Cross-Border Delivery - SAGE Publications · Chapter 18. Cross-Border Delivery 327 Table 18.1...

325

Cross-border education is not a new concept. The spread of religious educa-tion across the globe over many decades

is but one example that attests to its historical significance. Knight (2006) describes cross bor-der education as

higher education that takes place in situations where the teacher, student, program, institution/provider or course materials cross-national jurisdictional borders. Cross-border education may include higher education by public/private and not-for-profit/for–profit providers. It encompasses a wide range of modalities in a continuum from face-to-face (taking various forms from students travelling abroad and campuses abroad) to distance learning (using a range of technologies and including e-learning). (p. 18)

One could therefore conclude that cross-border education is a catch-all phase that provides a plat-form for international cooperation and exchange that can lead to the delivery of degree and non-degree programs in foreign locations, staff and student mobility, cross-border accreditation, research collaboration, and many other applicable forms of the internationalization process. Research

into the topic also indicates that cross-border education has evolved in different ways and forms across the globe. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2004) suggests that whereas the United States is seen as a magnet for international students, in Europe, student mobility has been largely policy driven, and in the Asia-Pacific region, it is demand driven. Transnational education (TNE), which addresses program or institution mobility, on the other hand, has evolved through initiatives that have been largely driven at the micro level by educa-tional institutions themselves and by policies implemented by receiving countries.

In this chapter, our raison d’être is to examine and comment on cross-border delivery of projects, programs, and providers in this new century. This fits comfortably with the program/institution-oriented focus presented in the various transna-tional definitions often used interchangeably with cross-border education. More than a decade ago, Knight (1999, p. 14) identified the imprecision in the terminology, pointing to the complexity and evolution of the international, global/transna-tional/regional dimension of higher education.

UNESCO/ Council of Europe (2001) pro-vides a broad yet descriptive TNE definition that refers to

18Cross-Border Delivery

Projects, Programs, and Providers

Peter Burgess and Brett Berquist

326 Section D. Internationalization Abroad

all types of higher education study programmes, or sets of courses of study, or educational services (including those of distance education) in which the learners are located in a country different from the one where the awarding institution is based. (p. 1)

The UNESCO definition addresses any form of educational arrangements that can result in the establishment of either collaborative path-way or articulation arrangements, where study programs, or parts of a particular course of study, or other educational services of the awarding institution are provided by another partner insti-tution. This definition also refers to noncollabo-rative arrangements, which include branch campuses or corporate or international institu-tions, where degree courses, study, or other edu-cational services are provided directly by an awarding institution.

Market Forces

Background

Higher education institutions began to pur-sue transnational interests in the 1980s, when

full-fee onshore degrees were introduced in the United Kingdom and Australia. This occurred at a time when the governments reduced expendi-ture in the tertiary education sector. TNE then came of age during the early 1990s when it began to be acknowledged as a legitimate higher education activity that could complement stra-tegic internationalization objectives and provide opportunities for additional revenue generation.

Table 18.1 presents selected findings from research undertaken by the Academic Cooperation Association (ACA) between March 2007 and July 2008 as part of the European Commission’s Erasmus Mundus Global Promotion Project (http://ec.europa.eu/education/erasmus-mundus/doc/studies/tnesum_en.pdf); the British Council 2007 (http://international.ac.uk/statistics/transna-tional_education.cfm); and Australian Education International (AEI) Research Snapshot Dec 2011: (http://www.aei.gov.au/research/Research-Snapshots/Documents/RS%20Transnational%20education%20in%20HE%20sector%202010.pdf).

Such research in broad terms has investigated the extent and modes influencing the demand and supply of transnational higher education in recent years, and Table 18.1 draws heavily on the extensive knowledge and experience of the sector held by the authors.

Nation Activities

United States Taken together, about 50 U.S. tertiary institutions (only 1%) are reported to offer more than 200 transnational programs that vary from franchising arrangements to full branch campuses across 40 countries, which include China, South Korea, Vietnam, the Middle East, and Turkey (Berquist & Fuller, 2006)

United Kingdom In 2007–2008, 196,640 students were studying in more than 1,000 UK transnational programs (60% postgraduate, 40% undergraduate) (Higher Education Statistics Agency [HESA], 2010)

About 65% of the 145 registered UK higher education institutions offer TNE programs, with 60% of the activity directed toward Asia (ACA, 2008)

UK modes of transnational engagement vary from full multidisciplinary branch campuses to distance learning programs, with joint/dual degrees being particularly popular (ACA, 2008)

In 2006–2007, 20 UK higher education institutions offered undergraduate and postgraduate degree courses through Indian partner institutions to about 4,100 Indian students (British Council, 2009)

In Hong Kong, 81 UK higher education institutions offer between them 617 undergraduate and postgraduate programs (British Council, 2009)

France Twenty-four institutions offer more than 200 programs, of which a majority (126) are at master’s level. The main French transnational target countries include North Africa (58% of operations), Europe, and Asia (ACA, 2008)

Chapter 18. Cross-Border Delivery 327

Table 18.1 Examples of Recent Transnational Project and Program Activities

Nation Activities

Germany About 8,000 students were enrolled in 85 transnational programs outside Europe in 2006–2007 (ACA, 2008)

Netherlands A total of 20 transnational programs with between 1,000 and 2,000 enrollments are in its program portfolio, which seems to focus on master’s-level courses that include MBAs, hospitality management, engineering, and public health (ACA, 2008)

Australia In 2010, 104,678 transnational students were studying in Australian higher education programs outside Australia. This represented 31.2% of all international students undertaking Australian higher education programs.

The top five nationalities engaging in offshore Australian higher education programs were Singapore, China, Malaysia, Hong Kong, and Vietnam—somewhat different than the top five nationalities (China, India, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Indonesia) represented in enrollments onshore in Australia.

