participated in Phase I of the study.

Second, these same institutions did not embrace internationalization as an overarching mission. Rather, internationalization was contextualized more generally as an open-door mission in terms of responding to community and student educational and training needs, that is, admitting students at their current level of academic readiness and moving them along a continuum to greater employment and educational opportunities. This could mean providing English courses to immigrants or using social media to teach sociology students about the impact of global events.

Overall, these results stand in contrast when compared with rationales and missions emerging from university settings. As suggested by prior research (Berdahl et al., 2011; Knight, 2012; Raby & Valeau, 2007; Townsend & Dougherty, 2006; Valeau & Raby, 2007), 4-year institutions may often be motivated to internationalize as a revenue source collected from elevated international student fees; however, the current findings suggest that community colleges may tend to incorporate internationalization as a facet of student success, rather than economic gain. In relation to mission, internationalization may be the mission in a university setting (Altbach & Knight, 2007; Deardorff, deWit, Heyl, & Adams, 2012; Knight, 2012), whereas public associate colleges’ internationalization efforts tend to be more related to the open-door mission, often motivated by providing pathways to student success, and may be a component of a broader set of initiatives rather than the initiative. The apparent differences between these two institutional types in regard to internationalization underscores the need for a tool unique to community college settings, updated to reflect current global changes, and capable of yielding evidence-based demonstrations of institutional change. The findings of this study suggest that the CCII as a valid and reliable tool has meets this need.

Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Results

Qualitative results of the study indicate that the dynamic between internal and external stakeholders appeared one-directional, with internal stakeholders reaching out to the community and then bringing internationalization efforts into the institution. However, the quantitative results suggested that external stakeholders may also initiate and engage the institution, which is more bidirectional than originally revealed. This result implies that while internal stakeholders engage outwardly to support internationalization efforts and student success, external stakeholders also engage inwardly to engage the institution in internationalized community needs. These inner-directed requests tended to be in relation to one of two areas: changing community demographics, particularly immigrant or refugee populations, or workforce development and educational needs in response to local businesses seeking to become more globally competitive.

In revisiting the theory of public associate college internationalization processes developed during Phase I of the study, internationalization processes were initially characterized as a component of student success, but the addition of Phase II results suggests that internationalization instead serves as a mechanism to student success. This finding indicates that participants recognized internationalization as a set of methods by which to advance student success, organize the institution, evaluate the institution, and strengthen institutional effectiveness efforts. Figure 2 displays these relationships.

Figure 2.

Final theory of public associate college internationalization.

In relation to constructs, the eight constructs developed from Phase I were amalgamated, giving rise to new labels more reflective of the interconnectedness discovered in Phase II. As a result of this two-phase process, the definition of community college internationalization and its constructs were modified (Table 5). For example, student development was initially described from the perspective of an active student stakeholder, but the revision conveys an active role for both student and nonstudent stakeholders. Assessment demonstrates a shift from internal matters only to inclusion of external elements. Amplifying efforts is a new construct that exhibits characteristics from two posited constructs: faculty practices and curriculum. While institutional formation still encompasses leadership and organizational strategies, actions focus on aligning rather than infusing internationalization processes.

Table 5.

Mixed-Methods Definition and Operationalized Constructs of the CCII.

Definition of Public Associate College Internationalization	Public associate college stakeholders’ recognition of globalization influences and the integration of a local community’s need for programmatic offerings and student services
Student Development	Roles students assume or services offered to students as they seek to benefit from internationalization processes from various institutional units or stakeholders
Institutional Formation	Leadership roles, strategizing, and planning that align internationalization processes into the overarching mission and culture
Assessment	What, who, and how institutions gauge their internationalization progression, formally or informally, in relation to mission and community need
Amplifying Efforts	Actions, activities, and policies that embed internationalization into institutional processes

Note. CCII = Community College Internationalization Index.

