Enhancing student learning and teacher

development in transnational education

Joan O’ Mahony

2

Contents

Section Page

Executive summary 4

Acknowledgements 6

Introduction 7

UK transnational higher education 8

The value of transnational education 9

The research literature on transnational education 11

Content of transnational education research 13

Themes in the literature relating to student learning and teaching quality 15

Learning styles 15

Contextualising education and teaching practice 16

Transnational staff needs 17

Researching institutional attitudes to TNE: survey and focus group 19

Background to research 19

The Transnational Education Learning and Teaching survey 19

Research findings and discussion 21

Characteristics of respondents 21

Learning and teaching: challenges in delivery 22

Learning and teaching comparisons 25

Learning and teaching standards and practices 27

Qualitative evidence: open-ended questions and focus group 29

Learning and teaching 29

The benefits of TNE 30

The student experience from the perspective of staff 31

Enhancing TNE practice: reflexive learning and innovation 32

Gaps and areas for future research 36

Recommendations for HEIs delivering transnational education 37

3

References 39

Appendices 43

Appendix 1 TNELT survey tables 43

Appendix 2 TNE learning and teaching survey questions 45

4

Executive summary

1 UK exports of higher education have grown rapidly in recent years. Such ‘transnational education’

(TNE) has proved attractive to students wishing to study within their own countries but on

programmes accredited or provided from abroad. The value of TNE to national economies has been

emphasised more often than its value to individual student participants. The Higher Education

Academy (HEA) argues that the potential of TNE can only be realised, however, if attention is paid to

the learning outcomes, pedagogical practices, and the challenges that are often specific to teaching in

an offshore context.

2 The purpose of this research report is to explore the current and prospective ways in which UK

higher education providers can ensure an equitable student learning experience and teaching

excellence in transnational arrangements. The research is based on primary data (a survey of, and

focus group discussion with UK TNE staff) and an examination of peer-reviewed literature on TNE

provision. The key findings of the research are summarised in the following paragraphs.

3 TNE research has been carried out and published mainly by academics in TNE provider countries

(Australia and UK), while the country under discussion in the research is usually a host country. There

is little evidence of any collaborative authorship or activity between host and provider, indicating the

relative immaturity of transnational education as a research field. The dominant themes in the

literature relate to globalisation, trade, quality and regulation; teaching and learning have a lower

priority.

4 Within the literature that specifically deals with learning and teaching, the ‘learning styles’ of students,

where ‘learning styles’ come from, and the factors that account for their reproduction is of particular

interest. The need for a more context-oriented notion of ‘quality education’ is also emphasised. This

will involve provider HEIs having a sufficient understanding of the socio-cultural factors that shape the

exchange of knowledge and student needs in the transnational classroom.

5 The research literature suggests there is a range of teaching challenges in the delivery of TNE. There is

however little empirical evidence regarding the extent to which such challenges are felt by staff and

little is known about the practices that staff adopt to improve learning and teaching. The survey

undertaken for this study shows that the most challenging aspects of TNE are related to cultural

issues, such as communication styles, learning and teaching styles, and to challenges of governance

(quality control and local regulatory systems). Issues of recruitment, training and Internet provision are

also perceived as challenging. The research shows that while staff find that delivering TNE is

challenging, they identify many benefits to students arising from offshore teaching arrangements –

access to high quality higher education, the value attached to a UK qualification as well as the intrinsic

value of the learning experience to the individual.

6 Despite a broadly positive view of TNE, staff respondents in both survey and focus group expressed

anxieties about whether the education delivered is suitably tailored to meet the requirements of

students living and working in countries outside the UK. Students have different needs, their

expectations vary and TNE systems may require a greater degree of flexibility than they currently

exhibit to meet the needs of offshore students. Teaching staff talk of more partnerships and

collaborative working as a means to realise the full value of TNE.

7 TNE staff encounter challenges in delivery that they address by transplanting solutions from the home-

HEI to the offshore classroom. However challenges arise that are specific to the transnational context

and in these instances staff are required to develop more innovative and bespoke solutions. The staff

surveyed in this research demonstrate pedagogical reflexivity through their comments on how

emerging practice offshore could be used to enhance learning and teaching in the home-UK institution.

5

8 The report outlines areas for further research, in particular the development of TNE host-provider

collaborations that can better understand the student experience. It concludes with a number of

recommendations, for example the development of whole-HEIs’ understanding of their TNE mission;

the provision of tailored TNE training for the offshore environment; clear understanding of student

expectations, fit-for-purpose curricula, and the embedding of opportunities to share good practice

within and between home and offshore institutions.

6

Acknowledgements

The author acknowledges and thanks colleagues across the sector who contributed their time to make

this study possible, in particular the pilot and survey respondents and the participants in the focus group

interview.

The author also acknowledges and thanks colleagues at the Higher Education Academy; Paul Bennett for

useful advice on the conduct of the survey, and the members of the steering group, Jeanne Keay, Helen

May, Geoff Stoakes and Rob Walton, all of whose suggestions and comments greatly improved this

report.

Finally, thanks to James Ottaway (Quiddity Research), HEA Associate for his contributions to the report,

particularly for assistance with quantitative aspects of the literature review, and assisting with the analysis

and graphical representation of the survey data.

7

Introduction

Three-quarters of higher education providers in the UK now have some form of transnational

arrangements in place, ranging from overseas campuses to collaborative agreements and partnerships

where students are taught by local staff or staff from the home institution often known as ‘flying faculty’.