The most popular transnational programs in 2010 were bachelor’s degree (68%) and master’s degree by coursework (21%); discipline preferences were: management and commerce (57%), information technology (8%), engineering and related technologies (7%), society and culture (7%), and health (6%) (Australian Education International (AEI) Research Snapshot, December 2011)

However, even with all the cross-border information that is available, Knight (2005) and de Wit (2008) make the point that there remains a dearth of data regarding cross-border policy and TNE development across the sector, particularly in the United States (Berquist & Fuller, 2006). The ACA in 2008 also confirmed that Europe still has no central register of TNE programs and little if any data to ascertain the number of institutions or students involved. What can safely be assumed is that supply of and the demand for higher education transnational programs has expanded over this decade. Even in a climate where Australia has reported reductions in the actual number of transnational programs offered since 2007, total transnational student enrollments are reported to be growing (Banks, Kevat, Ziguras, Ciccarelli, & Clayton, 2010). The reduction of Australian programs is believed to be the result of a num-ber of risk reduction strategies designed to address market forces which include the increas-ing rigor of the Australian quality assurance process, demand shifts in maturing transna-tional target markets, re-engineering of course offerings and delivery, and changes in partner-ship arrangements.

What is generally accepted in various parts of the world is that transnational higher education is a potentially powerful tool that completes the palette for a comprehensive internationalization policy.

Provider Motives

Mutual understanding, skilled migration, revenue generation, and capacity building have previously been identified as primary motivators for cross-border education (Larsen, Momii & Vincent-Lancrin, 2004). In the United States, mutual understanding and capacity building have driven many cross-border projects. As one component of a com-prehensive internationalization strategy, such projects can jump-start or enhance a larger agenda for academic research and exchange cooperation. Capacity-building projects, when undertaken in partnership, often terminate when the knowledge has been transferred. This is particularly the case where external interna-tional development funding has been accessed to support the project or where the project parameters are narrowly defined. In other cases, capacity building has provided the


platform for continued institutional strengthen-ing and sustainable partnership engagement.

In an increasingly competitive global educa-tion market, TNE can also enhance visibility and strengthen brand positioning. Furthermore, financial motives play an important role in any decision to pursue transnational higher education opportunities. In a study conducted by IDP Education Australia as far back as 2001, Rizvi (2004) found that more than 40% of the universities surveyed stated that the generation of additional sources of revenue was a primary transnational motive. Likewise, in the United States and United Kingdom continuing declines in state funding of higher education have encouraged more universi-ties to include transnational initiatives as an important recruitment strategy for foreign national students on- or offshore. Dual-degree develop-ment has also found increasing government sup-port, particularly in Europe, and is an important factor influencing cross-border delivery. In the United Kingdom in 2009, the Prime Minister’s Initiative (British Council PM12, 2009) provided funding to support 14 transnational projects. In addition, 47 strategic alliances and partnership grants were allocated. The United States also pro-vided funding for many years through the Fund for the Improvement of Post Secondary Education (FIPSE), which helped tertiary institutions to cre-ate cross-Atlantic programs and strengthen insti-tutional relationships.

Recipient Motives

A growing number of governments have identified TNE cooperation as a strategy to increase domestic education capacity. Providing foreign education access to domestic markets can support an increase in the number of avail-able student places, facilitate knowledge transfer, and encourage collaborative academic research.

India and China are prime examples of coun-tries employing transnational collaboration as part of their strategy to increase domestic capacity. Since the beginning of the millennium, China has more than doubled its annual investment in higher education but still sees fewer than 25% of qualified students receive seats in domestic institutions. Encouraging academic collaboration, funding stu-dents to study abroad, and increasing transna-tional collaboration with recognized institutions have been key government higher education strate-gies for several years. Li (2009) points out that China has benefited significantly from access to

prestigious international institutions, which have brought with them quality education resources, highly qualified staff, and strong research linkages that have afforded significant institutional and sector-strengthening advantages. Beyond the opportunity to build institutional reputation, transnational engagement provides a platform for cross-border staff and student exchange. It also encourages research collaboration, facilitates opportunities for additional revenue generation, and reduces cost overhead by enabling access to the western curriculum.

India faces similar capacity issues and has recently and cautiously moved to invite foreign universities to enter their market (Foreign Education Institutions [Regulations of Entry and Operations]), 2010 Bill). However, according to Dhar (cited in Stella & Bhushan, 2011, p. 184), the British Council of India study identified as many as 641 transnational programs on offer in 2008, of which most were professional courses that addressed business/management, engineering, and information technology/computing. Many of these programs are conducted with private rather than public India tertiary institutions. There are already many private higher education providers in India, such as Manipal University, NIIT, Birla, the Jaypee Institute, the Vedanta University, and many wealthy business groups in India are invest-ing in education—some with a background in education, others with business backgrounds in other sectors (Feith, 2008).

In the Gulf States, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar have employed considerable resources to encourage reputable foreign universities to build capacity in the region, and some of the world’s top universities have been attracted to the Gulf. Presentations by those leading this develop-ment highlight that more than one third of the population in the region is under 15 years old and that substantial growth in demand for education and jobs is predicted. These governments have chosen to invite expertise from established for-eign universities as they seek to respond to sub-stantial growth in demand and create regional education hubs. Even in these regions, however, careful planning, due diligence, and development as part of a sustained long-term strategy are needed. The recent economic downturn has caused several institutions to withdraw or signifi-cantly scale back their operations.

Some republics of the former Soviet Union are also seeking foreign collaboration to im prove their domestic capacity. The Westminster International


University in Tashkent was established in response to a call by the Uzbekistan government (British Council PM12, 2009).

In Singapore and Malaysia, which are also regional education hubs, the respective govern-ments have implemented controlled measures designed to accelerate education development. This is reflected in the large number of foreign education providers that are active in these two countries. The University of Nottingham estab-lished its Malaysia campus in response to the government’s intention to establish itself as a regional educational hub and to reduce its depen-dence on foreign study to meet the demand of its population (British Council PM12, 2009). Monash University (Australia) is another exam-ple of a successful Malaysian capacity-building transnational cross-border venture.