Discussion

Two major implications of the study are noted. First, results of the current study expand our understanding of the processes, contexts, and apparent dichotomy emerging from community colleges that seek to internationalize. Key to these insights is the fact that multiple stakeholder views were explored rather than limiting perspectives to leadership stakeholders only. Analyses revealed that when internationalization is viewed hierarchically top-down from a leader’s perspective, community college institutions appear to have remained focused on the open-door mission without consideration toward internationalization. However, when internationalization is viewed through a bottom-up lens of faculty, students, staff, or community service organizations, stakeholders are found to be energetically and creatively responding to changing student and community needs. Despite frequent underfunding and fragmentation, the study discovered that dynamic, organic, and temporal activities and initiatives are common across the supporting structures and stakeholders of our community college institutions.

For example, collaborating with community service organizations can provide faculty with a mechanism for obtaining guest speakers, and can provide refugee and immigrant students an opportunity to adjust to their new communities. Students and faculty, some of whom have emigrated to the United States from other nations or have living-abroad experiences, can provide perspectives both in terms of curriculum content and institutional context for internationalization planning. Social media platforms can be used to connect students to classrooms and learning opportunities around the world. Local and foreign-born students can engage one another in classroom settings to harness unique technological skills that emerge as a result of pedagogical differences employed around the world. Local, global, internal, and external stakeholders may equally be utilized as internationalization sources and valuable assets in light of dwindling budgets. The finding that multiple stakeholders innovatively and bidirectionally engage in internationalization processes suggests that rich and varied teaching and learning resources are available within and outside public associate colleges. Thus, although leadership in community colleges is top-down with the primary mission focused on open-door educational opportunities, efforts and initiatives related to internationalization often germinate bottom-up and may reveal greater levels of internationalization engagement than is evident from top-down perspective.

The second major implication of the study is that the results have yielded a valid and reliable instrument for use across public associate colleges engaged in any level of internationalization. Thus, in the current era of accountability and global perspective-taking, internationalization efforts can be measured and prioritized in this setting. The CCII has an optimized scale length, minimizing response time, which may make administration of the CCII more appealing. Moreover, the brevity of the CCII scale allows for regular measurement within an institution that can be used to inform continuous improvement or guide organizational changes, to assess effects of pilot studies, or to serve as a barometer of institutional responsiveness to local and global shifts.

Recommendations and Future Use

This article reported on the development of a quantitative instrument, informed from multiple stakeholder views, designed to measure the unique needs of community colleges seeking to internationalize. These results can both inform policy and direct future research.

In relation to policy advancement, the apparent discrepancy between leadership-driven open-door mission initiatives and stakeholder engagement in internationalization need not conflict. Rather, policy should reflect that the dichotomy represents two lenses, both focused on student success. The CCII may serve to reveal ideological and priority differences between stakeholder groups in relation to how best address student success in an open-door institution in the era of global perspective-taking. The results of this study underscore the synergy that arises from bottom-up efforts related to community college internationalization, and reflective of student success and engagement practices that are vital to the community college open-door mission. As such, leadership strategies that harness and align internationalization efforts with those related to the open-door potentially strengthen the institution and its place in the local community.

In regard to future research, several recommendations are noted. First, the study should be replicated with larger samples to determine whether the CCII structure will remain unchanged or whether the institutional formation dimension would become more delineated. Second, additional studies, conducted with different practitioner groups as participants, can contribute to the development of norms. Third, correlational studies utilizing CCII scores in relation to specific internationalization efforts within an institution may illuminate strategies that effectively increase demonstrations of internationalization. Finally, comparative studies between institutions that use similar internationalization efforts but achieve different CCII scores may elucidate reasons for observed parallels and dissimilarities among and between the institutions.

Conclusion

The results of this study fill a persistent and germane gap in the body of literature as it relates to measurement of public associate college internationalization processes. This article reports how development of the CCII in relation to public associate college internationalization is reflective of multiple stakeholder perspectives and provides a valid and reliable instrument by which to measure efforts related to these perspectives. The CCII has unique utility for practice and research as a tool for quantitative measurement of internationalization in community college settings. The tool may inform policy and practice vis-à-vis examining multiple stakeholder perspectives in relation to internationalization efforts. Moreover, the scale can be utilized for continuous improvement because the data suggest that it is psychometrically valid and reliable, and can provide a longitudinal record of institutional changes over repeated administrations, which will serve to provide evidence-based demonstrations of change.

Footnotes

Appendix

The Community College Internationalization Index.