While transnational education looks set to continue as an important growth industry (British Council

2013, p. 54; QAA 2013, p.2) there are debates around the learning experience and standards of teaching

for those students who study offshore on UK accredited programmes. Adam’s 2001 study reported UK

concerns around the “potential for conflict between quality and profit” and the “difficulties in assuring

quality at a distance” (2001, p. 35). McBurnie and Ziguras argue that market-driven TNE is more

vulnerable to “grade inflation, lowering of entry standards, and superficially attractive vocational

qualifications” (2007, p. 2) and the UK media have carried a number of stories describing the

shortcomings of TNE delivery (see, for example, Whitehead 2011).

This report gives an account of research conducted by the Higher Education Academy into teaching

challenges on transnational programmes and looks at some of the current and prospective ways in which

UK HE providers try to ensure teaching excellence and a good quality student learning experience in

transnational arrangements. The research:

explored the academic literature relating to the enhancement of student learning and teaching excellence in transnational arrangements;

identified the challenges faced by UK higher education providers in delivering their programmes

overseas;

identified elements of good practice in promoting high quality learning and teaching on transnational programmes;

identified the nature of support required by the sector.

The data for the report was gathered and analysed in three stages:

1 a mapping1 of the research literature relating to transnational education;

2 a survey of UK higher education leaders and managers of transnational arrangements to explore

teaching practices and associated challenges;

3 a focus group of UK transnational educators to further investigate themes emerging in the survey

responses.

The report begins with a discussion of the growth in UK transnational education and the rationale and context for the focus on student learning and teacher development. It then examines the literature

relating specifically to the enhancement of learning and teaching in TNE arrangements. The results of the

survey and focus group interview are then presented concentrating on findings relating to TNE practices

and challenges. The report concludes with a series of recommendations to the sector on how UK

overseas teaching can be improved with the aim of ensuring excellence in teaching for students of UK

higher education, wherever in the world they are based.

1 Mapping data is an increasingly popular approach when large amounts of data are involved and there is a need to see quickly

and efficiently the relationships between bits of information through graphic or visual representation.

8

UK transnational higher education

In this report, we define transnational higher education as:

Award- or credit-bearing learning undertaken by students who are based in a different country from that

of the awarding institution

This definition is an adaptation from the Council of Europe’s statement on TNE (2002)2 but emphasises

both learning and the student, which for the purposes of this report are the most important aspects of

transnational education.

TNE is a relatively new, but rapidly growing opportunity for UK HEIs. Figures from the Higher Education

Statistics Agency (HESA) show a rapid increase in the numbers of UK offshore students particularly from

2008 to 2009, when they almost doubled, as Table 1 shows.

Table 1: increase in UK TNE provision (Source: HESA)

All universities Excluding Oxford

Brookes

Year EU Non-EU Total Increase Total Increase

N % N % N % N %

2008 46,370 23.6 150,265 76.4 196,635 195,800

2009 66,815 17.2 321,155 82.8 387,970 97.3 224,750 14.8

2010 68,450 16.8 340,010 83.2 408,460 5.3 246,550 9.7

2011 72,025 14.3 431,565 85.7 503,590 23.3 263,755 7.0

2012 76,360 13.4 494,305 86.6 570,665 13.3 324,708 23.1

This trend is dominated by the figures for Oxford Brookes University, which massively expanded its

Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) programme from 2008-09 onwards. With

Oxford Brookes removed, TNE provision still shows impressive growth, especially in the period 2011-12.

2 The Council of Europe (2002) defines transnational education as “All types of higher education study programme, 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. Such programmes may belong to the educational

system of a state different from the state in which it operates, or may operate independently of any national system.”

9

At present, over three-quarters of UK higher education providers are delivering some form of TNE; 87%

of transnational education is delivered outside the European Union, and 13% within. The most common

type of delivery is through partner arrangements (60%), followed by distance, flexible or distributed

learning (20%), or through some form of collaborative provision (17%); overseas campuses make up 2.7%

of TNE provision.3

Figure 1: UK students studying offshore (Source: HESA 2013)

The value of transnational education

Transnational education offers opportunities for both learners and teachers, opportunities for research

and for the overall development of HEIs at home and overseas. Building reputation and brand, increased

income (Department for Business Innovation and Skills 2013); strategic research opportunities (European

University Association 2013); exposure to “new ideas and influences” (Adam 2001, p. 5) and widening

participation (Wallace and Dunn 2013, p. 17) have all been identified as motivations for the strategic

involvement of higher education institutions in TNE. The benefits and opportunities of TNE are obvious

not only to HEIs but increasingly to governments, especially as they relate to new and emerging markets.

A report commissioned by the OECD notes that:

In emerging economies – especially China, India and in Southeast Asia – there is an ever growing

demand for higher education and internationalisation may be regarded as a cost-effective

alternative to national provision (Henard, Diamond and Roseveare 2012, p. 7).

3 See here for a description of the categories under which HESA requests UK HEIs to enter their student returns for offshore

teaching under the following categories http://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php?option=com_studrec&Itemid=232&mnl=13052

10

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), put the value of TNE to the UK economy at

£230 million in 2010 and forecasts an increase to £356 million in 2015 and to £849 million in 2025

(Conlon, Litchfield et al 2011, p. 11). The overall value to the UK economy of education-related exports4

stood at £14,684 million in 2010 and is forecast to rise to £26,575 million by 2025. Indeed David Willett’s

foreword to BIS’s more recent 2013 report on international education commented that “there are few

sectors of the UK economy with the capacity to grow and generate export earnings as impressive as

education” (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills 2013, p. 3).