The information cited in Tables 18.2 and 18.3 is summarized and extended from work

undertaken by the ACA between March 2007 and July 2008 as part of the European Commission’s Erasmus Mundus Global Promotion Project: Transnational Education in the European Context—Provision, Approaches, and Policies: Motivations and Drivers in Transnational Education, pp. 52–62 (http://ec.europa.eu/education/erasmus-mundus/ doc/studies/tnereport_en.pdf), as well as reference to data provided by Universities Australia (2009), Leask (2004), Adams et al. (2009), and Banks et al. (2010). The actual scope and con-tent of Tables 18.2 and 18.3 rely heavily on the experience and knowledge of the authors when framing the key supply and demand motivators that are cited.

No assessment of transnational motives would be complete without consideration of what influences the student to choose to study in a transnational program. Table 18.3 summarizes the most common considerations.

Provider Motives Recipient Motives

Diversification of the student body

Internationalization

Institutional strengthening

Ranking, reputation, and positioning

Location

Distance

Political and economic stability

Complexity of regulatory frameworks (registration, accreditation, governance, pedagogy and nomenclature, quotas, fees, taxation, repatriation of finds, profit motive, lead times)

Societal/cultural issues including language of instruction, pedagogy and learning styles, gender imbalance, health and safety, consumer perceptions and expectations

Technology and its impact on delivery modes and infrastructure

Cost of entry and exit

Partnerships and positioning

Compliance, equivalence, and quality assurance; partner collaboration and institutional linkages

Student demand and market gaps

Revenue generation

Research opportunities and collaboration

Language and culture


Student demand exceeding available places

Opportunity to attract prestigious partners and partner program arrangements

Deregulation

Student exchange and mobility

Collaborative research opportunities

Staff development

Access to Western curriculum and pedagogy

Institutional strengthening and development

Revenue generation

Recognition of English as the language of international trade and commerce

Technology transfer

Improved regulatory quality assurance mechanisms

(Continued)


Table 18.2 Examples of Foreign Provider and Recipient Country Transnational Education (TNE) Motivators

Education-Related Factors Socioeconomic Factors

Inability to secure a place at a local university (entry requirements/limited access/quota preclusions)

Reputation and ranking of foreign university

Local partner location and reputation

University entry that can involve competency in the provider university language of instruction, recognition of previous studies and provisions for credit for prior learning

Shorter time span to complete the foreign degree

Attraction of attending classes taught by senior foreign academic staff

Opportunity to obtain foreign qualification without leaving home

Students interested to undertake a degree discipline not available at a local university

Opportunity to complete a degree on a part-time basis

Campus/partner location and reputation

Career enhancement

Inability to afford going abroad for all of their studies

Cheaper to study a foreign degree at home rather than have to study in a foreign location (price competitiveness)

Significance of the foreign language of instruction

Cultural, family, and personal considerations and connections

Inability to secure a place at a local university and preference to study a foreign degree within the region (third-country choice)

No interest in studying abroad

Competitive advantage, perhaps those interested in employment with a foreign enterprise or the opportunity to earn Western salaries

Preference to continue working while studying with a foreign provider that can broaden their cultural and intellectual horizons

Opportunity to subsequently enter and remain in the host country under permanent resident status

Table 18.3 Examples of Student Motives

Provider Motives Recipient Motives

New student recruitment markets

New programs resulting from innovation and entrepreneurship

Technological change and development

Competition: international and domestic

Life cycles

Timing

Government policies: trade, visas, etc.

Government incentives

Academic and societal benefits

Recipient country incentives

Pathway opportunities to attract high-calibre students

Changing social/cultural/economic forces affecting student demand preferences

(Continued)


Managing Across Borders

Opportunity Assessment

Transnational opportunities may originate from a variety of sources, which may include proposals from existing partners, staff, agents, and competitors or perhaps requests from domestic or foreign government agencies. Such proposals are often initially assessed on the basis of suitability, viability, consistency, competitive-ness (internal as well as external), and sustain-ability. Attention is then given to defining the program parameters, identifying appropriate partner/s as required, gauging market and recip-ient government acceptance, assessing competitive issues, analyzing market potential, estimating financial costs and return on investment, scop-ing appropriate academic pathways and credit for prior study options, and appraising academic and business risk.

Partner Selection

Assuming that the demand and supply prerequisites line up, the next step in the process may involve the selection of an appropriate host-country partner (where a partner is required or sought). The usual partner due-diligence assessments address organizational history, goals, structure, and legal/business relationships; financial standing; positioning and reputation; infrastructure, resources and student services; and courses and conduct. In addition, the choice of a partner is generally influenced by

• location and student access • prior experience in transnational activities • contractual considerations

• competitive offerings and complementarity • local, regional, and national regulatory

frameworks and compliance issues • language and cross-cultural considerations • student quotas • timing

The weighting given to such assessment considerations is likely to vary from provider to provider, and once a choice is made, the dynamics of the partner relationship can almost always be expected to change over time. Partner commitment is essential to the success of transnational projects, and failure to engage in an effective collaborative relationship can result in reputational risk, problems with enrollments, and inappropriate operations. Once approval to proceed is obtained, a nonbinding Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or similar agreement is generally signed between the parties. (See Chapter 9, this volume, for further discussion on strategic partnerships.)

Transnational Project Assessment, Performance, and Appraisal

The TNE assessment, performance, and appraisal process is likely to involve a comprehen-sive business case analysis that addresses strategic, academic, student, financial, operations, and marketing and internationalization consider-ations, similar to those presented in Box 18.1. Following all internal approvals, a contract is prepared for partner consideration, negotiation, and subsequent signature. At the same time, work can commence with the partner to prepare host government registration/accreditation documen-tation along with marketing, operations, quality assurance, and governance processes.

