語言管理於大學院校國際化的影響

全文

(1)The Effect of Language Management Practices on Internationalization Outcome in Higher Education Institutes. by Pin-Hsien, Ou. A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Major: International Human Resource Development. Advisor: C. Rosa Yeh, Ph. D. National Taiwan Normal University Taipei, Taiwan February, 2013.

(2) ABSTRACT Due to the trend of internationalization, higher education institutes in Taiwan have been forced to take actions to respond. International students are considered one of the important elements in internationalization. Besides, language is the first barrier (problem). international. students. confront.. Thus,. this. study. sees. school. internationalization from a language perspective and aims to uncover the language management practices in higher education institutes of Taiwan. The relationship among strategy towards internationalization, language management practices, and internationalization outcome were investigated in this study. A qualitative study was employed to develop a list of language management practices in preparation of the quantitative study. A mail survey questionnaire was designed for the quantitative study by reviewing the literature and materials from interviews. SPSS was adopted as the tool to analyze data collected, including descriptive statistics, correlation and regression. The results support the study propositions on the significant relationship among strategies, language management practices, and internationalization outcome. The current status of language management practices in higher education institutes is also reported.. Key words: language management, higher education institute, language barrier, internationalization. 2.

(3) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I heartily thankful to my supervisor, Dr. Rosa C. Yeh, who is always the first person to encourage, guide , and support me from the preliminary to the concluding level enabled me to develop an understanding of the subject. I also want to thank for her constant reading of the manuscript and suggestion, which helps very much during my study in language management field. My gratitude is also extended to Dr. Tsai and Dr. Chang for their supportive suggestion throughout my research. I thank all professors in IHRD, including Dr. Lai, Dr. Tsai, Dr. Shih, Dr. Chang, Dr. Yeh, and Dr. Lin, for their instruction in human resource related field, which broaden my knowledge a lot. Lastly, it is a pleasure to thank those who made this thesis possible such as my parents who gave me both moral and financial support. I offer my regards and blessings to all of those who supported me in any respect during the completion of the project, especially to my dear classmates in my graduate life.. 3.

(4) TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents .......................................................................................................I List of Tables ..............................................................................................................III List of Figures ............................................................................................................V. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ...................................................... 1 Background of the Study ...................................................................................1 Statement of the Problem ...................................................................................3 Purposes of the Study.........................................................................................4 Research Questions ............................................................................................4 Significance of the Study ...................................................................................5 Definition of Terms ............................................................................................6. CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................... 7 Power of Language ............................................................................................7 Language Management ......................................................................................9 Strategy, Policy, and Practice .............................................................................11 International Outcome in Higher Education ......................................................18 Relationship among Strategy Type, Language Management Practices and Internationalization Outcome.............................................................................19. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY .................................................. 21 Research Framework .........................................................................................21 Research Method ...............................................................................................22 Research Procedure ............................................................................................22 Research Sample ................................................................................................25 Data Collection ..................................................................................................27 Data Analysis Procedure ....................................................................................36. CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS........................... 38 I.

(5) Language Management Practices ......................................................................38 Comparing Language Management Practices by Internationalization Strategy ............................................................................................................................43 Relationship among Internationalization Strategy, Language Management Practices and Internationalization Outcome ......................................................49. CHAPTER V CONCLUSION .......................................................... 56 Conclusion .........................................................................................................56 Research Implication .........................................................................................59 Practical Implication ..........................................................................................60 Limitation ...........................................................................................................61 Suggestions for Future Research .......................................................................61. REFERENCES ....................................................................................... 63 APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW QUESTION…….. ................................ . 69 APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW QUESTION (CHINESE) ............. ......... 70 APPENDIX C: QUESTIONNAIRE…….. .......................................... . 71. II.

(6) LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 Number of Students Studying in Taiwan ..................................................1 Table 2.1 The Percentage of Foreign Students and Ranking of Global Competitiveness ...........................................................................................................8 Table 2.2 Basic Strategy Set of Business Type .........................................................13 Table 3.1 Research Procedure ...................................................................................21 Table 3.2. Interview Questions Categorized by Dimensions .....................................25. Table 3.3 Demographic Information of Schools in Quantitative Study....................26 Table 3.4. Interview Questions Categorized by Dimensions .....................................28. Table 3.5 Factor Analysis of Internationalization Strategy Questions ......................31 Table 3.6 Factor Analysis of Language Management Practices (Language Ability) ......................................................................................................................................33 Table 3.7 Demographic Information of Schools in Quantitative Study....................35 Table 4.1 Descriptive Statistics of Language Management Practices in Language Ability for School Members ........................................................................................38 Table 4.2 Top Five and Bottom Five LM Practices for Language Ability................40 Table 4.3 Descriptive Statistics of Language Management Practices in Language Environment Built in Campus .....................................................................................41 Table 4.4 Top Five and Bottom Six LM Practices for Language Environment........42 Table 4.5 Mean of each LM Practice (Language Ability) in Four Strategy Types ...44 Table 4.6 Top Three and Bottom Three LM Practices (Language Ability) in Four Strategy Types ..............................................................................................................45 Table 4.7 Mean of each LM Practice (Language Environment) in Four Strategy Types ............................................................................................................................47 Table 4.8 Top Three and Bottom Three LM Practices (Language Environment) in Four Strategy Types .....................................................................................................48 III.

(7) Table 4.9 Results of Correlation Analysis.................................................................51 Table 4.10 Results of Hierarchical Regression for Internationalization Outcome ...52 Table 4.11 Result of Regression Analysis in Total Involvement in Each Practice ...54 Table 4.12 Summary of Propositions ……………………………………………..56. IV.

(8) LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1 Conceptual Framework of this Study ......................................................21 Figure 5.1. Model of Language Management in Higher Education Institutes...........57. V.

(9) CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION. Background of the Study Internationalization has been a critical issue that people worldwide are conscious of. (e.g., Hirst and Thompson, 2002; Currie and Newson, 1998). Not only the corporations but also the universities/colleges are engaging in internationalization because of international competition and cooperation. The number of local students is also decreasing on account of a low birth rate. Based on these situations, international recruitment becomes an indispensable action schools need to take, especially in higher education institutes. Taiwan government has been working on that and efforts made can be seen from the increasing number of foreign students (see Table 1.1).. Table 1.1 Number of Foreign Students Studying in Taiwan by Geographic Source YEAR. TOTAL. ASIA. AMERICA EUROPE. AFRICA. OCEANIA. 1971-72. 427. 225. 155. 39. 1. 7. 1981-82. 2,982. 1,656. 832. 437. 9. 48. 1991-92. 5,959. 3,764. 1,264. 796. 35. 100. 2001-02. 6,380. 4,490. 1,140. 546. 79. 125. 2004-05. 9,616. 6,358. 1,892. 941. 225. 200. 2005-06. 11,035. 7,039. 2,305. 1,116. 262. 313. 2006-07. 13,070. 8,119. 2,819. 1,544. 294. 294. 2007-08. 15,436. 9,532. 3,409. 1,766. 369. 360. 2008-09. 16,909. 10,722. 3,608. 1,846. 366. 367. 2009-10. 19,376. 11,853. 4,393. 2,346. 381. 403. 2010-11. 21,356. 13,332. 4,524. 2,509. 542. 449. Note. Adapted from “Education in Taiwan 2011-2012”, by Ministry Of Education, 2011a, http://english.moe.gov.tw/public/Attachment/1113011175371.pdf, on January 15, 2012. 1.