While there is growing interest in the value of transnational education for the UK national economy,

there is only a limited amount of research about the specific value of such education for the offshore

students themselves. The only piece of current UK research identified for this report that addresses this

issue is a British Council pilot study (Knight and McNamara 2013) which surveyed TNE students and

graduates in ten countries. The study reported that most students had selected their course for “skills

development and career advancement” and were “generally satisfied with their courses”.5 The Council’s

report, while on the whole positive, nevertheless hinted at concerns about “Western-centric

programmes” and suggests that TNE may be “exacerbating brain drain and in some cases not meeting

technical and science skills gaps”.6

Such comments reflect the concerns stated at the outset of this report regarding the difficulties and risks

in delivering UK education in overseas contexts. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

(2013, p. 27) argues that such risks are “challenges we must face if we want to seize the opportunities of international education”. The full set of challenges they list are: co-ordination between agencies, growth,

visas, competition, and customer relationships. A notable absence in this list is the challenge of developing

the teaching competencies of TNE staff along with an understanding of the specific learning needs of the

transnational student. Developing TNE teaching competencies and an appreciation of the TN student

learning needs is, however, critical to the success of TNE delivery. Hénard, Roseveare et al (2012), for

example, note that:

Internationalisation of programmes entails refining support for students and paying closer

attention to students with ever more demanding expectations in terms of quality of pedagogy,

student assessments and the learning environment (2012, p. 8).

International education is an opportunity for HE institutions to develop their brand, to find new students,

and new research opportunities, but there is also the prospect of failure; failure for the students and staff

who embark on seemingly new and exciting courses, and risk to the core mission and reputation of the

UK HEIs who provide such education. For example, attrition rates on TNE courses are large, and we

know from the UK experience that retention rates vary across social groups and have multiple causes,

many of which can be offset by co-ordinated efforts across institutions aimed at inclusion of those most

likely to feel they “do not belong” (Thomas 2012; Andrews, Clark et al 2012). These kinds of risk cannot

be mitigated merely through better governance and regulation. Better regulation, good governance, and

quality control are all allies of excellence in learning and teaching, but excellence in learning and teaching

also comes, as Gunn (2013, p. 21) acknowledges, from developing pedagogical knowledge and through

the lived experience in the classroom.

4 Education-related exports include, for example, research grants, licensing IP, training, publishing. 5 http://www.britishcouncil.org/press/positive-impact-of-transnational-education [4 December 2013] 6 http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/transnational-education-brain-drain-warning/2003844.article [4 December

2013]

11

Supporting the development of pedagogical knowledge and practice is key for staff and critical for HE

providers who are responsible for the quality of their education wherever in the world it is delivered.

Students’ needs will continue to change with the growing internationalisation of labour markets and,

whether based at home or abroad, there is no doubt that UK graduates will increasingly live and work in

a globalised world. To do this successfully they will need a:

new kind of intercultural understanding, respect for common rules and fair play, an understanding

of different interests, views and ways of thinking, and the ability to reconcile and to compromise

(European Commission 2013a: 50).

The research literature on transnational education

Realising the potential value of TNE described in the previous section requires a basis in both empirical

evidence and theoretical models about offshore delivery, teaching experiences and TNE challenges.

However, research on transnational education is still at an early stage of development. Adam argued in

2001 that TNE was “an under-researched and often misunderstood area, with no common

understanding, definition or approach” and that while some good reports on the topic existed each of

these stressed “the lack of availability of hard statistical data” (p. 4). This view has been corroborated in a

more recent report by the British Council (2013), which noted that large gaps continue to exist in the

data, and called for stakeholders to improve the evidence base for TNE.7 This section therefore examines

the current state of knowledge about TNE as it is represented in academic journal articles on the subject. The following paragraphs provide a description of the broad features of this literature, and then

concentrate in greater depth on articles related to student learning and teaching development.

The first stage of this literature review was to identify suitable sources of bibliographic data. Having

assessed the coverage of TNE in all major databases, it was determined that merging the results from

four of these would provide coverage of the field both broadly and specifically and also without

redundancy: the Social Sciences Citation Index (Web of Science), which has excellent coverage of a very

broad range of journals, and the more specialised educational databases: Education Resources

Information Center [ERIC], the British Education Index and the Australian Education Index.

Records were retrieved from these databases through a search for transnational education and related

phrases, such as “offshore provision”, “overseas education” and “overseas campus”. After removal of

duplicates and non-relevant articles, 219 records remained. The records were parsed and converted to

an internal database format for analysis. They were then manually filtered for relevance to the definition

of transnational education used in this report, and specifically to offshore provision. There were 83

records remaining after this reduction.

The annual counts of publication years (Figure 2) show that 2005 was the year when publications first

took off; from the earliest date, 1982, until 2005 there was at most one publication in any given year.

There has been roughly linear growth since then, perhaps with a spike of publication activity around

2006. This pattern of activity is what might be expected reflecting a growing awareness on the part of

HEIs of new education markets.

7 Kevin Van-Cauter, Higher Education Adviser at the British Council commenting on the Council’s (2013) Preliminary Findings

from Research Project on the Impact of TNE on Host Countries. Available from: http://www.britishcouncil.org/press/positive-

impact-of-transnational-education [4 December 2013].

12

Figure 2: number of documents by year (2000-2012)

For a topic such as TNE, nationality of institutional authorship and of subject matter is of interest.

Therefore, the research included an examination of country of institutional authorship, the countries

discussed in the literature, and the presence of any cross-national collaboration in research on TNE.

Australian academics are by far most prolific researchers in transnational education: 29 individual authors

were identified as having an Australian institutional address, compared with seven authors from England

and five from both the US and the Netherlands. Of those nations that host rather than provide TNE, only

China has a significant authorship presence, equalling England with seven authors.