The following table represents a collection of key appraisal and performance considerations that can promote successful management of transnational projects and minimize operational risk. Although not a definitive list, it does represent a comprehensive overview of the issues that should be considered when scoping out a project or appraising program performance.

(Continued)

BOX 18.1 Transnational Education (TNE): Key Performance Considerations


(Continued)

Operations

Implementation of effective administrative procedures and processes

Instigation of business case and formal review processes

Preparation of TNE operations manual that is compliant with provider mission statement, plans, ethical practices, domestic regulatory requirements; risk adverse; equitable; of comparable quality to those delivered in the home country; and fully approved by the provider

Identify realistic duration for Partner agreement

Identify project implementation management team that are able to competently resource and manage an operation of significant complexity

Ensure ownership/tenancy of partner facilities is clear of medium term disruption

Ensure premises/facilities/learning resources are in accordance with acceptable Provider standards (classrooms, library, student facilities)

Manage relationships between internal and external TNE partners

Make sure that there is an adequate level of Partner administrative support

Make sure that issues relating to copyright and privacy are secure and protected

Ensure that there is sufficient senior University representation and engagement in the collaborative venture.

Ensure administrative systems and reporting measures can effectively and efficiently monitor TNE performance. Allow for regular communications through effective two-way channels

Regularly review the appropriateness of partner campus location/s

Responsibility for selection and enrollment—guarantee that entry standards are being maintained

Facilities and support (library provisions, access to computers, student access to library).

Infrastructure provisions; monitoring standards

Academic

Compliance with regulatory requirements (registration approval and accreditation)

Benchmark student and academic performance

Implementation of a quality assurance framework for teaching and learning that the partner agrees and commits to

Pathway arrangements are understood and in place

Course duration and dates to adhere to Partner requirements and accreditation guidelines

Course content to comply with provider curriculum and unit descriptions

Appointment of provider course/unit moderators in cases where units are being taught by partner academic staff

Provision for student laboratories and practicals

Moderation and validation of student coursework complies with agreement

Curriculum is made available to students in a timely fashion

Delivery modes meet partner requirements

Equivalence and compliance issues are addressed and tracked

Course advisory board/s meet regularly

Recruitment, enrollment and advanced standing

Curriculum compliance and equivalence

Service agreements formalized with teaching staff

Full/part time enrollment implication

Partner academic and sessional staff are approved prior to lecturing/tutoring on TNE programs

Staff/student ratio’s are preplanned and accepted

Compulsory Induction programs addressing teaching and learning nuances and standards, policy and regulatory requirements, compliance and equivalence, student services and briefing on goals, objectives, service provisions, alumni and achievements.

Academic rigor, pedagogy, standards and support


Resource and responsibility management—e.g., unit moderators

Staff selection and professional development

Service provisions and pastoral support

Internationalization process

Reporting, monitoring and responses/actions

Community linkages

Contractual arrangements

Student support services—help desk, student feedback

Examinations are arranged and supervised in accordance with Provider guidelines

Assessment and benchmarking to ensure comparable standards

Appropriate examination and assessment security measures are in place

Arrangements for timely moderation and assessment

Pathway and advanced standing is understood and communicated

Quality assurance compliance and oversight

Fraudulent documentation for entry; plagiarism; conduct of examinations

Accurate student record keeping—enrollments, demographics, credit precedents, academic results, records of attendance, fee payments, refunds, graduations (student records must be kept for a minimum period of two years following completion of studies)

Teach-out Plans are in place

Timeliness of delivery, assessment and reporting

Financial

Return on investment

Fees associated with foreign course approval/registration and renewal

Partner indemnity insurance cover

Student fees (will students pay by subject/unit, term/semester or an annual fee?)

Fees paid to whom?

Are there in-country caps on fees/student entry quotas?

Will there be a guarantee of minimum level of revenue?

Are there any taxation implications (Withholding Tax, etc.)?

Assuming fees are made payable to the partner, are there processes in place to allow for the gap that may occur between the time of receipt of fees from the partner and the date at which the student commences studies? What are the implications for issuance of student library cards, student ID cards, etc?

Marketing

Clear, unambiguous and accurate marketing, communication and recruitment initiatives in line with conditions of engagement and operations

Preparation and maintenance of transnational web-based information and print material

Compliance with all course entry requirements

Roles for partner regarding offers and acceptance

Approval for advanced standing and credit transfers

Clear and unambiguous commencement dates

Contingency plans in place to address situations where minimum student intakes are not achieved

Target market/s and estimated demand (who, what, where, how, when, why)

Commission systems for transnational agents

Impact on existing international student recruitment targets

Competition (both domestic and international)

Recruitment responsibilities

Advertising and promotion

(Continued)


(Continued)

Compliance with Provider refund terms

Budgets/cash flow projections

Costing, expenditure, funding and reporting

Repatriation of profit/earnings

Currency hedging

Students

Planning for the student experience

Equitable and ethical treatment of students (entry, access, assessment, privacy, pastoral care, etc.)

