Language Management Practices Language Ability for School Members
This section would only emphasize the LM practices which are implemented the most and the least. Table 4.1 reveals the implementation level of LM practices in universities/colleges from the percentage shown. Besides, the mean tells the general implementation situation in universities/colleges.
Table 4.1
Descriptive Statistics of Language Management Practices in Language Ability for School Members
Question Implementation Level of LM Practices (low) (high)
Table 4.1 (continued)
e19 18.2 % 12.4 % 20.7 % 23.1 % 25.6 % 3.26 1.44 e20 3.3 % 5.0 % 14.9 % 28.1 % 48.8 % 4.14 1.06
e21 59.5% 19.8% 9.9 % 5.8 % 5.0 % 1.77 1.15
e22 38.0 % 20.7 % 22.3 % 11.6 % 6.6 % 2.27 1.27 e23 34.7 % 16.5 % 22.3 % 17.4 % 8.3 % 2.47 1.35 The lowest (level 1) and highest (level 5) implementation levels of question items are the focus to see the LM practices which are the most applied and the least applied. The top five and bottom five LM practices with the highest in these two extreme levels are chosen to be discussed in this section. This research thus used this criterion to arrange list of LM practices most and least applied for language ability dimension (See Table 4.2). LM practices least applied are e4, e5, e13, e21, e22; LM practices most applied are e14, e16, e17, e18, e20.
For the LM practices least applied in these dimension (e4, e5, e13, e21, e22), we could conclude that setting any criteria for both local and international students might decrease the willingness for application, so few schools adopt the practices. Besides, from Table 4.1, it is proven that most LM practices commonly used for language ability are designed for students, including international and local students because the difficulty of elevating language ability of faculty members is the highest, so few school adopt e22. It is obvious that the LM practices most applied shown in Table 4.2 are all established for local students, so it can be interpreted the language ability of local students is first emphasized in all school members and the need of elevating their language ability is the highest. The mean shown in Table 4.2 is used to see its average implementation level.
40
Table 4.2
Top Five and Bottom Five LM Practices for Language Ability
To conclude, Table 4.2 clearly shows the current implementing situation of LM practices. The current LM practices applied to elevate language ability are mostly designed for local students. The practices of setting any language requirement are not commonly applied. The target participants of language training are students instead of the other school members, such as professor and faculty members.
Language Environment in Campus
Concerning the LM practices for the language environment built in campus; this Bottom Five LM Practices for Language Ability Percentage of Lowest
Implementation Level of LM Practices
Mean
e4: Set English as the criteria for application of international students.
39.4 % 2.34
e5: Set Mandarin Chinese as the criteria for application of international students.
42.1 % 2.18
e13: Set English as the criteria for application of local students.
48.8% 2.26
e21: Design Mandarin Chinese training courses to elevate Chinese ability of foreign professors.
59.5% 1.77
e22: Design English training course to increase the English ability of local professors and other faculty members.
38.0 % 2.27
Top Five LM Practices for Language Ability Percentage of Highest Implementation Level
of LM Practices
Mean
e14: List English as common obligatory course for local students.
52.1 % 4.32
e16: Design English make-up courses for local students.
33.1 % 3.81
e17: Set English as the graduation criteria for local students.
41.3 % 3.92
e18: Establish language incentive practices for local students.
38.8 % 3.79
e20: Provide study abroad and exchange opportunities for local students.
48.8 % 4.14
study employed the same approach as the previous section: select the highest percentage in the highest and lowest implementation level to contribute top 5 and bottom 5 LM practices in language environment dimension. However, there are two practices (c6, c16) with the same percentage, so there are 6 LM practices in LM practices least applied. The distribution of LM practices for language environment, mean, and standard deviation are organized in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3
Descriptive Statistics of Language Management Practices in Language Environment Built in Campus
Question Implementation Level of LM Practices (low) (high)
42
characteristics: one is that the LM practices are more difficult to apply and the other is the LM practices are not for urgent need. For instance, to recruit all school members with high language ability is one of the practices which is not easy to reach. There are still many school members recruited before the trend of internationalization and it is not easy to set a language criterion. Moreover, there are some LM practices which are not urgent. For example, the number of foreign professors is fewer than students, so fewer schools do guidance manual for foreign professors.