Directions: For each item, please indicate the level of agreement you perceive as it relates to your institution during the past year. A level of 0% indicates that you perceive this did not occur at your institution during the past year whereas a level of 100% indicates that this occurred in its entirety during the past year. A level of 50% indicates you perceive this occurred about half the time during the past year. (Scoring options: 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, or 100).

Student Development

Direct

1. Immigrant/international students and local-born students have been provided with regular extracurricular opportunities to interact with one another during campus events, clubs, committees, service learning, or honors programs.

2. Students have accessed on-campus learning events and activities such as panel discussions, guest speakers, international visitors, and student club or organizations.

3. Students have collaborated regularly with students from other cultures in classroom settings.

4. Students have accessed interfaith pastoral counseling or cross-culturally sensitive counseling.

Indirect

5. Institutional stakeholders have offered multicultural extracurricular learning opportunities to students such as day trips, workshops, programs, or events.

6. Faculty have provided in-class collaborative opportunities to their students so that multicultural interaction and worldview perspectives may be exchanged.

7. Institutional faculty have selected, for each course offered, content and publisher materials to reflect global changes, shifting world demographics, and multicultural perspectives.

8. Faculty have actively engaged in professional development to increase their own multicultural or non-English language skills.

Institutional Formation

9. Institutional stakeholders have delineated their roles in relation to internationalization goals.

10. Institutional stakeholders have planned, organized, and championed internationalization efforts.

11. Institutional stakeholders have aligned internationalization processes and goals to the overarching institutional mission and initiatives.

Assessment

External

12. Institutional stakeholders have identified local business or entrepreneurial training needs designed to increase global competitiveness in those local businesses.

13. Institutional stakeholders have developed and offered training to increase global competitiveness of the local community’s constituents.

14. Institutional internationalization efforts have reflected the local community’s changing demographics.

Internal

15. Institutional stakeholders have considered formal or informal cost-benefit analyses of institutional programs, services, or funding related to internationalization processes.

16. Institutional stakeholders have determined the frequency of planned assessment (i.e., end of program, semester, or degree completion).

17. Institutional stakeholders have identified how the effects of internationalization efforts are measured (i.e., formative or summative, standardized instrument or evaluative assessment).

Amplifying Efforts

18. Institutional stakeholders have sustained internationalization efforts with committees, campuswide events, evaluation, and accountability measures.

19. Institutional stakeholders have established faculty stipends, exchanges, or reassignment time for those leading, coordinating, or piloting internationalization programs.

20. Institutional stakeholders have motivated students to complete a “global enrichment” option prior to graduation that may include study abroad, non-English language or cultural classes, or multicultural service learning.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Jacqueline Marie Copeland conducts research in the internationalization of community colleges. She has taught mathematics and statistics in community college settings for 15 years, holding both undergraduate and graduate degrees in mathematics, probability, and statistics, as well as a PhD in higher education and leadership. She provides consulting services to clients in which she supports study designs, statistical analyses, assessment development, data visualization, and client reporting.

Carmen L. McCrink, PhD, serves as associate professor and department chair of higher education administration at Barry University. Prior to her employment with Barry University, she worked for Miami-Dade College serving as associate dean and executive director of federal and state funded grant programs. She has interest and expertise in areas such as community colleges, teaching and learning, internationalization of higher education, literacy studies, and Hispanic research issues.

Gerene K. Starratt holds a PhD in cognitive psychology and teaches research methods and statistics in the Adrian Dominican School of Education at Barry University. She has research interests in metacognition, leadership, and community-based research. She is a founding member of the South Florida Education Research Alliance, a grassroots partnership of local universities and education entities, whose purpose is to address local educational concerns and facilitate hands-on research opportunities for graduate students.

References

American Council on Education. (2012). Mapping internationalization on U.S. campuses: 2012 edition. Retrieved from http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Documents/Mapping-Internationalizationon-US-Campuses-2012-full.pdf

Altbach

P. G.

Knight

(2007). Internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11, 290-305. doi:10.1177/1028315307303542

Berdahl

R. O.

Altbach

P. G.

Gumport

P. J.

(2011). The contexts of American higher education. In Altbach

Gumport

Berdahl

(Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic challenges (3rd ed., pp. 1-14). Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.