Consumer protection provisions and compliance

Student induction programs and preparation of student induction packs

Provision of transnational scholarship scheme

Maintain a student help desk

Manage transnational student pastoral care initiative

Support and attend transnational graduations

Monitor and communicate credit for prior study

Induction programs provided for all new students

Arrangements for special consideration and appeals

Provision of transnational scholarships

Maintain a transnational student help desk

Importance of transnational graduations

Recommend/monitor credit precedents for advanced standing

Clarify and scrutinize transnational student entry requirements

Provision of timely offers

Strategic

Relevance to internationalization policies and plans

Priority given to market expansion over program development

Senior management engagement and support

Effective internal governance and partner project management provisions

Compliance with internal program approval procedures

Partner due diligence

Partner registration/accredited to conduct higher education programs

TNE Programs registration/approval with education authorities in host country/s (legal and ethical compliance, duration)

Compatibility of partner goals, objectives and strategies

Partner reputation and positioning implications

Sustainability

Exit/withdrawal strategies

Competing strategic interests/initiatives

Support for transnational alumni


Professional recognition (i.e., CPA if accounting degree is offered)

Compliance and equivalence issues

Integrity and consistency

Governance issues


Receipt of TransnationalProgram Proposal

Proposal screenedand assessed

Non Binding MOU prepared and signed

No further consideration

Preparation of a Project Plan for

Executive Approval


In-principle executiveapproval to proceed

Prepare Business Case

Approval granted toProceed


Preparation of the formal Contract

Prepare foreigngovernmentMinistryapprovaldocuments

Prepare Academic and RecruitmentPlan

Establish Admin and Operational Processes

Appoint AcademicandAdmin Staff

GUIDE:

Phase 1Identification Phase(2 months plus)

Phase 2Proposal Phase(3 months plus)

Phase 3Implementation Phase (12 months)

Figure 18.1 Model of the TNE Project Appraisal Process

For planning purposes, the reader should be aware that it can take well over 12 months to move from the initial project screening and appraisal stage to implementation,

depending on the complexity of the project. Figure 18.1 identifies examples of the various steps that may be included in the project appraisal process.


Transnational Entry Strategies

Institutions and transnational programs can cross borders in many different ways. Knight (2005) identified six discrete TNE categories, which include virtual universities, branch cam-puses, independent institutions, acquisition and mergers, study centers or teaching sites, and affiliations or networks. For the practitioner, the more common definitions for the modes of transnational market entry appraisal include:

• Twinning arrangements provide a pathway for students to commence studies through a partner in one country and complete the agreed upon program of studies through a partner in another country. There are essentially two types of twinning programs. One involves an articulation/pathway agreement between the home institution and an education provider based in another country where the home institution approves and recognizes with appropriate credit a specific course or particular subjects taught by the foreign partner as being equivalent to those offered at the home institution. In such circumstances twinning can

also encompass cross-sectoral linkages that bridge differing qualifications to form a dual award or double or joint degree (Adams, Burgess, & Phillips, 2009). The NAFSA Resources Library provides useful reference for the establishment of U.S. dual or double degrees.

The second twinning model involves conduct and delivery of the home institution program on the foreign partner campus. This may be taught wholly or partially by home institution academic staff or wholly or partially by approved foreign-provider academic staff.

In either case, cross-crediting arrangements need to be in place to support tandem delivery of the programs. Furthermore, all conditions and rules concerning entry admission, credit recognition, awards, and testamurs (degree cer-cer-tificates) need to take account of the home-country provider requirements, and students must satisfy the home-country visa entry requirements as a condition of offer.

Western Michigan University, Troy University, and State University of New York are examples

The growing middle class in Malaysia surpassed the capacity of the country’s six universities in the 1980s, causing the government to consider options for responding rapidly to this growing demand. In 1987, Western Michigan University (WMU) partnered with a corporation that was establishing Malaysia’s first private college. The project allowed Sunway College to replicate the first 2 years of WMU’s curriculum in defined degree paths so that students could transfer to WMU’s campus in Kalamazoo in their third year, thereby saving about 40% of the cost of a U.S. undergraduate degree. This project helped this regional university establish a stronger international brand, with almost 700 Malaysian students studying in Kalamazoo at the highest point. For Sunway, this innovative model helped them develop educational capacity, starting from scratch in 1987. Sunway College eventually partnered with other British and Australian universities to offer several different paths to higher education in English-speaking countries. As Sunway’s own capacity grew and it eventually gained university status in its own right, the partnership with WMU transformed to collaboration on a general pathway program, delivering U.S. general education curriculum that students can use to transfer to a long list of overseas universities that have recognized or articulated WMU’s curriculum taught by Sunway in Kuala Lumpur.

This collaboration established WMU as a significant player in TNE, leading to subsequent projects in other parts of Asia, Latin America, and Africa. With up to eight active twinning programs and an offshore enrollment approaching 1,000 students at its high point, the university’s TNE program has played a very significant role in WMU’s internationalization agenda.

BOX 18.2 Western Michigan University’s Twinning Programs


of U.S. institutions that operate twinning programs in foreign locations.

• Branch campus is generally interpreted to be a wholly foreign owned and operated or joint-venture campus facility. Some excellent branch campus facilities are operating in the Middle East, Malaysia, Australia, Vietnam, South Africa, India, China, and other parts of the globe. Most of the wholly owned campuses emanate out of the United States, Europe, and Australia and examples include the University of Richmond in London; RMIT University in Vietnam; Monash University in Malaysia and South Africa; the Universities of Liverpool and Nottingham in China; British and U.S. Universities in Dubai; University of Carnegie Melon in Australia, Greece, Japan, Qatar, and Seoul; and Webster University in Austria, Bermuda, China, Greece, Switzerland, Thailand (Academic Cooperation Association, 2008).

• Online Learning (distance learning or e-learning as it is commonly referred to) is today acknowledged as an important transnational teaching and learning tool. Although it has not replaced traditional transnational “chalk and talk” pedagogy, it does afford the advantage of access to a virtual learning environment that encourages, facilitates, and supports student access, engagement, and learning outcomes.

Critics of on-line learning raise concerns regarding recipient-country technology capac-ity, suitability to education environments where pedagogy is highly structured, and teacher-directed sensitivity to cultural norms and language of instruction (Marginson, 2004). However, given that

50 percent of all US higher education institutions offer distance education (34 percent award degrees via distance education) and that about 2.9 million students are enrolled in distance education programs, it is clear that this mode of delivery has great potential in transnational education. (Academic Cooperation Association, 2008, p. 84)

• Franchising is where the provider institu-tion authorizes an institution in another coun-try to teach all or some part of an accredited award program or syllabi, for a negotiated fee. Under such arrangements, the contractual agreement would normally stipulate that the provider institution maintain academic and administrative quality control over delivery.