As for the LM practice best applied (c23) in this dimension-setting up an international affair unit, it is common that most schools would first build a unit of internationalization to thoroughly implement internationalization. Also, the professor exchange/visit programs for both foreign and local (c21, c22) are practices adopted often. For international students, the school set up campus sign (c4) and manual of guidance (c8) to make them reduce the language barriers.
Top five and bottom six LM practices in language environment are organized in Table 4.4 to show the current LM practices situation in campus environment.
Table 4.4
Top Five and Bottom Six LM Practices for Language Environment Bottom Six LM Practices for Language
Environment Built in Campus
c6: Adopt bilingual content in Academic Affair (registration and course selection) system.
30.6 % 2.34
c7: Adopt bilingual content in on-line learning system.
33.9 % 2.27
c9: Provide manual of guidance for foreign professors.
39.7 % 2.20
c10: Set up basic language requirement for administrative personnel.
36.4 % 2.06
(continued)
Table 4.4 (continued)
c11: Set basic language requirement for school guidance system.
41.3 % 1.94
c16: Recruit foreign professors with Chinese ability.
30.6 % 2.62
Top 5 LM Practices for Language Environment Built in Campus
c4: Adopt bilingual content in campus signs. 23.1% 3.64 c8: Provide manual of guidance for
international students.
26.4 % 3.16
c21: Encourage foreign professors to come to exchange and visit.
27.3 % 3.69
c22: Encourage local professors to go to exchange and visit other schools.
24.0 % 3.71
c23: Establish international affair unit. 44.6 % 3.93
Comparing Language Management Practices by Internationalization Strategy
This section employed descriptive statistics to show the association between LM practices and strategies. The strategy identification of each school is determined by feedback given in designed questionnaire. The research calculated the mean of each school in four different types and further distributed them into one type according to its highest mean in a school. The results (see Table 4.5) shows there are 29
prospectors, 9 reactors, 26 defenders, and 37 analyzers distributed in sample universities/colleges. As to discuss the relationship between practices and strategy, Table 4.5 and Table 4.7 shows the mean of each LM practice in four different
strategies to generally see the distribution of each strategy type. The higher the mean, the better a university/college implements the practice. In Table 4.6 and 4.8, this research reported top three and bottom three LM practices in each strategy type.
44
Table 4.5
Mean of each LM Practice (Language Ability) in Four Strategy Types
LM Practices Prospector Reactor Defender Analyzer
e1 3.38 1.00 2.30 2.19
prospector is the most active whereas reactor applies language management practices the least. The value of defender and analyzer are between them. This result fits the literature discussed in chapter two.
In Table 4.6, the different strategy types have their unique characteristic of LM practices. It is also very interesting to find that all of these strategy types apply e14
(List English as common required course for local students) the most according to their highest mean in each strategy type , which means that the basic language training for local students is widely employed in language management field.
Providing study abroad and exchange opportunities for local students (e20) is another common practice applied by all types except reactor because this practice requires financial budget which needs to be highly supported by school. There is one more finding is that most prospectors would set language requirement for graduation for local students which the other three types do not apply. This practice requires many efforts: the estimation of language criteria, the make-up plan, sufficient language training, and the communication with related people; thus, prospector applied this practice did represent its activeness towards internationalization.
Table 4.6
Top Three and Bottom Three LM Practices (Language Ability) in Four Strategy Types Typology Top three practices Mean Bottom three practices Mean Prospector e14: List English as common
obligatory course for local
e17: Set English as the graduation criteria for local students.
4.45 e21: Design Mandarin Chinese training courses
Reactor e14: List English as common obligatory course for local students.
3.63 e1: Establish language training center for
3.5 e2: Design Mandarin Chinese training courses for international
students.
1
(continued)
46
e19: Design after-class language learning activities (e.g. English day).
3.5 e21: Design Mandarin Chinese training courses to elevate Chinese ability of foreign professors.