(10) Therefore, to attract the foreign students in Taiwan, the government has set up a few measures to support higher education institutes to achieve the goal of internationalization of higher education in Taiwan. In the following section, the evidences of governmental involvement are shown. In 2005, Foundation of International Cooperation in Higher Education of Taiwan (FICHET) was established and organized the first conference of international affairs development in higher education institutes of Taiwan in 2010, cooperating with Chengchi University. The conference involved all related international affairs members to discuss the situations and difficulties of internationalization development, which could be taken as one milestone. Furthermore, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has been working on many programs and projects. Here are some examples as follows. Taiwan drew up “Study-in-Taiwan Enhancement Program (MOE, 2011b)” to further expand Taiwan’s higher education in 2011. This program is estimated to spend NT$57 million to achieve the goal of 90 thousand foreign students studying in Taiwan (MOE, 2011b). “The Aim for the Top University Project (MOE, 2011c)” (邁向頂尖大學計畫) expected the university to develop into international school of excellence to achieve the goal of strengthening national competitiveness. The government will support NT$50 billion for each five year. In this project, one of the criteria is the degree of internationalization. It is evaluated by the number of foreign students, exchange students, and international conferences. “Internationalization Subsidy Plan of Universities (MOE, 2011d)” (大學校院推動國際化補助計畫) encourages school to plan. a. more. concrete. plan. towards. internationalization.. Based. on. the. internationalization plan and situation, the government will subsidy within one million to support the fulfillment of its plan. Lastly, there are increasing number of scholarship opportunities to local and foreign students provided by government and semi-government organizations, such as the MOE and the International Cooperation 2.

(11) and Development Fund (ICDF). For instance, the MOE and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs set up the “Taiwan Scholarships” in November 2003. Taiwan MOE also encourages all universities and colleges of Taiwan (MOE, 2011) to build good friendship with schools of other countries and has adopted the accomplishment of international development as one criterion to distribute educational subsidy.. The active action towards internationalization is expected to bring in more talents with multilingual and transcultural ability and promote more academic interactions and cooperation through international exchanges. In this process, many foreign students are recruited to study in Taiwan. When they arrive in Taiwan, the first barrier they face is language (Selvadurai, 1998). In Taiwan, the official language is Chinese Mandarin; however, most foreign students came to Taiwan without the ability to speak Chinese. Many negative consequences resulted from the inability to speak the Chinese language. For example, they may not be able to buy food, groceries and other life necessities on their own; they may not understand important announcements from schools, or the instructions to select courses, reserve books from library, and etc. As a result, they may not know their right, and cannot easily survive in schools without arrangement of proper language interfaces.. To attract more foreign students, many higher education institutes in Taiwan strive to construct a better environment for foreign students to live and study. One of the major undertakings of schools is to minimize language barriers by different means, which is termed “language management practices” in this study.. Statement of the Problem When the language barriers (difficulties) are taken care of through adequate language management practices, it can improve foreign students’ impression of 3.

(12) Taiwan and also the willingness of studying in Taiwan. Consequently, the problem of language barriers forces higher education institutes to develop language management practices in order to fulfill the objectives of internationalization. Throughout the history of internationalization development by higher education institutes, many language management practices have been created and experimented. However, very few studies have focused on this aspect of school administration, nor was the effect of these language management practices on internationalization outcome studied. It is also unknown how schools develop their language management practices. Do they follow a systemic development process that is guided by the school’s strategic intention? What may be the school’s strategic type toward internationalization and how are these strategic types influence development and implementation of language management practices? There is a lack of extant knowledge in these issues.. Purpose of the Study The purpose of the study reported here first was to explore the current situation of how Taiwan’s universities/colleges deal with language barriers and problems (i.e., language management practices). The other specific purpose is to analyze the relationship between school strategy towards internationalization and language management practices, as well as the effects of language management practice on internationalization outcome.. Research Questions To fulfill the purpose of this study, answers were sought to the following questions: First, what are the school strategy and language management practices of universities and colleges respectively? Secondly, what is the relationship between school strategy towards internationalization and language management practices? Third, how do school language management practices influence internationalization 4.

(13) outcome?. Significance of the Study Internationalization will indeed benefit higher education of Taiwan. For local benefits, we can increase the student number to eliminate the negative effects of low birth rate, broaden the international horizon of local students, and enrich the friendship with other countries. Foreign students can bring in talent of professional, multilingual and transcultural ability. Besides, through the studying experience in Taiwan, they can promote the features of higher education in Taiwan to strengthen our international marketing.. Talents are considered as the most important asset of one country, and enterprise. Schools provide education/training to cultivate one country’s talents. Therefore, to discuss the international development from the aspect of educational system is a way to see the management practice.. Internationalization forced schools to step out, and to recruit international students. However, the basic problem, language, has been a great challenge to many schools. Once the practices of language management can be collected through interviews and analyzed for their effectiveness, it will give those schools struggling in international development more direction.. As what mentioned above, language is the first problem international students encounter. Moreover, once universities/colleges could build an environment without language barriers to solve this basic problem for foreign students, the outcome of internationalization would be improved. Accordingly, this study expects to find an effective model of language management practices through exploratory investigation 5.

(14) and further contribute to higher education institutes in confronting language barriers.. Definition of Terms Before the discussion on language management practices, the concept of language management needs to be defined as follows:. Language Management: A set of actions determined by the internationalization strategy set by organizations to form explicit policies and practices about the use of language to influence internationalization outcome.. Language Barrier: Feely and Harzing (2003) addressed language barrier as a problem of ‘‘miscommunication’’, which will not only occur but also arouse a series of negative effects. Language Policy: Corson (1999) said, “School language policies are viewed by many in education as an integral and necessary part of the administration and the curriculum practice of school which identified areas in the school’s scope of operations and program where language problems exist that need the commonly agreed approach offered by a policy.”. Language Management Practice: Options available to organizations to manage language and to alleviate the problems it creates (Feely and Harzing, 2003).. International Outcome: The number of international students is estimated as an indicator to evaluate the internationalization outcome in this study.. 6.