Governance and Quality Assurance

Today, in what is described as a global climate of financial constraints, risk aversion, intense competition, stringent regulatory frameworks, technological advancements, student mobility, consumer protection, and expectations of quality outcomes, TNE is undergoing rigorous scrutiny. The net result is that the international higher education sector is under continuing pressure to rethink, reassess, refine, re-engineer, and review TNE policies and practices.

At the macro level, the measures promoted through the Bologna Process (2007) have encouraged many non-European nations to seek to be more closely aligned to the Bologna struc-tures to ensure international acceptance of higher education degrees and options for stu-dent mobility. This includes processes that address a three-cycle degree model, a national register of education providers, detailed descrip-tions of awards, accreditation based on national protocols and standards, credit mapping, regu-lar audit cycles, and publication of performance data that form part of an advanced framework and quality assurance system. According to the Department of Education, Employment, and Workplace Relations (2006), the Bologna Process has significant political support within Europe and applies to about 4,000 institutions host-ing 16 million students. It therefore presents implications for any nation’s higher education relationships, both inside and outside Europe.

At the operational level, the World Bank (2007) makes the following point:

There is no common definition of quality in tertiary education, and certainly no common metric with which to measure it. Yet, through the influence of the Bologna Process and the need for harmonization of learning and recognition of credentials for the purposes of mobility, quality assurance has become important as a way to develop common metrics and provide information to stakeholders. There is clearly a convergence on quality assurance methodologies and increasing agreement on the general principles of good practice. Nevertheless, each country context is unique and therefore each country has its own purposes for quality


assurance—whether to protect consumers from poor quality or encourage excellence. (p. 14)

Other particularly useful references concern-ing quality frameworks can be found in the UNESCO-APQN toolkit: Regulating the Quality of Cross-border Education (UNESCO, 2006) and the UNESCO Guidelines for Quality Provision in Cross-border Higher Education (UNESCO/OECD, 2005). In the United States, quality assurance oversight is the responsibility of regional accreditation bodies, with little federal oversight or intervention systems in place to ensure consistency. U.S. institutions need to ascertain regional accreditation requirements at the early stage of transnational development. Whereas many countries have clearly embraced transnational higher education and encouraged the export and/or import of transnational proj-ects, quality assurance of transitional education is still evolving as a management process. All too often, the provider institution is left to decide on the systems and processes necessary, and legiti-mate concerns remain regarding quality as it applies to equivalence, compliance, consis-tency, standards, and purpose. In circumstances where providers and partners are revenue driven,

there are unfortunately many examples of pri-vate institutions that have paid less attention to quality outcomes than to their short-term reve-nue aspirations. Furthermore, while higher edu-cation institutions may have a genuine commit-ment to quality, their oversight practices and processes may fall short of the expected out-comes. In a transnational setting, the recipient partner can have very different aims and objec-tives and may not have any legal obligation to the provider institution beyond what is specified in the contract to the provider institution or the source country.

What becomes evident is that practitioners need to give serious consideration to the inter-nal alignment between transnational operations and their respective missions, goals, policies, and strategies as well as ensure compliance with regulatory frameworks and consumer protec-tion and privacy laws. Successful cross-border education ultimately depends on long-term alignment of mission and internationalization strategies of both parties and excellent commu-nication and engagement. In partnerships where the operations are transparent, there is senior staff commitment, and all the stakeholders involved benefit.

Higher education pathway arrangements can be described as a cross-sectoral bridge that recognizes prior study as being appropriate for higher education entry. For the prospective transnational student, many institutions now have structured credit arrangements in place that recognize prior study against foundation, partially complete, or completed diplomas and degrees or other recognized courses that have been approved and undertaken under a TNE model in collaboration with a foreign partner. Although many cross-border partnerships involve establishing a relationship with a foreign entity, a growing number of home-based non-self-accrediting provider institutions provide pathway programs in foreign locations.

IIBT—A Case Study

The International Institute of Business and Technology (IIBT) is a private fully accredited Western Australia-based higher education institution established in 1999 and accounts for a significant flow of international students from China into Australia. More than 1,500 IIBT China students have already crossed borders and successfully transited into Australian partner-university courses, with credit as advanced standing awarded for prior IIBT studies. Furthermore, IIBT currently has just over

BOX 18.3 Pathways: A Case Study on Successful Cross-Border Collaboration


1,400 students studying across its non-award pathway programs in China in preparation for future tertiary studies at one of IIBT’s partner universities.

The IIBT China operations can be described as somewhat unusual as a TNE model. The Institute currently runs five pathway programs that form part of fully accredited Chinese higher education diplomas at 12 tertiary institutions and training colleges strategically located across the country. On successful completion of such programs, students are eligible to articulate with advanced-standing credit toward a specific degree course (i.e., business, information technology, engineering) offered in Australian public tertiary institutions that include Edith Cowan University, Curtin University, Central Queensland University, University of Wollongong, and the University of Tasmania. This approach has the approval of Chinese provincial authorities because it draws on the collective education strengths of the partners to provide a unique cross-cultural learning experience. It includes English language of instruction and the equivalent of eight Australian undergraduate first-year subjects that form part of the China qualification.

IIBT recognizes that its success in China has been attributable to a number of factors, not the least of which is the relationship it enjoys with its Chinese and Australian university partners, its networking with Chinese education authorities, its well-earned reputation, its knowledge of the market, its best-practice approach to its pedagogy, and the pastoral care and support that it provides for its cross-border pathway students in the course of transition to study at an Australian partner-university campus. IIBT also has expatriate staff based in China teaching all of its courses at Anhui Agriculture University, Anhui Economic Management Institute, Anhui Vocational College of Art, China University of Petroleum, Fujian Normal University, Zhejiang Normal University, Jinan University, Shenyang Financial Institute, South China Agriculture University, Wuhan University, Xuzhou Jiu-Zhou Professional Institute, and Xuzhou College of Industrial Technology.