1
Defender e14: List English as common obligatory course for local students.
4.43 e21: Design Mandarin Chinese training courses
Analyzer e14: List English as common obligatory course for local students.
4.19 e21: Design Mandarin Chinese training courses
e15: English proficiency test is implemented and the results would distribute most active whereas reactor applies language management practices the least. The value of defender and analyzer are between them. From this table, we can further see the situation of language environment built in campus in four strategy types separately.
Table 4.8 retrieves the top three and bottom three LM practices in language
environment in four strategy types to depict the feature of language management in each strategy type.
Table 4.6 (continued)
Table 4.7
Mean of each LM Practice (Language Environment) in Four Strategy Types LM Practices Prospector Reactor Defender Analyzer
c1 2.97 1.88 2.54 2.35 practices in language environment dimension. These two types are considered active in internationalization. Hence, the necessity of international affair unit is emphasized and exchange programs for professors when developing internationalization develop actively. However, language requirement of each school member (c10 and c11) could not easily apply even when conducting an active approach towards
48
internationalization. The evidence shows in three types out of four: prospector, defender, and analyzer.
The main target participants of language management for reactor are professors.
It could be explained that reactor shares very different characteristics with the other three types whereas the quality of professors in higher education institutes still exist.
Therefore, to manage the language ability for professors is easier than the other practices. Bilingual website is another LM practice reactor adopts often. For analyzer, the bilingual campus notification is a basic approach which can represent the stable characteristic very well.
However, though these four types sometimes utilize the same practice, the level of implementation is still different according to their mean difference, which means the LM involvement of each type exists its own characteristics.
Table 4.8
Top Three and Bottom Three LM Practices (Language Environment) in Four Strategy Types
Typology Top three practices Mean Bottom three practices Mean Prospector c23: Establish international
affair unit.
4.66 c11: Set basic language requirement for school
4.21 c7: Adopt bilingual content in on-line learning system
4.17 c10: Set up basic language requirement for
administrative personnel.
2.69
Reactor c22: Encourage local professors to go to
2.88 c6: Adopt bilingual content in Academic Affair system.
1.25
(continued)
c3: Adopt bilingual/
Defender c23: Establish international affair unit.
4.19 c11: Set basic language requirement for school
4.05 c10: Set up basic language requirement for
administrative personnel.
1.91
c4: Adopt bilingual content in campus signs.
3.73 c2: Adopt bilingual content in regulations.
2.16 Analyzer c4: Adopt bilingual content
in campus signs.
3.73 c11: Set basic language requirement for school
3.38 c10: Set up basic language requirement for
administrative personnel.
1.73
Relationship among Internationalization Strategy, Language Management Practices and Internationalization Outcome
Correlation and hierarchical regression analysis were used to analyze the
relationship among internationalization strategy, language management practices and internationalization outcome of the higher education institutes in Taiwan.
The results of correlational analysis of all variables are reported in Table 4.9.
There are several variables that display significant correlations. In this study, factor analysis was conducted to categorize LM practices into several dimensions. LM practices are grouped into two. The first one is LM practices of language ability among school members and the other is LM practices of language environment in campus. There are a total of 10 LM practice dimensions. Table 4.9 shows the relations among strategies, LM practices, and internationalization outcome.
Table 4.8 (continued)
50
The results show there is a strong relationship between the score on each strategy type and LM practices. Schools who rated themselves high on prospector and
defender strategy adopt an active approach towards internationalization, but those high on defender strategy tend to focus on target market. According to the results of Table 4.9, they are both associated with language learning center (E1), language
ability policy for foreign students (E2), language ability service for local students (E4), and language learning for faculty members (E6) whereas defenders tend to implement language ability policy for local students (E3). Furthermore, both of them are inclined to building language environment in campus (C1 and C4), even indirect language environment, and also organize courses conducted in English (C2), which reflects their active involvement in internationalization, while defenders also involve in the development of faculty language ability .