(15) CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW. Power of Language In Chinese history, there were some examples using language as a power to control the countries. The first emperor of China- Qin Shi Huang (259-210BC) conducted the best implementation of language management. In order to govern the whole China, he unified the Chinese characters from various regions (Chang, 2007). The other evidence is the Kangxi Dictionary. This standard Chinese dictionary was ordered by Kangxi emperor during the 18th and 19th centuries. 47,000 characters (including obscure, variant, rare, and archaic characters) are contained in this dictionary. Although less than a quarter of these characters are now in common use, the influence of language use could not be ignored (Teng and Biggerstaff, 1971) .. Nowadays, the role of language has changed from nationalism to globalization (Wright, 2004) because of the interaction of knowledge, business, and education. Therefore, on the international level, historically there has been an influence of the west so that most countries use English as one of the communication tool in order to increase the interaction worldwide and gain more opportunities at the same time. Another influence is the growing power of China which encourages more people to learn Chinese. These prove that language can be the indicator to see the power of country.. English has been the dominant language to communicate in international activities. Besides, Singapore realized the power of language, so it has engaged in language policy since 1965. Due to the uniqueness of its population, English has been 7.

(16) adopted as the official language. Now Singapore is the example of success, using the advantage of language to connect to the international economy. From Table 1.2, it seems that percentage of foreign students is somewhat related to the ranking of global competitiveness. Table 2.1 The Percentage of Foreign Students and Ranking of Global Competitiveness COUNTRY. PERCENTAGE OF. RANKING OF GLOBAL. FOREIGN STUDENTSa. COMPETITIVENESSb. JAPAN. （2009）. 4.7%. 9. KOREA. （2009）. 3.3%. 24. SINGAPORE. （2009） 45.5%. 2. MALAYSIA. （2010）. 22. HONG KONG. （2010） 10 %. 11. TAIWAN. （2010）. 13. a. 7.3%. 3.3%. Note. Adapted from “Education in Taiwan 2011-2012”, by Ministry Of Education,. 2011a, http://english.moe.gov.tw/public/Attachment/1113011175371.pdf, on January 15, 2012. b. Note. Adapted from” Export of Higher Education: Study-in-Taiwan Enhancement. Program”, by Ministry of Education, 2011b, http://www.ey.gov.tw/public/Attachment/1671614971.doc, on January 15, 2012.. The power of language can be seen from the previous discussion. This interesting association motivates this study to look into the language management practices in schools as they are influenced by governmental policy toward internationalization, and examine the effects of these language management practices on internationalization outcome of higher education. 8.

(17) Language Management Spolsky (2004) turned the term “language planning” into “language management,” though he is not the first to perceive it. Spolsky (2010) defined language management as “the formulation and proclamation of an explicit plan or policy, usually but not necessarily written in a formal document, about language use.” Luo and Senkar (2006) perceived language management as “a variable mechanism that needs to balance global integration with local adaptation in line with corporate strategy and an evolving global environment” (P.322), which limited language management in enterprises. The concepts of language management are mostly discussed in national and business level. However, Spolsky (2010) explained more details. He mentioned school language management is forced by the language policies adopted by educational system and identified the participants of school language management: Pupils, professors, and others (professional administrator and non-academic support staff). Altbach and Knight (2007) mentioned, “Internationalization has included policies and practices undertaken by institutions to cope with the globalized academic environment.” Management consists of strategies made to achieve the goals of organization and develop further policies and practices to influence the organization outcome. In this research, combining business management concepts, the definition of Spolsky will be mainly adopted for discussing language management of schools. Therefore, language management here is a set of actions determined by internationalization strategy in school composed by goals and characteristics of school and form explicit policies and practice about language use to influence internationalization outcome.. 9.

(18) Language Barrier Feely and Harzing (2003) addressed language barrier as a problem of ‘‘miscommunication’’, which will not only occur but also arouse a series of negative effects. Language enables internal communication by providing a tool within a global organization (Lehtovaara, 2009). Selvadurai (1998) mentioned the problem of language barrier, identification of classroom atmosphere and faculty-student relationship are the difficulties for international students. In the difficulties, language is the first barrier they encountered, and Olivas and Li (2006) also proved that language is one of the anxieties of international students.. Harzing and Feely (2003) categorized language barrier in business into three dimensions: the language diversity, the language penetration, and the language sophistication. The language diversity is the number of different languages the company has to manage. The language penetration means the number of functions and the number of levels within those functions that are engaged in cross-lingual communication. The language sophistication refers to the complexity and refinement of the language skills required.. In school language management, the language barrier mainly results from the language sophistication, which refers to the language acquisition. Bulavatski (1998) provides two reasons why schools do not have good language management. First, school administration does not want to exert any effort and spend resources on teaching in two languages; they consider it a complication. Secondly, most members of the school administrations do not have a positive attitude toward it.. Language Management in Schools English has become the dominant language of the world on account of colonial 10.

(19) expansion, trade, science and technology, ideology and religion, and the waning of British power (Wright, 2004; Herriman and Burnaby, 1996). This trend also influences the situation of internationalization in higher education. Students are willing to study in America, or other English-dominant countries with well-prepared English ability. For those international students who study in English-dominant countries,. with. the. advanced. level. of. language. ability,. their. language. difficulties/barrier is their academic learning (Kim, 2009; Kuo, 2011; Maybin, 1985; Turner, Y., 2006; Yang, Noels, & Saumure, 2006). On the contrary, the non-English-dominant countries like Asian countries in order to ride the waves of internationalization; they made efforts to recruit international students whereas few students would have acquired local language when they first arrive. Hence, the schools need to make a series of policies and plan to fulfill the pursuit of internationalization strategy. The first step is to create a non-language-barrier environment to assist foreign student to learn and live in schools, so the language management would focus on the campus environment, administration, international curriculum and etc. However, there are few researches discussing the language management practices regarding the internal language setting at school.. The main purpose of this study is to discover all language management practices employed in higher education institutes of Taiwan and find out the efficient model on account of impact of internationalization. Therefore, it is clear that managing language is the focus in this study to increase internationalization outcome in school. However, most of researches studied the relationship between internationalization practices and international outcome (Altbach and Knight, 2007; Bennett and Kane, 2009; Stromquist, 2007) instead of language management practices, so the literature of language management study is limited. There is one study conducted by Harzing 11.

(20) and Feely (2003) and contributed 11 language management practices in business.. Strategy, Policy, and Practice School Strategy Porter (1996) asserted the nature of strategy is to choose what to do and what not to do, which means the decisions made during the process of competition. Hill and Jones (2007) defined strategy as ‘a set of actions that managers take to increase their company’s performance relative to rivals’. Strategy is a framework of choices that determine the nature and direction of an organization (Freedman, & Tregoe, 2003). Miles and Snow (1978) mentioned there must be a clear and direct match between the organization's mission/values. From the discussion above, strategy can be concluded as a process to make decisions based on limited resources according to the internal and external environment in a competitive market. Hax (1991) further defined strategy in schools: it is based on school objectives, environment and trend, and unique characteristics.. The strategies are categorized into different types. Porter (1980) addressed generic strategies which are overall cost leadership, differentiation, and focus strategies to assist managers realize how to use low cost, build service differentiation, and develop in a focus market in a competitive industry environment. Other researchers brought up with synergy and preemptive move strategies in the following years (Aaker, 1995; Schuler and Jackson, 1987). Miles and Snow (1978) divided business into four types based on an in-depth cross-industry study:. Prospectors: Prospectors which almost continually search for market opportunities, and they regularly experiment with potential responses to emerging environmental 12.