The IIBT Academic Board plays a pivotal role in ensuring that quality teaching and learning outcomes are achieved within a framework that bridges language and culture, pedagogy, and learning styles, as well as relevance, compliance, and equivalence. IIBT’s curriculum has achieved high levels of academic currency in terms of credit for prior learning, and its students generally receive between 1 and 1.5 years of advanced standing credit (up to 12 course units) toward partner university programs.

To ensure compliance with its higher education partners, IIBT operates within a framework that satisfies university partner policies and procedures. This involves ensuring that staff have appropriate academic credentials; appropriate infrastructure is in place and teaching/learning resources are accessible, effective, and timely; and the curriculum remains relevant. In addition, IIBT maintains an open-door policy that encourages partner engagement and participation in the quality assurance process.

IIBT is now in the process of taking its model to other Asian locations and expanding its network to provide opportunities for cross-border tertiary studies through university partners in Europe and in particular, North America.

NOTE: This box was prepared by chapter author Peter Burgess.

New Trends and Future Challenges

Mention has already been made of the many existing challenges facing the transnational

educator, among them the ethics and merits of both the concept and the strategy. Stella (2005) suggests that those opposed to a commercial or transnational trade orientation might argue that it is not in the best interest of developing nations. Those that support the World Trade Organization


(WTO) General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) framework argue that commercialization is an unavoidable consequence of globalization. Nonetheless, some predict that “the demand for international education is forecast to increase from 1.8 million international students in 2000 to 7.2 million international students in 2025” (Knight, 2006, p 21).

In the United States, the relatively low level of engagement in this sector, compared with the United Kingdom and Australia, may reflect con-cerns for brand dilution, the absence of widely recognized quality control mechanisms, and an internationalization agenda that only recently has become increasingly driven by revenue con-siderations. Many senior international officers in the United States recall the effort in the 1980s to establish branch campuses in Japan. Very few projects were ultimately sustainable and remain today.

Given the various negative commercial, pedagogical, and cultural concerns, TNE providers remain under continued pressure to re-engineer processes that reflect changing market needs and to anticipate and respond to the multiple regulatory and quality assurance frameworks and regimes that are evolving in the global marketplace.

McBurnie and Ziguras (2011) propose four possible scenarios for the future of TNE.

Scenario 1: In this scenario the rapid growth of TNE continues apace with governments putting in place quality assurance measures that allow the scale and quality of provision to continue to grow. Importer countries see it as a rapid means of meeting student demand, and less costly than mass expansion of domestic infrastructure. Exporters are attracted to the revenue and perceived reputational benefits.

Scenario 2: That enrollment, sequentially grow, peak, and then decline on a country-by-country basis according to the phase of development and demand in the host nation. Whilst TNE would still have a strong presence in many parts of the world, its overall growth would be modest.

Scenario 3: That following the “hub” strategies of several nations, TNE develops into a limited number of international “branch campus clusters” of prestigious institutions, concentrated in major cities serving as “regional education hubs” in Asia, the Middle East, Latin America and Africa. These hubs would attract students from the region and beyond, combining institutional mobility with student mobility.

Scenario 4: Host governments apply increasingly stringent quality assurance requirements and demand greater (and more expensive) commitments from transnational providers to the highest standard, to deter over-commercialization, and to protect the integrity of the domestic system. In parallel, exporter governments, in response to negative publicity about offshore course and campus closures, place stricter regulations on provider institutions, in order to weed out low quality offerings that may damage the nation’s reputation and market share. The overall effect is an enhancement of the quality of TNE, but a marked reduction in its quantity. (pp. 34, 35)

What can be safely assumed is that in the future, public accountability for financial commitments will increase, quality assurance measures will be tested in the public domain, and academic and administrative standards will be benchmarked and scrutinized. Indeed, one of the greatest chal-lenges facing the future transnational manager will be to remain entrepreneurial in a regula-tory climate that is not necessarily conducive to entrepreneurial initiatives.

Some of the more obvious TNE trends include:

• growth of double/dual degrees • focus on long-term partner relationships • provision of student-related information that

addresses performance outcomes, access and entry conditions, student services, academic inputs, benchmarking, attrition, realistic contact hours, employment opportunities, pathways, credit precedents, and the like

• opportunities for home study • industry and community linkages • provision of scholarship opportunities • inclusion of distance education in the

transnational mix

TNE forums provide opportunity to share templates for good practice that give greater consideration to contractual agreements esta-blished between partners; appointment and induction of teaching staff; language of instruc-tion issues; pedagogy considerations; student selection and assessment; benchmarking; credit for prior study; measures for institution-wide engagement; administrative systems and processes; marketing initiatives and support; opportunities for agent engagement; and examples of key performance indicators.


Conclusion

This chapter has attempted to demonstrate the growth of transnational programs, the motivators that support engagement, and many of the key considerations and processes involved in the management of cross-border TNE.

Today, TNE providers and programs are very often more regulated and reviewed than domes-tic providers and provisions. According to McBurnie and Ziguras (2011),

Rather than flying under the radar, TNE is increasingly in the purview of both sending and receiving governments, professional bodies of both sending and receiving countries, and subject to the internal quality assurance procedures of both the foreign provider and its local partner. There are also voluntary codes and guidelines at regional and global levels and a raft of institutional studies and reports in the public domain. Beyond the debate as to whether TNE should be aid or trade oriented, what is generally accepted is the shared commitment to the development of high standard TNE through rigorous quality assurance regimes. (p. 28)

Cross-border education is not a panacea for short-term financial problems. When deployed as part of strategic and comprehensive inter-nationalization strategy, it can produce positive internationalization outcomes in many ways. As global learning mobility is projected to continue to grow, higher education institutions should consider this opportunity within the breadth of their engagement strategies.