For reactor, there is a strong but negative relationship between strategy and LM practices. All of the LM practices have negative correlation with reactor, except language incentives (E5), which can predict that once school adopt passive attitude towards internationalization, the LM practices would not be emphasized. Analyzer is considered more stable and cautious; hence, they do not show particular trend toward LM practices. Language ability policy for foreign students (E2) and indirect language environment (C1) are the only two LM practices which negatively correlated with analyzer.
Table 4.9 also reveals significant correlation coefficients between most of the LM practices (except E3, E5, and C3) and internationalization outcome, which can be interpreted as evidence of strong association between LM practices and
internationalization outcome, though a cause and effect relation cannot be assured.
52
Table 4.10
Results of Hierarchical Regression for Internationalization Outcome
Internationalization Outcome
E1: Language Training Center .437*** .433**
E2: Language Ability Policy for Foreign Students
-.199 -.206 E3: Language Ability Policy for Local
Students
-.058 .010 E4: Language Ability Service for Local
Students
.109 .097
E5: Language Incentives -.137 -.142
E6: Language Learning for Faculty Members .191 .209
LM Practice (Language Environment)
C1: Indirect Language Environment -.208
C2: Courses Conducted in English .046
C3: Faculty Language Ability -.070
C4: Direct Language Environment -.009
R2 .127 .165 .331 .332
Adjusted R2 .081 .088 .227 .197
∆R2 .038* .166*** .001
F-value 2.33* 1.94* 2.97*** 2.33**
*P<0.05, **P<0.01, ***P<0.001
The results of hierarchical regression deliver the fact that one of the tested demographic variables (schools located in north region) appears to have positive influence on school international outcome. Besides, not all the strategies and LM practices have significant influence with school international outcome. As shown in Model 4 of Table 4.10, language training center (E1) has significant positive relationship with school internationalization outcome (=.433, p<.01).
Altogether the independent variables of this study explain 33% (Model 4 R2=.332) of the outcome of internationalization. Furthermore, in model 3, after adding the LM practices, R2 increases 17% (∆R2 =.166) whereas the R2 between model 3 and model 4 remain almost the same, which shows the importance of LM practices in achieving internationalization outcome.
As described in chapter three, there are three propositions this study intends to investigate:
Proposition 1: Different strategy type will adopt different language management practices.
Proposition 2: Language management practices have an impact on schools’
internationalization outcome.
Proposition 3: The more language management practices a school adopts, the better the internationalization outcome of the school is.
This study employed descriptive statistics and correlation analysis to test the first proposition. The results shows different strategy type with its unique feature indeed exist the language management differences. For proposition 2, regression is adopted to see the effects of language management practices on school international outcome.
After language management practices were added, the regression model significantly increases its power to predict internationalization of schools. Both propositions have been discussed in detail in the previous section.
54
As for the third proposition, this study calculated the sum of LM practices in each school to investigate the overall effect. Regression was utilized to see the relationship between the level of LM practices and internationalization outcome. In Table 4.11, it shows that overall level of LM practices does have a significant influence on school internationalization outcome (=.265, p<.05).
Table 4.11
Result of Regression Analysis in Total Involvement in Each Practice
Internationalization Outcome Standardized coefficients (Beta)
Predictor Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Control Variables
Type National .477 .329 .308
Private .215 .113 .131
Region North .124 .100 .115
Central -.118 -.113 -.142
South -.092 -.071 -.050
Location City .118 .109 .062
Strategy Typology (Dummy)
Prospector .223 .029
Analyzer .082 -.006
Defender .033 -.117
Multiple Strategy -.008 -.091
Total involvement in each LM Practice
Sum of LM practices .265*
R2 .127 .165 .214
Adjusted R2 .081 .088 .134
∆R2 .048* .049*
F-value 2.737* 2.147* 2.670**
*P<0.05, **P<0.01, ***P<0.001
The test result of the study propositions is summarized in the following chart:
Table 4.12
Summary of Propositions
Proposition Test Result
Proposition 1: Different strategy type will adopt different language management practices.
Supported Proposition 2: Language management practices have an impact on
schools’ internationalization outcome.
Supported
Proposition 3: The more language management practices a school adopts, the better the internationalization outcome of the school is.
Supported
56