(21) trends. Thus, these organizations often are the creators of change and uncertainty to which their competitors must respond.. Defenders: Defenders are organizations which have narrow product-market domains. Top managers in this type organization are highly expert in their organization’s limited area of operation but do not tend to search outside their narrow domains for new opportunities.. Analyzers: Analyzers are organizations which operate in two types of product-market domains, one relatively stable, the other changing. In their stable areas, these organizations operate routinely and efficiently through use of formalized structures and processes. In their more turbulent areas, top managers watch their competitors closely for new ideas, and then rapidly adopt those which appear to be the most promising.. Reactors: Organizations in which top managers frequently perceive change and uncertainty occurring in their organizational environments but are unable to respond effectively. Because this type of organization lacks a consistent strategy-structure relationship, it seldom makes adjustments of any sort until forced to do so by environmental pressures. (P. 29). In Table 2.2 retrieved from Miles and Snow (1978) show the basic strategy set of these four different strategy type. Table 2.2 Basic Strategy Set of Business Type BASIC STRATEGY SET PROSPECTORS. . Broad domain, in a continuous state of development (continued) 13.

(22) Table 2.2 (continued).  . DEFENDERS.    . ANALYZERS.        . REACTORS.  . . Monitors a wide range of environmental conditions, trends, and events Creators of change in their industries Growth primarily from new markets and new products Uneven, spurt-like growth Aggressively maintain prominence within its chosen market segment Ignore developments outside of this domain Penetrate deeper into current markets Normally, growth occurs cautiously and incrementally A mixture of products and markets, some stable, others changing Successful imitation through extensive marketing surveillance Avid follower of change Growth normally occurs through market penetration Growth may also occur through product and market development Management fails to articulate a viable organizational strategy Management articulates an appropriate strategy, but technology, structure, and process are not linked to strategy appropriately Management adheres to a particular strategy-structure relationship that is not relevant to the environment. Note. Adapted from “Miles and Snow Organizational Types,” (1978) According to the literature discussed above, Miles and Snow’s model is considered relatively appropriate to be applied to differentiate school strategy type. The concepts of this model start from this question: “What strategies do organizations employ in solving their entrepreneurial, engineering, and administrative problems?” Thus, in schools, the internationalization strategy will be adapted to how school dealing with operational, teaching, and administrative problems. To attain sustainability, more and more schools adopt strategic management. In this study, 14.

(23) higher education institute is considered as a business organization. May (1997) also mentioned that social institutions needed to refer to government policies and translate them into strategies. The process is to analyze the whole education environment through external and internal analysis, evaluate the resources and limitation of school to further innovate the school, and create service characteristics. However, the school characteristics are still different from business, so the adjustment while applying is necessary.. The study aims to apply the four organization types mentioned above to categorize the school strategy towards internationalization.. Language Policy in Schools Fishman (1995) defined, “language policy is as the set of measures taken by public bodies with the intention of intervening in society's linguistic communications.” Spolsky (2010) distinguishes its three components: (1) language practices, (2) language beliefs or ideology, and (3) “any specific efforts to modify or influence that practice by any kind of language intervention, planning or management”. In a specific academic discipline, language policy is employed as the same concept with language planning at times (Wiley, 1996). Fishman (1973) made definition of language planning as, “the organized pursuit of solutions to language problems, typically at the national level,” which is adopted by most scholars. Corson (1999) further defined school language policy. He addressed, “school language policies are viewed by many in education as an integral and necessary part of the administration and the curriculum practice of school which identified areas in the school’s scope of operations and program where language problems exist that need the commonly agreed approach offered by a policy,” which is the definition this 15.

(24) study adopts. In school policy making, the needs of students and language problems which deeply influence the school and social content are concerned the most (Corson, 1999). Corson (1999), in the book of “Language Policy in Schools” brought up a practical approach for school administration and professor to design a language policy and to deal with the school language issues. In the end of this book, he used what a school language policy might contain under three headings: organization and management of the school, professor approaches to language use, the curriculum to conclude. Siaya and Hayward (2003) considered study-abroad experiences, curriculum enrichment via international studies majors or area studies, strengthened foreign-language instruction, and sponsorship of foreign students to study on campus are the motivations of campus-based internationalization. This definition can help school to determine the international policy from the perspectives from international students instead of local students.. In 2011, Taiwan governmental policies towards internationalization of higher education are to expand the recruitment of international students, strengthen academic international cooperation, and cultivate language talent of excellence. In evaluation plan of learning environment for international student in Taiwanese universities/ colleges conducted by FICHET, it employed five dimensions to evaluate the achievement. of. internationalization:. International. recruitment. and. courses,. administration resource, campus environment and equipment, life supporting system, and finally the construction of school website.. In this study, the language policy will include the range discussed above, and divided into four dimensions: teaching and curriculum, international academic 16.

(25) performance, administration support and campus environment, and finally the language ability.. Practices of Language Management Spolsky (2004) mentioned, “Appropriate language practice is to form a consensual ideology, assigning values and prestige to various aspects of the language varieties used in it.”. Feely and Harzing (2003) came up with options of managing language problems which are the practice of language management in business. They divided these options into 11 categories:. 1. Lingua Franca: Use English as the communicative language in a company. 2. Functional Multilingualism: “Muddle through, relying on a mix of languages, pidgins and gestures to communicate by whatever means the parties have at their disposal.” (P. 7) 3. External language resource: “Employ external resources such as translators and interpreters.” (P. 7) 4. Training: “The immediate and understandable reaction to any skills-shortage in a business is to consider personnel development and certainly the language training industry is well developed, offering programs at almost every level and in numerous languages.” (P. 8) 5. Corporate language: “Adopt a single corporate language. All recruitment and personnel development could then be focused upon achievement of required standards in that one chosen language.” (P. 9) 6. Language node: “Dependent upon their scarce linguistically skilled personnel. These key personnel become informal language nodes establishing themselves 17.