Figure 3: institutional nationality of individual authors

There is little sign of any cross-national collaboration between authors, suggesting a scarcity of

networking activity around TNE research. Most collaboration is between England and Netherlands, all of

which is the result of collaborations between two authors. Switzerland connects these and other cross-

national collaborations principally through the activities of the World Trade Organization. The only other

national collaborative linkage is between Australia and Singapore. Sparsity of collaboration networks is an

indicator of the relative immaturity of a research field (Lambiotte and Panzarasa 2009; Bettencourt et al

2009), especially so for a field of research on a topic such as TNE, where collaboration between

institutions in host and provider nations might be expected.

13

The topic countries of journal articles8 reflects to some extent the authorship patterns, with a high

presence of Australia, the UK and the US, but the predominant nations that appear as topics in journal

articles are host countries such as China and Singapore. The authorship data suggests, therefore, that

TNE research is carried out and published predominantly by academics in English-speaking countries or

by some form of collaborative partnership between cross-national partner institutions involved in

transnational education, such as Singapore and Australia, but that the countries of interest are principally

those of host nations. An exception to this is China, where there appears to be a growth in academic

interest in TNE within China alongside an interest from other nations in issues related to offshore

provision in China.

Content of transnational education research

Since the data-set of literature produced for this research is relatively small, it was possible to manually

inspect and classify the term-document frequencies to determine the most frequently occurring themes

using content-analysis coding techniques. All terms occurring five or more times (171 terms) were

classified into 12 themes derived inductively from the data:

Globalisation Governance

Trade (TNE as marketplace) Regulation

Student experiences of TNE Partnership

Student identity (such as: sense of belonging,

community)

Policy

Student mobility Teaching

Quality Learning

In terms of counts of records classified under each theme (see Figure 4) the dominant themes in the TNE

literature are globalisation, policy, quality assurance and trade. Themes related to learning and teaching

are less well covered.

Figure 4: Themes: number of records classified under each theme

8 Country names were extracted using the Stanford Named Entity Recognition parser http://nlp.stanford.edu/ner/

14

Visualising the relationship between each of these themes as a network (Figure 5)9, it can be seen that

globalisation, policy and trade are all strongly inter-related.

Figure 5: relationships between themes

The thickness of the line between two themes represents the number of documents in which they co-

occur

Learning and teaching interact more closely with quality, regulation, globalisation and policy than they do

with aspects of student experience and student identity, indicating there is a greater preoccupation with

policy-related aspects of learning and teaching than there is with aspects more closely related to the

experience of learning and teaching in a TNE context.

While the lack of research on transnational education is generally assumed, the findings presented above

provide some evidence of its scale and characteristics. In terms of peer-reviewed journal articles, there

are relatively few publications related specifically to TNE, and only minimal signs of a cross-national

research community developing around the subject. The analysis also shows a preponderance and greater

network density within the collection of articles of research on globalisation policy, quality and trade,

which currently forms the centre of gravity for the transnational education literature. Furthermore, the

9 The network graphic was produced using the igraph package for the R statistical computing environment (R Core Team

2013). Each vertex in the network is a theme, the edges (connections between themes) are weighted according to the

number of times a pair of themes is found in the same document.

15

data indicate that information flows are, with only very few exceptions, predominantly from the West,

highlighting the need for a greater diversity of views in the exploration of TNE.

Themes in the literature relating to student learning and teaching quality

Having identified these broad themes a smaller number of documents in the collection were identified to

be related specifically to student learning or teaching quality. Of the 83 documents in the collection, 33

were found to meet this criterion. The full texts of these articles were downloaded for further analysis.

Using the same content-analytical method used for the larger collection, three major thematic concerns

were identified in this sub-collection: learning styles, the cultural context of educational delivery, and

specific teaching needs that arise in transnational environments. These three themes are described in the

following sections, with illustrations from key texts identified as related to each theme.

Learning styles

The argument that students have different learning styles (Joy and Kolb 2009, for example) is an

important one for transnational pedagogy and the development of teaching and of student learning. The

learning styles debate raises questions about how teaching and learning styles differ, whether students can

adapt to a different learning culture and how staff can be trained to support students to learn in new

teaching environments.

Eaves (2011, p. 687) examines the relevance of learning styles for international pedagogy in higher

education. Her departure point is a strong critique of learning culture methodologies to date. She argues that much of what we understand as ‘learning styles’ is based on Western measures and ways of

understanding that often inappropriately construct approaches to learning in other countries as simply

‘deficient’. Eaves argues, nevertheless, that the conceptual distinctions advanced by a number of learning

styles theorists are useful if applied with caution. “Deep, surface and strategic approaches to learning”

and “meaning-directed, application-directed and reproduction-directed learning styles” (p. 680) are valid

categories that can help teachers develop insights into their students and their learning needs, in

particular when students are required to adapt to a new learning technique, as often happens in a

transnational context.

Eaves’ chief argument is that learning styles are not rigid or the property of particular cultures. On the

contrary, they are “adaptable between educational contexts, and any necessary adaptation should be

supported by well-informed teaching processes that address the diverse learning styles of all learners”

(2011, p. 688). Chapman and Pyvis are equally cautious of learning style stereotypes. They cite Biggs, who

for example refutes the typecasting, particularly the reference to Asian students as surface and rote

learners. Biggs suggests this perception may be based on misunderstandings, and that “Chinese students

generally have a more academic approach to learning (low surface, high deep) than Australians” (cited in

Chapman and Pyvis 2007a, p. 299).