Braskamp

L. A.

(2015). Global Perspective Inventory. Pella, IA: Global Perspective Institute.

Braskamp

L. A.

Braskamp

D. C.

Merrill

K. C.

Engberg

(2008). Global Perspective Inventory (GPI): Its purpose, construction, potential uses, and psychometric characteristics. Chicago, IL: Global Perspective Institute.

Brewer

Leask

(2012). Internationalization of the curriculum. In Deardorff

de Wit

Heyl

Adams

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of international higher education (pp. 245-266). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Carnegie Foundation. (2013). Undergraduate instructional program classification. Retrieved from http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/descriptions/ugrad_program.php

Center for Community College Student Engagement. (2012). A matter of degrees: Promising practices for community college student success (A first look). Austin: Community College Leadership Program, The University of Texas at Austin.

Childress

L. K.

(2009). Internationalization plans for higher education institutions. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13, 289-309. doi:10.1177/1028315308329804

10.

Churchill

G. A.

(1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 64-73.

11.

Community Colleges for International Development. (2013). CCID system of internationalization. Available from http://www.ccidinc.org/

12.

Copeland

J. M.

(2015). Community colleges’ internationalization: Development of an assessment instrument. Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (Order No. 1749782251)

13.

Corbin

Strauss

(2008). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

14.

Corbitt

J. N.

(1998). Global awareness profile test (GAPTest). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

15.

Creswell

J. W.

(2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

16.

Creswell

J. W.

(2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

17.

Creswell

J. W.

Plano Clark

V. L.

(2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

18.

de Wit

Merkx

. (2012). The history of internationalization of higher education. In Deardorff

de Wit

Heyl

Adams

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of international higher education (pp. 43-59). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

19.

Deardorff

D. K.

(2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10, 241-266. doi:10.1177/1028315306287002

20.

Deardorff

D. K.

deWit

Heyl

J. D.

Adams

(Eds.). (2012). The Sage handbook of international higher education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

21.

DeDee

L. S.

Stewart

(2003). The effect of student participation in international study. Journal of Professional Nursing, 19, 237-242.

22.

DeVellis

R. F.

(2012). Scale development: Theory and applications. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

23.

Frost

R. A.

(2009). Globalization contextualized: An organization-environment case study. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 33, 1009-1024. doi:10.1080/10668920802201369

24.

Glaser

B. G.

Strauss

(1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine Transaction.

25.

Green

M. F.

Siaya

(2005). Measuring internationalization at community colleges. Retrieved from http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/Measuring-Internationalization-Community-Colleges.aspx

26.

Hammer

M. R.

Bennett

M. J.

Wiseman

(2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The Intercultural Development Inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 421-443. doi:10.1016/S0147-1767(03)00032-4

27.

Hogarty

K. Y.

Hines

C. V.

Kromrey

J. D.

Ferron

J. M.

Mumford

K. R.

(2005). The quality of factor solutions in exploratory factor analysis: The influence of sample size, communality, and overdetermination. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65, 202-226. doi:10.1177/0013164404267287

28.

Hudzik

(2011). Comprehensive internationalization: From concept to action. Retrieved from https://www.nafsa.org/uploadedFiles/NAFSA_Home/Resource_Library_Assets/Publications_Library/2011_Comprehen_Internationalization.pdf

29.

Hudzik

J. K.

Stohl

(2009). Modeling assessment of the outcomes and impacts of internationalization. In de Wit

(Ed.), Measuring success in the internationalisation of higher education (Occasional Paper No. 22, pp. 9-21). Retrieved from http://www.eaie.org/home/publishing/publications/occasional-papers

30.

Hunter

White

G. P.

Godbey

(2006). What does it mean to be globally competent? Journal of Studies in International Education, 10, 267-285. doi:10.1177/1028315306286930

31.

Kelly

Meyers

J. E

. (1992). The cross-cultural adaptability inventory manual. The intercultural sourcebook (Vol. 2). La Jolla, CA.

32.

Klasek

C. B.

(Ed.). (1992). Bridges to the future: Strategies for internationalizing higher education. Carbondale, IL: Association of International Education Administrators. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED362112

33.