(26) as the default communications channel between the company and the external world.” (P. 10) 7. Selective recruitment: Hire people already possessing the required skills. 8. Expatriate management: “Any multinational company facing a language barrier with its subsidiaries is to assign expatriates to work within each subsidiary to act as the language node linking back to corporate headquarters.” (P. 11) 9. Inpatriation: Inpatriate subsidiary personnel into the head office operation. 10. Machine translation: Use machine to translate language and help the communication efficiency. 11. Controlled language: “A controlled language imposes limits on vocabulary and syntax rules so as to make the text produced more easily comprehended by the non-native speaker/reader and equally more amenable to machine translation.” (P. 13). The above mentioned language management practices may not apply to schools, thus investigation is needed to find out how schools confront language barriers.. Internationalization Outcome in Higher Education The Times Higher Education Supplement has set the internationalization criteria since 2004. It has evaluated the level of internationalization by peer review, recruiter review, international faculty score, international student score, faculty/student score, and citation/faculty score. Bartell (2002) addressed the international indicator should include the number of exchange and international students, the budget of internationalization, the number of international academic programs, international partnership, and curriculum content of internationalization. Besides, a Taiwanese researcher, Dai (2004), mentioned the internationalization outcome can be seen from 18.

(27) the internationalization level of students, professors, curriculum, and research. Internationalization outcome can be diverse.. This study also conducted telephone interview with one member of MOE to investigate the appropriate criteria to test international outcome in this study. The interviewee also revealed that the internationalization criteria can be very diverse and flexible. Moreover, each school might implement different approaches.. However, in this study, language barriers would be aroused by the enrollment of international students, so the number of international students will be utilized as the indicator to evaluate the internationalization outcome.. Relationship among Strategy Type, Language Management Practices and Internationalization Outcome Strategy Type and Language Management Practices Language management practices represent a major mechanism to fulfill the organization strategy towards internationalization. Higher education institutes have different internationalization strategy because of the concern of internal and external situation; thus, there must be strategy differences between schools to lead the production of various management practices. According to literature, Miles and Snow divided strategy into four types: prospector, defender, analyzer, and reactor based on the product-market domain and construct mechanisms (structures and processes). In this study, this model will be applied to distinguish the school strategy type. Product and market opportunities will also be considered as language management practices to find the relationship. Thus:. 19.

(28) Proposition 1: Schools with different strategy types will adopt different language management practices.. Language Management Practices and Internationalization Outcome According to Altbach and Knight (2007), “internationalization has included policies and practices undertaken by institutions to cope with the globalized academic environment.” (P. 290) From this perspective, the related policies and practices are brought up to confront internationalization. Besides, it is assumed that any practice will have its influence to a different degree on internationalization outcome. Thus: 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.. 20.

(29) CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY This chapter describes the framework, methods, steps, samples, and data collection employed in this research. It includes the qualitative research used to investigate the language management practices commonly adopted by higher education institutes in Taiwan, and explains the quantitative research process employed. to. explore. the. relationship. among. school. strategy. towards. internationalization, language management practices, and internationalization outcome.. Research Framework Language management issues are recently brought up owing to the effect of internationalization, not only in business but also in schools. According to the business concepts discussed in literature review, strategies of organization guide the formulation of policies and practices. Literature also showed that language is the first barrier international students confront; hence, this situation leads the researcher to study the relationship between language management and internationalization outcome. Figure 3.1 depicts the framework of this study as follows:. School Strategy towards Internationalization. Language Management Practices. Internationalization Outcome. Figure 3.1 Conceptual Framework of this Study. Based on the previous introduction, the propositions are as follows:. Proposition 1: Schools with different strategy type will adopt different language 21.

(30) 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.. Research Method As shown in the literature review section, few studies discussed language management, especially in school perspectives. This study is exploratory in nature and used both a qualitative and a quantitative approach to explore language management issues in higher education institutes. First, qualitative method was adopted to investigate the language management practices in universities/colleges under the influence of school internationalization using an in-depth interview with semi-structured questions. Second, using a quantitative approach, a survey questionnaire was employed as the tool to collect data on school strategy towards internationalization, language management practices, as well as internationalization outcome of schools, with the purpose of investigating the relationship among these variables.. Research Procedure The procedure was separated into four main steps (See Table 3.1). The first step was preparation, including the direction of the topic, and literature review. The second and third steps were implementation of qualitative and quantitative studies. In qualitative study, it started from sample selection and interview question design through expert review. Then, interview was conducted to collect the language management practices. 22.

(31) Quantitative study also began from design phase. After expert review, one pilot study of 15 universities/colleges was conducted to make adjustment. Finally, the questionnaire was administered to collect data. In the result section, the data was analyzed and the discussion and conclusions were offered.. Table 3.1 Research Procedure. 23.

(32) Table 3.1 Research Procedure. Preparation. Identification of the Topic and Direction. Literature Review and Research Method. Qualitative Study. cs Interview Participant Selection. (Stage 1) Interview Question Design. Expert Review. Implementation of Interviews. Qualitative Data Analysis. Quantitative Study. Questionnaire Design. (Stage 2) Expert Review and Pilot Test. Distribution of Survey Questionnaire. Data Collection. Data Analysis. Result. Finding Writing of the Thesis. Research Sample Qualitative Study Nine universities/colleges from the 163 in Taiwan with great performance in recruiting international students were focused in the study. There is an assumption that 24.

(33) more international students will force the school to make more efforts on international affairs. Hence, the interviewees are the people working in international affairs related divisions in universities/colleges of great international outcome. The number of international students was employed as the selection criterion. E-mail and telephone were used to invite the members of top 30 universities/colleges with high number of international students. This study eventually included 9 interviewees of international affair division from different universities/colleges with at least one year international affair experience. Table 3.2 shows the profile information of interviewees in this study. Nicknames were used to assure anonymity of the participants.. Table 3.2 Interviewee Information in Qualitative Study Title. International Affair Experience. Mary. Dean of International Affairs. 1. Ranking / Number of international students in University 1 / 4005. Mark. Dean of International Affairs. 3. 5 / 1887. Linda. Deputy Dean of International Affairs Dean of International Affairs. 4. 6 / 1875. 6. 7 / 1746. 2. 8 / 1371. Alan. Director of International Student Center Dean of International Affairs. 5. 13 / 764. Vincent. Dean of International Affairs. 2. 15 / 680. Kate. Deputy Dean of International Affairs Dean of International Affairs. 2. 16 / 531. 7. 22 / 497. Interviewee. John Cathy. William. Quantitative Study The quantitative study was intended to include all 163 higher education institutes in Taiwan, consisting of 116 universities, 32 institutes, and 15 colleges. There are 52 national schools, 2 municipal schools, and 109 private schools in the list (Ministry of 25.