Starr-Glass and Ali (2012) echo other authors’ concerns about learning styles in their article on

differences in assessment approaches between two education partners; one Czech and the other

American. Their article demonstrates how assessment is never a straightforward act of objective

judgement; on the contrary, assessment has embedded within it underlying educational assumptions and

principles, in this case two very different assessment approaches to the ‘undergraduate dissertation’ from

two different systems. Starr-Glass and Ali go on to show how elements of both the Czech and American

systems were able to be combined or aligned to meet the demands of both sets of assessment criteria. It

was possible, they showed, to develop and assess the dissertation in a manner that aligned to the core

values of each awarding system.

16

Learning styles can be a useful pedagogical concept if employed with care. Particularly, TNE practitioners

need to understand other learning styles without assuming that these are inherently deficient. Unfamiliar

ways of learning, once explored and evaluated, can usefully enhance practice. Learning styles are mutable

and adaptable, not inflexible aspects of different cultures.

Contextualising education and teaching practice

Another prominent theme in the TNE literature set, and again one related to both learning and teaching,

is that of education quality. The main thrust of the argument here is that ‘quality’ cannot be understood

or developed without an appreciation of the cultural contexts which shape different conceptions of

quality.

This relationship between culture and ‘education quality’ is thoroughly explored in Pyvis’ 2011 article. He

argues for context-sensitive measures of quality in transnational higher education. Where Starr-Glass and

Ali’s study (2012), referred to previously, explored the deficiencies of basing assessment on one

particular educational model, Pyvis is equally critical of using mono-cultural reference points in building

models of quality. The evaluation of an Australian programme delivered in China in partnership with a

Chinese university was impoverished, he argues, by referencing purely the values and practices of the

Australian university. Pyvis (2011) argues that narrow understandings of quality arise because providers

operate on the understanding that “sameness of quality requires sameness in approach” (p. 741). On this

view, the Chinese system was understood as deficient, something that Pyvis argues had to “be overcome”

(p.741). Likewise, Hoare (2013), reporting on an ethnographic study of academics running a TNE

programme in Singapore, observed that a “universalist mindset” (p, 561) can be damaging to educational outcomes since it fails to recognise the inherent intercultural distance between host and providers.

For Pyvis, the deficit approach was especially concerning given the lack of understanding of Chinese

education or Confucian pedagogy by the Australian providers. Far from promoting passive or rote

learning, Confucian pedagogy uses, Pyvis contends “questioning, argument and analogy to encourage the

development of independent thought” (2011, p. 741). In this instance, the deficit model lacked evidence.

Wang and Moore (2007) provide evidence supporting this view, finding there is no homogeneous

Chinese preferred learning style, and that there is little evidence that Chinese culture, and specifically

Confucianism, leads to a preference for passive and teacher-directed learning (see also Bambacas et al

2008).

Pyvis argues that transnational delivery needs to embed multiple perspectives in understandings of

‘education quality’, and that quality needs to be context dependent and respectful of the diversity of

education traditions. It is crucial for meeting this need that a better understanding of quality is adopted,

one which takes context and difference into account in the equation of quality, sameness and

comparability. Both Chapman and Pyvis (2007) continue this concern with context in their exploration of

how student identities are formed and developed in offshore provision. The doctoral students in their

study faced dilemmas particular to learning in transnational environments. First, developing a sense of

belonging to the broader university community was difficult given the distance between, in this case,

Hong Kong and Australia. Second, many students had chosen offshore study because they faced heavy

and competing pressures from work and family; they often found the academic demands difficult to

manage and needed support and understanding. Third, given the limited time students had to spend with

each other, there was a learning style preference to work collaboratively and engage in group activities

when the opportunity arose. Fourth, students were uncertain how to manage relationships with

supervisors based at the awarding institution. For example, students who corresponded by email with

their supervisors all felt it would be inappropriate to send a follow-up email if the supervisor failed to

reply. Chapman and Pyvis thus argue that notions of best practice cannot be unproblematically

transplanted from the awarding institution to the offshore one. Approaches to teaching need to be

student specific and aware of the particular needs facing offshore students.

17

Hoare's article (2012) on transnational student voices discusses the need for appropriate

contextualisation of TNE programme content. She notes the “capacity for foreign curriculum and

pedagogy to create frustration when unsuited to local conditions and to undermine the nation building

role of the local education system” (p. 281). Contextualisation is difficult for individual educators, in

particular when they are trying to introduce context into the curriculum from a distance. Hoare

describes how students adapt content themselves as they learn. She recommends that educators

concentrate on creating “potential for in-class intercultural and transnational comparisons” rather than

“attempting to inject local ‘flavour’ into course content from a distance” (2012, p. 282-283). The process

of contextualisation is seen as appropriately carried out within class rather than as a purely separate

exercise from the teaching moment.

Transnational staff needs

A final theme in the literature is the very specific development needs of staff that arise in teaching in a

transnational context. Dobos (2011, p. 20) provides a reminder about staff and staff development:

A clearly important factor in assuring that offshore programmes are successful is the employment

of quality staff who are happy to be teaching and administering these programmes.