Knight

(2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8, 5-31. doi:10.1177/1028315303260832

34.

Knight

(2012). Concepts, rationales, and interpretive frameworks in the internationalization of higher education. In Deardorff

de Wit

Heyl

Adams

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of international higher education (pp. 27-42). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

35.

Lipkus

(1991). The construction and preliminary validation of a global belief in a just world scale and the exploratory analysis of the multidimensional belief in a just world scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 1171-1178.

36.

MacCallum

R. C.

Widaman

K. F.

Preacher

K. J.

Hong

(2001). Sample size in factor analysis: The role of model error. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 611-637. Retrieved from http://www.quantpsy.org/pubs/maccallum_widaman_preacher_hong_2001.pdf

37.

Mamiseishvili

(2011). Characteristics, job satisfaction, and workplace perceptions of foreign-born faculty at public 2-year institutions. Community College Review, 39, 26-45. doi:10.1177/0091552110394650

38.

Matsumoto

LeRoux

Ratzlaff

Tatani

Uchida

Kim

Araki

(2001). Development and validation of a measure of intercultural adjustment potential in Japanese sojourners: The Intercultural Adjustment Potential Scale (ICAPS). International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25, 483-510.

39.

Morais

D. B.

Ogden

A. C.

(2011). Initial development and validation of the Global Citizenship Scale. Journal of Studies in International Education, 15, 445-466. doi:10.1177/1028315310375308

40.

Mosley-Howard

G. S.

Witte

Wang

(2011). Development and validation of the Miami University Diversity Awareness Scale (MUDAS). Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 4(2), 65-78.

41.

Multon

K. D.

(2010). Interrater reliability. In Salkind

N. J.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of research design (pp. 627-629). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781412961288

42.

Mundfrom

D. J.

Shaw

D. G.

T. L.

(2005). Minimum sample size recommendations for conducting factor analyses. International Journal of Testing, 5, 159-168. doi:10.1207/s15327574ijt05024

43.

Nunnally

(1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

44.

Prieto

L. R.

(2012). Initial factor analysis and cross-validation of the Multicultural Teaching Competencies Inventory. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 5, 50-62. doi:10.1037/a0026199

45.

Raby

R. L.

Valeau

E. J

. (2007). Community college international education: Looking back to forecast the future. In Valeau

E. J.

Raby

R. L.

(Eds.), New directions for community colleges (Vol. 138, pp. 5-14). San Francisco, CA: Wiley Periodicals.

46.

Shealy

C. N.

(2004). A model and method for “making” a combined-integrated psychologist: Equilintegration (EI) theory and the Beliefs, Events, and Values Inventory (BEVI). Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60, 1065-1090.

47.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

48.

Tarrant

M. A.

(2010). A conceptual framework for exploring the role of studies abroad in nurturing global citizenship. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14, 433-451.

49.

The White House. (2013). Support for higher education. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/higher-education

50.

Townsend

B. K.

Dougherty

K. J.

(2006). Community college missions in the 21st century. In Townsend

Dougherty

(Eds.), New directions for higher education (Vol. 136, pp. 5-13). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

51.

Twombly

S. B.

Salisbury

M. H.

Tumanut

S. D.

Klute

. (2013). ASHE higher education report: Study abroad in a new global century. San Francisco, CA: Wiley Online Library. doi: 10.1002/aehe.20004

52.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2013). Geographic terms and concepts-Census divisions and census regions. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/gtc/gtc_census_divreg.html

53.

U.S. Department of Labor. (2011). US Labor Department encourages applications for trade adjustment assistance community college and career training grant program (Press Release No. 10-1436-NAT). Retrieved from http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/eta20101436.htm

54.

Valeau

E. J.

Raby

R. L

. (2007). Editor’s notes. In Valeau

Raby

(Eds.), New directions for community colleges (Vol. 138, pp. 1-3). San Francisco, CA: Wiley Periodicals. doi: 10.1002/cc.275

55.

Zhang

Y. L.

(2011). CSCC review series essay: Education abroad in the U.S. community colleges. Community College Review, 39, 181-200. doi:10.1177/0091552111404552