(34) Education, 2012). However, only 146 universities/colleges have international students and not all schools have the international affairs division. For those who do not have international affair division, the questionnaire was delivered to the academic affairs division or the research and development division. Table 3.3 Demographic Information of Schools in Quantitative Study Sample Characteristics National Private. Type. Region. Location. Motivation of Internationalization. Municipal. 2. 1.6. Missing Value. 6. 4.7. North. 48. 37.8. Central South East and others Missing Value. 26 37 10 6. 20.5 29.1 7.9 4.7. City. 64. 50.4. Suburb Rural and Mountain Missing Value. 1 55 7. 0.8 43.3 5.5. Elevate international vision of local students Increase the number of students. 35. 27.6. 45. 35.4. Build international Reputation. 31. 24.4. 6. 4.7. 10. 7.9. 103. 81.1. 18. 14.2. 6. 4.7. Others Missing Value Enrollment of International Students. Frequency Percentage 36 28.3 83 65.4. With International Students Without International Students Missing Value. Though this study tried to utilize a census approach to collect data from all universities/colleges of Taiwan, the response rate was unpredictable. This study used several approaches to increase the response rate, including an official cover letter on department letterhead explaining the importance of this study, a gift certificate in the 26.

(35) value of NT$100 as an incentive, and follow-up phone calls. A total of 121 questionnaires were collected. The total response rate is 74.2 percent.. To detect non-response error, this study adopted the procedure suggested by Armstrong and Overton (1977) and compared the responses between early and late respondents based on the assumption that non-respondents are similar to late respondents. Late respondents were defined as those last 41 who returned the survey. The t-test result showed that the two groups were only significantly different on one response item, c13. Thus, it can be assumed that the responses collected in this research are representative of the target population.. Data Collection Qualitative Study In qualitative study, an in-depth interview was conducted mainly to investigate the language management practices in schools. The interview was semi-structural utilizing eleven questions to invite them to speak of language management practices. As discussed in the introduction, language management is a relatively new concept, thus, the general public is not familiar with the term “language management”. Hence, in the interview, the issues of internationalization were utilized to start our conversation. The questions (see Appendix A) were explained respectively in the following paragraphs.. At the beginning, the internationalization strategy and policies are focused by asking these two questions: “What is the degree of internationalization your school involved?” and “Would you please share the internationalization policies that your school has now?” In this part, the language related internationalization practices are 27.

(36) what the researcher need to explore more on.. After the interviewees openly finish their sharing about internationalization practices, the researcher encouraged them to speak in details on language management practices. First, “What are the language assistances and requirements does your school have from the registration of international/local students to graduation?” and “What are the language assistances and requirements does your school have for other school members except students, such as administrative personnel, professor, and personnel of guidance system?” are the questions utilized to generally talk about LM practices for different school members in sequence. Furthermore, teaching and curriculum, international academic performance, administrative environment, and language ability requirement, these four dimensions are employed to structurally acquire the completeness of LM management according to the literature by asking the following questions in Table 3.4.. Table 3.4 Interview Questions Categorized by Dimensions DIMENSION. QUESTION. Teaching and Curriculum International Academic Performance. — —. What are the changes of teaching and curriculum because of school internationalization? What are the plans to develop international academic performance? (continued). Table3.4 (continued). 28.

(37) Administrative Support. —. — Language Ability. —. —. What administrative assistance do school offer to support international students? How’s the language and accessibility of school website? Do you receive any feedback of administrative assistance and website use? What are they? How international is the campus environment of your school? Under the impact of internationalization, what are the adjustments of language requirement for local students, professors, and faculties? And what are they? Do schools have plans to cultivate language ability of foreign students? Please explain the difference your school provides for English-dominant and non-English-dominant students.. Finally, the question “Would you please share some internationalization practices successfully implemented at school based on your own experience?” was employed to find out whether language management was recognized as best practices.. Quantitative Study The two main objectives of quantitative study were to find out the relationship among school strategy towards internationalization and language management practices, and the influence of language management practices on internationalization outcome. The internationalization outcome was measured by the number of international students enrolled in a school, with data retrieved from the MOE, Taiwan. Data on school strategy and language management practices were collected through a survey questionnaire. This questionnaire was designed into three parts to fulfill the objectives of the study: strategy identification, implementation of language management practices, and finally the demographic information. In strategy identification, this study utilized the description of the four general strategies in the Miles and Snow typology to help 29.

(38) research participants identify their school strategy towards internationalization. McDaniel and Kolari (1987) also employed this method to find out the strategy type of banks. To uncover the current situation on the implementation of language management practices, all language management practices identified from the qualitative study was organized into a list as part of the survey questionnaire (See Appendix C). Participants selected the practices their school has implemented from this list. However, Miles and Snow’s strategy typology was developed for private organizations and may not be appropriate for educational institutes. This study thus modified McDaniel and Kolari’s (1987) descriptive approach to identify strategy types in educational institutes and further broke Miles and Snow’s strategy typology into 20 Likert-type questions to prevent the difficulty for schools to subjectively select its strategy. Since these strategy questions were developed by this study, factor analysis was conducted to explore the factor structure of these questions. This study used principle component analysis with varimax rotation in factor analysis. Factors with eigenvalue larger than 1 were extracted.. The 20 descriptive questions of strategy were grouped into four categories after factor analysis procedure (See Table 3.5). The total variance explained by the four factors was 67.86%. Questions were deleted when their factor loading fell below 0.5 or when cross loaded on other factors. Therefore, questions s2, s12, and s15 were deleted.. 30.

(39) Table 3.5 Factor Analysis of Internationalization Strategy Questions. Strategy Question. Factor Loading S1 S2 S3. S1-Reactor s19: My school is not willing to spend extra cost to undertake the uncertain risk. s20: Only when the overall environment is over pressured, my school will adopt fundamental internationalization practices. s17: The school does not have consistent internationalization policy and target market. s18: My school is relatively not proactive in coping with internationalization. s12: My school usually ignores indirectly related overall internationalization environment.. .796 -.061 .792. S4. .156 -.137. .049 -.019. .058. .702 -.231. .306 -.183. .692 -.381. .185 -.254. .412 -.233. .389 -.009. S2-Prospector s3: My school emphasizes on the market signs and checks the opportunities in the environment regularly. s1: My school focuses on the extensive market and target on the way to progress internationalization process. s4: My school would evaluate regularly the appropriateness of internationalization services and strategy, and make the following action plan by the opportunities. s5: My school usually adopted more innovative internationalization practices than other schools. s13: On one hand, my school implements the existed effective internationalization policy and services; on the other hand, my school observes closely the competitors in the market, and adopts those policies that are possibly with good potential. s6: My school aims to become the leader of every internationalization practices.. -.162. .803 -.027. .070. .045. .206. -.333. .751 -.131. .108. -.530. .565 -.239 -.033. -.290. .541 -.171. .324. -.443. .508 -.323. .117. .142. .765. (continued). 31.