Her research identifies the challenges in delivering quality offshore education from the perspectives of

directly involved academic staff. One issue that emerged was a sense of a lack of equality on the part of

staff at an offshore campus of the Australian university. These offshore staff felt isolated and with little

control, and felt that at times they were not treated professionally, whether they were staff from Australia or local staff. Staff felt they belonged to the Malaysian campus but not the wider Australian and

Malaysian one. Communication was often one-way, with directives given from the Australian university

about assessment and grades and no opportunity for debate or discussion. However, a quote from one

member of the offshore team about her relationship with a staff member on the ‘home’ campus

demonstrates that cross-country teaching relationships can develop positively:

She also always includes me in the weekly emails she sends to her sessional staff so that I know

what is happening in their classes, where they are. She even sends me samples of her students’

work for me to look at, which is very rare. (2011, p. 29)

The article, aptly titled Serving Two Masters, explored how academics from host institutions must serve

that institution and the provider institution; these academics can suffer difficulties in their relationships

with academics from provider nations, causing a sense of isolation and stress. Managers too suffer from

the stress of being involved in two regulatory systems.

Smith’s article on academics working in an offshore campus of an Australian university (2009) continues

the theme of the importance of recognising staff professionalism and autonomy. She shows how an

initially poor relationship between home and offshore campus gradually evolved into a more positive one.

In her study, the relationship improved through growth in some measure of autonomy for the local

institution and the establishment of better and stronger communication channels between both

institutions. She argues that:

The home campus also has a responsibility to make sure their own staff are familiar with the

situation at the offshore campus and that their work for that campus is properly acknowledged

and valued rather than simply being an ‘add-on’ or a burden. (2009, p. 477)

Equally, while home-based staff, in this case those in Australia, need to understand the offshore campus,

offshore academics need to understand the culture of the provider institution which shapes much of the

educational provision. In Smith’s study it was evident that:

18

Few of the participants knew much about Australia and its education system, yet they were

expected to teach Australian degree programmes and enter into professional relationships with

Australian academics…Therefore, the need for a proper staff induction process is paramount.

(2009, p. 477)

Such a process needs to be developed specifically for the context of the offshore campus rather than

simply being imported from the home campus. Smith talks of the growing awareness of the very different

skills and knowledge needed by staff in the ‘transnational classroom’. There is a “need for professional

development in transnational education”. (2009, p. 471)

The thematic concerns of this literature usefully problematise notions of student learning styles and

furthermore argue for context-driven understandings of education quality. These challenges may not be

unique to TNE but they are more important in the transnational teaching environment where staff are

often unfamiliar with broader social and cultural factors that play a role in student interaction and

learning preferences. The review of the literature also highlights the need for more studies, certainly

beyond the predominantly Australian context, and for studies that focus on a greater number of

individuals with a broader set of experiences.

19

Researching institutional attitudes to TNE: survey and focus group

Background to research

The HEA research reported here and conducted by the HEA in 2013 concentrated on issues related to

student learning and teacher development. The research involved a survey - Transnational Education

Learning and Teaching (TNELT) - and a follow-up focus group to explore in greater depth some of the

survey’s results.

Alongside the literature review, which shaped the survey, some valuable insights were derived from a

previous survey of 42 pro-vice-chancellors conducted by the HEA in 2012, which aimed to explore

institutional attitudes towards internationalisation in general, rather than TNE specifically (HEA 2012).

Findings from this earlier survey indicate that the sector has overwhelmingly come to terms with the

need for a strategic approach to internationalisation: 80% of respondents had a strategy for

internationalisation, 20% had none.10

Furthermore, this commitment by HEIs to an international strategy was reflected in the seniority of those

with lead strategic responsibility: the lead role was held by a deputy or pro-vice-chancellor in 20 cases or

another senior post holder in 13 cases; in only two cases were respondents unable to identify a lead role.

The survey established that higher education institutions in the UK have moved forward considerably and

over a short period of time in regarding international education as a strategic imperative. Whereas before

it might have been a marginal and short-term activity, now TNE tends to be seen as something central to institutional development.

The Transnational Education Learning and Teaching survey

Administered in 2013, the Transnational Education Learning and Teaching (TNELT) survey aimed to

examine more specifically the challenges experienced by staff on transnational education programmes and

to identify elements of good practice as well as ideas for what might be useful in promoting high quality

learning and teaching.

In keeping with the interest in institutional responses, the unit of analysis for the survey was an individual

HEI. The inclusion criteria for the survey were that the institution was a UK HEI currently providing TNE

through either an overseas campus, or overseas partner organisation, or collaborative or franchised

provision, and that this provision leads to an award or credit from a UK HEI.

The survey was aimed at heads, teaching leads or managers of UK HEI transnational programmes, that is

award- or credit-bearing educational programmes delivered by UK HEIs in countries outside the UK. As

much as possible, we aimed to recruit candidates with in-depth experience of delivering TNE on the

ground, and with sufficient seniority to allow us to take their views as representative of the institution.

The survey questions asked about number of programmes, place and mode of delivery, belief in benefits,

challenges experienced, and practices engaged in to enhance student learning. Candidates were

approached by telephone, and the survey was self-administered through a web interface. The main

instrument in the survey was Likert-type attitudinal scaling. A full list of questions can be found in

Appendix 2 TNE learning and teaching survey questions.

10 Of the 80% who do, it is interesting to note that 16% of the total number of respondents did not have a separate strategy

but instead described it as ‘embedded’, mirroring perhaps a trend in sustainability strategies; they became more embedded

over time.

20

The full population list was derived from the latest HESA student returns, 2011-12. The 22 institutions

providing solely distance, flexible, and distributed learning were excluded leaving a total population of 102

HEIs.

