Based on analysis of the findings of international and domestic scholars, this study puts forward a triangle model to define and delineate IOU. The model involves four elements, which are objective, level, capacity and activity (as shown in Figure 1 below). In the model, objective is the core, level and capacity are keys, and activity is the foundation. According to the definition of university internationalization currently given by domestic and international scholars, most of them think internationalization is “a process” (Jane Knight, 2006^[2], Hans de Wit, 2011^[3], CHEN Xuefei, 2004^[4], et al). They focus more on activity and measures but less on objective, and barely differentiate level from capacity. This study upholds the following views: First, in order to grasp the true meaning of internationalization, we must take into account the objective of internationalization. A school with a different objective for internationalization will have a different understanding of what internationalization entails. Second, when defining internationalization, we must differentiate between the level of internationalization and the capacity for internationalization. The level of internationalization refers to the current international status of a university or its activities in support of internationalization. It generally describes a static state or current situation. The capacity for internationalization refers to a university’s capacity to raise its level of internationalization within a certain period of time and its ability to execute its own internationalization strategies or goals. It generally describes a dynamic state or a process. Third, in order to achieve the objective of internationalization, level and capacity must be promoted at the same time. The higher the university’s level of internationalization and the stronger its capacity for internationalization, the faster its development in terms of internationalization will be. The lower the university’s level of internationalization and the weaker its capacity for internationalization, the slower its development in terms of internationalization will be. Fourth, in order to raise the level, enhance the capacity, and realize the objective of internationalization, a series of activities are necessary so that the concept of internationalization can be embodied in every corner of the university and implemented in all respects. To summarize the above, IOU as referred to in this study involves conducting a series of activities to respond to the trend of globalization, to cultivate internationalized professionals, and to add an international dimension to each aspect of open universities, thereby comprehensively boosting international competitiveness and the global adaptability of open universities.

Figure 1  The Triangle Model to Define IOU

2. Building an open index framework for IOU

On the issue of internationalization indexes, we mainly used literature review and case study, including cases of university internationalization indexes at home and abroad. We reviewed over 30 research projects in countries and regions including the United States, Europe, Japan and Taiwan. In 2011, WU Mei delivered an in-depth comparative analysis and suggestions on the four influential internationalization assessment index systems of Internationalization Quality Review Process (IQRP), the American Council of Education (ACE), Osaka University and Zhongshan University^[5]. Drawing on the research of WU Mei and others, this thesis makes a further comprehensive analysis and comparative study of four international projects for the assessment of higher education internationalization (the IQRP^[6] project, ACE^[7] project, the index system of Osaka University^[8], and Bartell’s framework based on school culture^[9]) and nine domestic index projects (including Shandong University (2010), Guangdong Province (trial), and Zhongshan University). During the course of the research, a Delphi expert questionnaire on IOU assessment was designed with Professor John Holleman from the University of Mississippi, USA, and a preliminary IOU index framework was proposed based on the questionnaire. We believe that the framework centers around raising the quality of internationalization, and embodies the principles of practical innovation, avoidance of fixed weights, qualitative and quantitative integration, attention to the goals of use, and reflection of the characteristics of distance education.

2.1 Research on internationalization indexes for open universities is a new topic of practical innovation

At present, there are no research projects or achievements focused on IOU indexes either domestically or internationally, which can be seen from the following: First, existing research is concentrated on indexes of university internationalization, internationalization of higher education and internationalization of graduate school education. The indexes of university internationalization are usually suitable for ordinary campus universities, and lack relevant indexes relating to distance education. They cannot adapt fully to open universities that predominantly feature open and distance education. Second, in the course of studying university internationalization indexes domestically and abroad, research and survey work rarely take open universities into account. It is safe to say that IOU index research is still a new topic which needs both theoretical and practical exploration. The key is to find indexes that can represent the degree, level and capacity of the internationalization of open universities, and to identify credible and meaningful indexes. In constructing IOU indexes, the indexes of regular university internationalization should be used as a base while incorporating the features of distance education. This study holds that an education system can be regarded as a composition of the four elements of teachers, students, courses and environment. Hence, distance education systems have four characteristics: (1) Teachers function more as guides to the students; (2) Students learn mainly in the form of supported independent learning; (3) Courses are transmitted mainly with the aid of technology; (4) The environment transcends the limits of time and space. The most striking characteristic is that the teachers and students are relatively separated.

2.2 It is improper to give each index uniform, fixed weight

This study found that in some studies, especially domestically, each index of university internationalization is given a fixed weight. Examples are the internationalization assessment index systems developed by Shandong University and Zhongshan University. In contrast, index systems of university internationalization abroad are seldom weighted. We believe that it is improper to assign uniform, fixed weights to internationalization indexes, based on two factors: First, theoretically, each internationalization index forms a complementary part of a whole. Though the indexes have differing degrees of importance, they should not be assigned a fixed proportional relationship. Second, problems occur if uniform, fixed weights are given to internationalization indexes. The first is that it is easy to cause the schools to pursue internationalization quantity while neglecting quality, to focus on form rather than content. The second is that it is easy to create competition between schools for ranking on this set of indexes, leading to a convergence in internationalization development objectives and models, and resulting in the loss of individuality. The third is that it is easy for schools to neglect the original intention of constructing internationalization indexes, that is, to provide a reference to help each school improve its quality of internationalization.