(40) Table 3.5 (continued) S3-Analyzer (Stable Approach) s7: My school does not seek to become extensive leader in the process of internationalization. s9: My school focuses on mature and stable internationalization policy, and rarely adjusts with the environment changes. s14: The internationalization strategy in my school emphasizes efficiency and effectiveness, and inclined to take the uncertainty.. .153 -.194. .737. .074. .170 -.078. .713 -.181. .109. .356. .558. .164. s8: My school focuses on specific region, market and target on the way to internationalization.. .014. .030. .040. .783. s11: My school is adept in maintaining certain target market. s10: My school is very familiar with the internationalization operation in certain market, and provides good quality services to target market. s16: My school is good at setting up formal structure and process, such as policies and standard operation. -.360. .217. .027. .706. -.492. .298 -.053. .530. .117. .274 -.470. .503. S4-Defender (Target Market). procedures, to perform efficient routine services. The language management practices were collected from in-depth interview in this study. Since there were many items of language management practices, factor analysis was applied to reduce the number of dimensions for further inferential statistical analysis. As seen in Table 3.6, the first group of language management practices is language ability of school members. This group is categorized into six dimensions. The total variance explained by the six factors was 69.08%. Questions e9 and e20 with loading lower than 0.5 were deleted. The other group of language management practices is language environment building. It is divided into four dimensions after deleting seven questions (c8, c12, c13, c17, c21, c22, c23) using the criteria consistent with the previous procedure. The total variance explained by the 32.

(41) four factors was 71.27% Table 3.6 Factor Analysis of Language Management Practices (Language Ability) Language Management Practices (Language Ability) Question Factor Loading E1 E2 E3 E4 E1- Language Training Center e1: Establish language training center .817 .182 .066 .131 (e.g. Mandarin Chinese center) e2: Design Mandarin Chinese training .798 .300 .124 .220 courses for international students. e3: Design English training courses. .619 .285 .137 .094 e10: Establish language training unit (e.g. .601 .009 .445 .203 learning center for language or language assessment center) E2- Language Ability Policy for Foreign Students e4: Set English as the criteria for .315 .769 .140 -.005 application of international students. e5: Set Mandarin Chinese as the criteria .305 .720 .029 .142 for application of international students. e13: Set English as the criteria for -.105 .707 .182 .423 application of local students. e7: Set Mandarin Chinese as graduation .210 .561 -.047 .148 criteria of international students. E3- Language Ability Policy for Local Students e16: Design English make-up teaching -.056 .169 .819 .235 courses for local students. e15: Classes divided by different .133 .100 .778 .086 language proficiency for local students. e14: List English as common required .195 -.107 .710 .098 course for local students. e17: Set English as graduation criteria for .244 .318 .615 .203 local students. E4- Language Ability Service for Local Students e19: Design and implement after-class .111 .027 .178 .783 language learning activity for local students (e.g. English day). e11: Design other language training .350 .264 .170 .632 course besides English training courses.. E5. E6. .007. .268. .070. .123. .352 .117. .153 .060. .159. .146. .029. .275. .009. .127. .231. .394. .076. .000. .108. .136. .007. .188. .280 -.030. .036. .218. .022 -.085 (continued). 33.

(42) Language Management Practices (Language Ability) Table 3.6 (continued) e12: Design English training courses for .064 .293 .203 .626 .137 .045 local students. (e.g. English program or English on-line learning) E5- Language Incentives e8: Establish language incentive practices .096 .064 .038 .012 .885 .135 for international students.(e.g. reimbursement for language test and incentive programs for language certification) e6: Set English as graduation criteria for .264 .380 .202 .091 .712 -.108 international students. e18: Establish language incentive -.371 -.054 .381 .268 .576 .157 practices for local students. (e.g. reimbursement for language test and incentive programs for language certification) E6- Language Learning for Faculty Members e23: Establish language incentive .087 .146 .146 .008 .128 .829 practices for faculty members (e.g. reimbursement for language test and incentive programs for language certification) e22: Design English training course to .199 .356 .194 .208 -.032 .731 increase the language ability of local professors and other faculty members. e21: Design Mandarin Chinese training .281 .481 .041 .186 .155 .558 courses to elevate Chinese ability of professors from other countries.. 34.

(43) Table 3.7 Factor Analysis of Language Management Practices (Language Environment) Language Management Practices (Language Environment) Question C1 C2 C1-Indirect Language Environment c10: Set administrative personnel basic language .793 .076 requirement. c6: Adopt bilingual content in Academic Affair .779 .330 (registration and course selection) system. c11: Set basic language requirement for school guidance .770 .086 system. (e.g. military instructor, guidance Officer, nurse) c7: Adopt bilingual content in on-line learning system .743 .412 c2: Adopt bilingual content in regulations .666 .217 c9: Provide professors from other countries guideline .569 .165 and manual. C2- Courses Conducted in English c20: Set up courses taught in English. .131 .865 c19: Set up English programs. .377 .795 c18: Recruit local professors that can teach in English. .205 .768 C3- Faculty Language Ability c14: Recruit administrative staff with relatively good .263 .155 language ability. c15: Recruit part-time workers with excellent language .125 .315 ability c16: Recruit foreign professors with Chinese Mandarin .196 .334 ability C4- Direct Language Environment c3: Adopt bilingual/ multi-lingual content in school .094 .152 website c4: Adopt bilingual content in campus signs. .096 .141 c5: Adopt bilingual content in campus information (e.g. .339 .167 poster, electronic newspaper in campus, internal activities information and traffic information) c1: Adopt bilingual content in forms and document. .437 -.034. C3. C4. .408. .079. .030. .227. .354. .014. -.003 .327 .035. .233 .307 .451. .249 .118 .382. .165 .142 .167. .844. .147. .794. .176. .617. .298. .143. .798. .102 .260. .777 .663. .436. .537. In conclusion, school strategy towards internationalization is divided into four types as shown in the literature (prospector, reactor, analyzer and defender). A five-point Likert type scale (1 represents strongly disagree and 5 represents strongly agree) was used for respondents to rate how their school do on these strategy items. 35.

(44) Ratings were aggregated for each strategy type. For each school, the highest-scored strategy type was identified as the school’s strategy. For example, if a school scored the highest on the prospector strategy items, this school will be identified as a prospector. Except the correlation analysis, which used the mean of original rating of each strategy type, school strategy was treated as a categorical variable. When a school has more than one highest-scored strategy type, this school was identified as having multiple strategies, a fifth category in data coding. LM practices of language ability among school members are categorized into six dimensions, which are defined as E1 to E6. The detail information of each dimension is shown in Table 3.6. LM practices of language environment in campus are divided into four dimensions (C1 to C4). Table 3.7 reports category information in details. Respondents were asked to rate their schools on these items using a five-point Likert type scale representing the level of implementation of each practice in their schools.. Data Analysis Procedures Qualitative The procedure for the qualitative study was first the preparation of raw data files, which included the researcher’s record and verbatim text. After careful reading, the researcher coded the text content into different categories and further reviewed the overlapping coding and uncoded text. The coding process went through continuous revision and refinement until a valid category system is achieved. (Thomas, 2006). The ultimate outcome of this stage was a list of language management practices currently in use by higher education institutes.. Quantitative SPSS version 19 was employed to conduct statistical analysis in quantitative study. Descriptive statistics was used to show the general distribution of the school 36.