A pilot study of five HEIs highlighted there would be problems identifying suitable candidates within an

institution. There is no authoritative directory of TNE staff available, and within individual HEIs there is

no one record of who teaches on TNE programmes. It was clear that attempting to survey the whole

population would almost certainly introduce bias through self-selection and adversely affect the validity of

the study. Therefore, a random-sampling approach was taken. This allowed the researcher more time

with each institution to correctly identify the best candidate for the survey, often involving several follow-

up telephone calls; a beneficial side-effect of which was it made a good response rate more likely.11 It was

decided that 35 responses would balance practical feasibility with adequate representativeness, and a

random sample of this number was drawn from the sampling frame.12 Ultimately, of the sample of 35, 32

respondents from different institutions completed the survey, a response rate of 91%.

The second stage of the research project was a focus group interview with TNE practitioners. This

interview was conducted with six staff members from UK higher education providers and was recorded

and transcribed. The participants were recruited by open email invitation to the members of the HEA’s

transnational education research and practice network. The first six members of the network who

responded, were available and currently teaching on TNE programmes, or had in-depth understanding of

delivery or management of partnerships, were accepted for the focus group. The size of the group was

kept intentionally small to allow the participants adequate time to share their extensive knowledge,

experience and particular viewpoints. See Kruger and Casey for a discussion of size of focus group (2009, p. 67-68).

11Future research into transnational delivery would be helped enormously by HEIs and sector organisations working to

establish greater visibility of TNE staff home and offshore. 12 Selection was randomised by selecting the first 35 items of a computer-generated random permutation of the list of

candidates.

21

Research findings and discussion

The major challenge in conducting the survey was the lack of awareness within HEIs about the delivery of

TNE in their institution. Each approach started with either an email or a telephone call to the office that

most closely appeared to be dealing with TNE. It was very often the case that front-line staff, often in

HEIs’ international offices, were not aware of what transnational education actually was or whether their

university delivered it. In many cases, we were met with a denial that their institution was involved in

TNE, at which point we would sometimes refer them to the HESA data. In one instance, after discussions

with us, a HEI realised it had incorrectly completed the HESA returns and did not in fact deliver TNE.

This HEI was subsequently replaced in the sample. In most instances, locating an individual to complete

our survey typically took two days and many phone calls as front-line and second-line staff became

involved in the search for a ‘TNE member of staff’. This experience was echoed in informal discussions

with the HEA’s TNE research and practice network. Some transnational staff members commented that

it often took days for emails sent to their institution to actually reach them because other staff did not

know who was responsible for TNE and who to forward general or specific TNE inquiries to. While this

clearly poses research problems, it also poses problems for TNE students. How can an offshore student

feel a sense of belonging to an institution when the institution’s outward-facing staff do not know they

exist?

TNE is a growing area and understandably there will be some confusion about what it means, as pointed

out in our analysis of the literature. In our own survey research, we asked the question: What other

words or phrases do you use for TNE? There was a wide range of different phrases offered in the responses. These included:

transnational education

collaborative provision

overseas collaborative partnerships

collaborative programme

joint PhD programme

overseas partnerships

international partnerships

partner institution

international education

split programme

partnership programme

external programmes

overseas education

the X programme

collaborative partner

PhD without residence

supported delivery

off-campus education

international programme

country partnership

international approved academic partner

The array of names suggests it is unsurprising that staff not directly involved with TNE provision will find

it difficult to understand where and who in their HEI is delivering it. Indeed, staff directly involved in

delivery may struggle too over the profusion of names. While, of course, it is appropriate that courses

have different names, it is also the case that there is work to be done by HEIs to communicate more

effectively to staff within their own institution the extent and purpose of their involvement in

transnational education.

Characteristics of respondents

The most common type of programme delivery (Appendix A, question 8) was either by local staff of

which there were 14 respondents (44%), and 11 delivered by flying faculty (34%). In terms of type of

provision (Appendix A, question 7) a large proportion of HEIs was involved in collaborative provisions:

23 respondents, making 72% of responses. Partnership was used by 11 (34%) and distance learning by

seven (22%). There was some variation in the number of individual programmes delivered: 12 had a single

programme and seven had six or more.

22

The two most common countries for offshore provision were Singapore and China, named by ten

respondents, followed by Hong Kong and Malaysia with seven each; counts of all countries named are

illustrated in Figure 6 below.

Learning and teaching: challenges in delivery

Figure 6: countries where offshore provision is delivered

23

Figure 7: overview of ratings for TNE challenges

On the basis of their own experience, respondents were asked to rate how significant they found a range

of challenges when delivering education overseas. Responses are shown graphically in Figure 7 and in

tabular form in Appendix 2 TNELT survey tables. These show that the most challenging aspects are

related to cultural issues, such as communication styles, teaching and learning styles, and to challenges of

governance (quality control and local regulatory systems).13 Other areas, such as training and

recruitment, are generally more moderately challenging, and only one aspect of delivery was generally

seen as not challenging: the enthusiasm of local staff.

13 Respondents were asked to rate these challenges using the scale: not challenging, slightly challenging, challenging, very

challenging. In the analysis the very challenging level was combined with the challenging level.

24

The strength of the associations between each of these challenges was measured using Kendall’s tau as

the test statistic14, with a significance level of 0.05. The results are summarised visually as a heatmap in

Figure 8 which shows the strength of association between each item where it was shown to be

statistically significant; the darker the square the stronger the association between the two variables. A

full table of these results can be found in Appendix 1 TNELT survey tables.

There is a strong relationship between perceived challenges to do with communication styles and cultural

context (tau = 0.63). Other thematically-related associations found to be reasonably strong include those

between training, recruitment, local expectations and local styles of teaching and learning.

Figure 8: strength of association between challenge variables

Results are shown where significant (Kendall's tau, p<=0.05). A darker square represents a stronger

association

Alongside this, there is a strong association between the challenges of dealing with local regulatory

systems and quality control (tau = 0.58). Further thematically-related issues appear to be to do with

quality control and issues of recruitment, training and Internet provision.