References

Academic Cooperation Association (ACA). (2008). Transnational education in the European context: Provisions, approaches and policy (Report produced on behalf of the European Commission). Brussels: Author.

Adams A., Burgess P., & Phillips R. (2009). Pathways in international education: An analysis of global pathways in a transnational context. In M. Field & J. Fegan (Eds.), Education across borders: Politics, policy and legislative action. London: Springer.

Australian Education International (AEI). (2011). Research snapshot. Transnational education in

the higher education sector. Retrieved from http://www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Publications/HEStatistics/Publications/Pages/Home.aspx

Banks M., Kevat P., Ziguras C., Ciccarelli A., & Clayton D. (2010). The changing fortunes of Australian transnational higher education. Retrieved from http://www.obhe.ac.uk/documents/view_details?id=835

Berquist, B., & Fuller, C. (2006). Development of transnational education programs from a U.S. perspective. Paper presented at the Australian International Education Conference, Perth, Australia.

Bologna Process. (2007). European higher education in a global setting - a strategy for the external dimension of the Bologna Process. Retrieved from http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/documents/wgr2007/strategy-for-ehea -in-global-setting.pdf

British Council. (2009). The Prime Ministers Initiative PMI2. Retrieved from www .britishcouncil.org/pmi2-connect

British Council. (2010). Transnational education student decision-making research. Retrieved from www.britishcouncil.org/eumd-information -research-tne-student-decision-making.htm

Department of Education, Employment, and Workplace Relations (2006). The Bologna Process and Australia: Next steps (Discussion Paper 4/2006 Australian Government). Canberra: Author. Retrieved from http://www .dest.gov.au/sectors/higher_education/publications_resources/profiles/bologna _process_and_australia.htm

de Wit, H. (2008, October). Changing trends in the internationalization of higher education. Paper presented at the University of Melbourne. Retrieved from http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu .au/research/seminarpapers/deWittpres061008.pdf

Feith, D. (2008, July). India’s higher education sector in the twenty first century: A growing market and the need for international engagement. Paper presented at the 17th Biennial Conference of the Asian Studies Association of Australia Conference, Melbourne Retrieved from http://arts.monash.edu.au/mai/asaa/davidfeith.pdf

Higher Education Statistics Agency. (2010). Transnational education. Cheltenham, UK: Author. Retrieved from http://www .international.ac.uk/home/index.cfm

Knight, J. (1999). Internationalisation of higher education. In H. de Wit & J. Knight (Eds.), Quality and internationalisation in higher education. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Knight, J. (2005).Cross-border education: Not just students on the move. Boston: Boston College,


Center for International Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/Number41/Number41.htm

Knight, J. (2006). Higher education crossing borders: A guide to the implications of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) for cross-border education (Report prepared for the Commonwealth of Learning and UNESCO). Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001473/147363E.pdf

Larsen K., Momii, K., & Vincent-Lancrin, S. (2004). Cross-border higher education: An analysis of current trends, policy strategies and future scenarios. Retrieved from http://www.obhe.ac .uk/documents/view_details?id=49

Leask, B. (2004, July). Transnational education and intercultural learning: Reconstructing the offshore teaching team to enhance internationalisation. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Australian Universities Quality Forum, Adelaide.

Li, S. (2009). Transnational education in China: Thirty years (draft paper). http://www .unescobkk.org/fileadmin/user_upload/apeid/workshops/macao08/papers/2-b-1.pdf

Marginson, S. (2004). Don’t leave me hanging on the Anglophone: The potential for online distance higher education in the Asia-Pacific Region. Higher Education Quarterly, 58(2/3), 74–113.

Misha A. (2010, May 9). India: Foreign universities bill tabled. University World News. Retrieved from www.universityworldnews.com/article .php?story=20100507210821494

Madison, D. (2006). A brief history of distance education. Retrieved from http://www.isnare .com/?aid=32195&ca=education

McBurnie, G., & Ziguras, C. (2011). Global trends in quality assurance for transnational education In A. Stella & S. Bhushan (Eds.), Quality assurance of transnational higher education: The experiences of Australia and India. Retrieved

from http://www.nafsa.org/resourcelibrary/default.aspx?id=8810

Rizvi, F. (2004). Offshore/Australian higher rducation. International Higher Education, No 37. Boston: The Boston College Center for International Higher Education.

Stella, A. (2005). The challenges of transnational education (Abstract). http://www.informaworld .com/smpp/content~content=a727335869&db =all

Stella, A., & Bhushan, S. (Ed.). (2011). Quality assurance of transnational higher education: The experiences of Australia and India. Canberra: Australian Universities Quality Agency and the National University of Educational Planning and Administration.

UNESCO/Council of Europe. (2001). Code of good practice in the provision of transnational education (Lisbon Recognition Convention Committee, Rīga). Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/highereducation/recognition/Codeofgoodpractice_EN.asp

UNESCO/OECD. (2005). Guidelines for quality provision in cross-border education. Paris: Authors. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/27/51/35779480.pdf

UNESCO (2006). UNESCO-APQN toolkit: Regulating the quality of cross-border education. Bangkok: UNESCO Bangkok. Retrieved from http://www2.unescobkk.org/elib/publications/087/APQN_Toolkit.pdf

UK Higher Education International Unit. (2010). Global opportunities for UK higher education. Retrieved from http://www.international.ac.uk/statistics/transnational_education.cfm

Universities Australia. (2009). The nature of international education in Australian universities and its benefits, strategy policy and research in education. Canberra: Author.

World Bank. (2007). Cross-border tertiary education. Washington, DC: Author.

Cross-Border Delivery - SAGE Publications · Chapter 18. Cross-Border Delivery 327 Table 18.1...

Documents

Transcript of Cross-Border Delivery - SAGE Publications · Chapter 18. Cross-Border Delivery 327 Table 18.1...