(45) demographics and major research variables. Cross tabulation was used to show inter-relations between school internationalization strategy and language management practices. Regression analysis was conducted to test the propositions regarding relationships between language management practices and internationalization outcome.. 37.

(46) CHAPTER IV. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS. 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. e1 e2 e3 e4 e5 e6 e7 e8 e9 e10 e11 e12 e13 e14 e15 e16 e17 e18. Implementation Level of LM Practices (low) (high) 1 2 3 4 5 37.8 % 21.3 % 7.9 % 12.6 % 15.7 % 30.7 % 18.9 % 9.4 % 17.3 % 18.9 % 26.8 % 11.0 % 22.0 % 21.3 % 14.2 % 39.4 % 18.1 % 11.8 % 18.1 % 7.9 % 42.1 % 22.8 % 13.4 % 15.0 % 4.7 % 29.8 % 9.9 % 14.0 % 29.8 % 16.5 % 33.9 % 7.4 % 8.3 % 28.1 % 22.3 % 33.9 % 7.4 % 8.3 % 28.1 % 22.3 % 32.2 % 20.7 % 14.9 % 17.4 % 14.9 % 17.4 % 11.6 % 14.9 % 26.4 % 29.8 % 19.0 % 13.2 % 26.4 % 23.1 % 18.2 % 8.3 % 16.5 % 25.6 % 24.8 % 24.8 % 48.8 % 13.2 % 14.0 % 11.6 % 12.4 % 2.5 % .8 % 10.7 % 33.9 % 52.1 % 15.7 % 9.1 % 10.7 % 23.1 % 41.3 % 6.6 % 7.4 % 17.4 % 35.5 % 33.1 % 10.7 % 9.1 % 11.6 % 27.3 % 41.3 % 6.6 % 5.0 % 17.4 % 32.2 % 38.8 %. 38. Mean. 2.45 2.74 2.84 2.34 2.18 2.93 1.82 2.98 2.62 3.40 3.08 3.41 2.26 4.32 3.65 3.81 3.79 3.92. SD. 1.52 1.55 1.43 1.39 1.27 1.50 1.20 1.62 1.46 1.46 1.36 1.26 1.47 .89 1.48 1.17 1.35 1.17 (continued).

(47) Table 4.1 (continued) e19 18.2 % e20 3.3 % e21 59.5% e22 38.0 % e23 34.7 %. 12.4 % 5.0 % 19.8% 20.7 % 16.5 %. 20.7 % 14.9 % 9.9 % 22.3 % 22.3 %. 23.1 % 28.1 % 5.8 % 11.6 % 17.4 %. 25.6 % 48.8 % 5.0 % 6.6 % 8.3 %. 3.26 4.14 1.77 2.27 2.47. 1.44 1.06 1.15 1.27 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.. 39.

(48) Table 4.2 Top Five and Bottom Five LM Practices for Language Ability Bottom Five LM Practices for Language Ability. e4: Set English as the criteria for application of international students. e5: Set Mandarin Chinese as the criteria for application of international students. e13: Set English as the criteria for application of local students. e21: Design Mandarin Chinese training courses to elevate Chinese ability of foreign professors. e22: Design English training course to increase the English ability of local professors and other faculty members. Top Five LM Practices for Language Ability. e14: List English as common obligatory course for local students. e16: Design English make-up courses for local students. e17: Set English as the graduation criteria for local students. e18: Establish language incentive practices for local students. e20: Provide study abroad and exchange opportunities for local students.. Percentage of Lowest Implementation Level of LM Practices 39.4 %. Mean. 42.1 %. 2.18. 48.8%. 2.26. 59.5%. 1.77. 38.0 %. 2.27. Percentage of Highest Implementation Level of LM Practices 52.1 %. Mean. 33.1 %. 3.81. 41.3 %. 3.92. 38.8 %. 3.79. 48.8 %. 4.14. 2.34. 4.32. 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 40.

(49) 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. c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 c6 c7 c8 c9 c10 c11 c12 c13 c14 c15 c16 c17 c18 c19 c20 c21 c22 c23. Implementation Level of LM Practices (low) (high) 1 2 3 4 5 26.4 % 24.0 % 24.0 % 19.0 % 6.6 % 40.5 % 23.1 % 19.8 % 12.4 % 4.1 % 1.7 % 7.4 % 38.0 % 21.3 % 22.3 % 5.0 % 9.9 % 24.0 % 38.0 % 23.1 % 14.9 % 22.3 % 32.2 % 22.3 % 8.3 % 30.6 % 31.4 % 17.4 % 14.9 % 5.8 % 33.9 % 28.1 % 18.2 % 14.9 % 4.1 % 21.5 % 15.7 % 14.9 % 21.5 % 26.4 % 39.7 % 23.1 % 22.3 % 7.4 % 7.4 % 36.4 % 35.5 % 15.7 % 10.7 % 1.7 % 41.3 % 33.9 % 15.7 % 7.4 % 1.7 % 27.3 % 15.7 % 16.5 % 24.8 % 15.7 % 17.4 % 26.4 % 28.9 % 18.2 % 9.1 % 13.2 % 19.0 % 32.2 % 24.0 % 11.6 % 21.5 % 14.9 % 30.6 % 22.3 % 10.7 % 30.6 % 16.5 % 23.1 % 19.8 % 9.9 % 13.2 % 16.5 % 24.0 % 26.4 % 19.8 % 14.9 % 22.3 % 25.6 % 23.1 % 14.0 % 24.8 % 15.7 % 25.6 % 22.3 % 11.6 % 13.2 % 15.7 % 29.8 % 25.6 % 15.7 % 5.0 % 10.7 % 21.5 % 35.5 % 27.3 % 5.0 % 9.9 % 18.2 % 43.0 % 24.0 % 8.3 % 5.8 % 15.7 % 25.6 % 44.6 %. Mean. SD. 2.55 2.17 3.64 3.64 2.87 2.34 2.27 3.16 2.20 2.06 1.94 2.86 2.75 3.02 2.86 2.62 3.23 2.99 2.80 3.15 3.69 3.71 3.93. 1.25 1.21 .97 1.10 1.17 1.22 1.20 1.51 1.25 1.05 1.01 1.46 1.21 1.20 1.29 1.36 1.31 1.28 1.35 1.25 1.13 1.09 1.26. The bottom six LM practices (c6, c7, c9, c10, c11, c16) consist of two 41.

(50) 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. c7: Adopt bilingual content in on-line learning system. c9: Provide manual of guidance for foreign professors. c10: Set up basic language requirement for administrative personnel.. Percentage of Lowest Implementation Level of LM Practices 30.6 %. Mean. 33.9 %. 2.27. 39.7 %. 2.20. 36.4 %. 2.06. 2.34. (continued) 42.