14 Kendall's tau, also known as the Kendall rank correlation coefficient, is a non-parametric measure of the strength of

association between two ordinal variables. Its advantages over other measures that could have been used, such as

Spearman's rho, are that it is suited specifically to ordinal variables and it has a more direct interpretation as a probability

(Agresti 2010; Noether 1981).

25

Responses to the challenges questions fell into two distinct categories, one to do with cultural matters,

the other to do with matters related to governance and regulation.

There are two significant associations between challenges and delivery types, both involving flying faculty

and both at the ‘moderate’ level: where delivery is mainly by flying faculty, it is likely there will be

challenges related to differences in communication styles (tau = 0.39) and to the training of local staff (tau

= 0.43).

Among the associations measured between responses to the ‘challenges’ question and reported provision

types, training turns out to be the significant challenge. For offshore campuses, it is training of teaching

staff both local (tau = 0.36) and provider (tau = 0.38). Also, when there is no collaborative provision,

there are more likely to be challenges to do with the training of non-teaching staff (tau = -0.37).

Ideas relating to ‘communications styles’, ‘cultural differences’ and ‘learning styles’ all emerged as

challenging ‘categories’ in the HEA’s earlier 2012 survey with pro-vice-chancellors and in the TNE

literature review. As such, they informed the decision about the list of challenges that respondents were

asked to comment upon in the 2013 TNELT survey. Categories such as ‘learning styles’, discussed above,

and communication or cultural differences are all categories that need a great deal of unpacking: they are

often used as abstract notions or catch-all phrases to capture or refer to something that has neither been

properly described nor understood. Importantly though, the survey finds that these elements of TNE

delivery, however conceived, are judged by staff to be some of the most challenging aspects of

transnational delivery. As such they suggest themselves as worthy of further investigation. Not only did

staff judge ‘the different cultural context’ as challenging, those that did were also significantly likely to judge ‘different styles of communication’ as challenging too. Staff who found ‘different local staff

expectations of students’ challenging were significantly more likely to find ‘different local styles of

teaching’ challenging also. Finally, when the main mode of delivery was flying faculty this had associated

challenges relating to different styles of communication, and the perception that the training of local staff

was an issue. At the least, these findings suggest a need for further understanding of the context within

which TNE programmes of study are being delivered, and greater training and support for both home-

based and local staff who together collaborate in the delivery of transnational education.

Learning and teaching comparisons

Respondents were asked how the learning and teaching experience for the offshore students on their

programme compared with that of students at their HEI in the UK (Figure 9 below and Table 6 in

Appendix 1). A majority of respondents reported that their teaching, their students’ learning experience,

and educational outcomes were all either as good as, slightly better, or better. However, a notable

minority reported the teaching and learning experience as ‘worse’ or ‘slightly worse’ (30% for teaching

and 37.9% for learning). Resources, on the other hand tended to be seen by more as worse (48.4%) than

any other category.

26

Figure 9: comparisons of teaching and learning, UK and offshore

Unsurprisingly, there are significant and strong associations between learning and teaching (tau= .59),

learning and outcomes (tau= .62), and teaching and outcomes (tau= .58): respondents who reported

teaching as worse were also likely to report learning as worse. Those who reported teaching, learning,

and resources as better were also likely to report outcomes as better.

Cross-tabulating the comparison responses with the challenge responses, it is resources that have the

most associations with challenges: where resources are worse, expectations of local staff and students,

local training, and Internet provision are likely to be more challenging (Table 2). Other notable

associations are between educational outcomes and UK staff enthusiasm, and teaching and staff

recruitment; in both cases, where the comparison is unfavourable, the challenge is greater.

27

Table 2: relationship between comparisons and challenges where statistically significant (p <= 0.05)

Comparison Challenge tau odds-ratio p-value

Resources local staff

expectations

-0.40 0.43 0.02

Resources student expectations -0.37 0.46 0.03

Resources training, local -0.38 0.45 0.02

Resources Internet provision -0.34 0.50 0.04

Outcomes UK staff enthusiasm -0.44 0.39 0.01

Teaching staff recruitment -0.37 0.45 0.02

Learning and teaching standards and practices

Respondents to the TNELT survey were asked what their offshore education programme does to

improve or maintain the standard of education and teaching. Almost all reported that they undertook

departmental reviews of course content and student surveys, and a large proportion made use of the

other methods listed (Table 3).

Table 3: numbers reporting practices to improve or maintain standard of TNE education

QA type N %

Departmental review of course content 28 87.5

Student survey 27 84.4

Departmental review of exam papers and procedure 22 68.8

Student review of teaching practices 21 65.6

CPD local staff 20 62.5

CPD home staff 19 59.4

28

QA type N %

Peer review of teaching practices 18 56.2

These reported figures indicate a clear majority of programmes actively engaged in practices aimed at

maintaining or improving the quality of their education. It is also clear, however, that a very significant

minority report their programme does not engage in all of these practices, many of which are now

standard in the UK.

29

Qualitative evidence: open-ended questions and focus group

There were several questions in the survey inviting open-ended responses around further perceived

challenges. In this section, the responses to these survey questions and the responses from the focus

group participants are grouped and discussed under four areas: learning and teaching; the benefits of

TNE; the student experience; and good practice. The focus group respondent (FRG) number is stated

where it is not explicit in the text that the responses come from different participants.

Learning and teaching

Results of the survey and comments from focus group respondents suggest that UK offshore staff find

student-learning styles a challenging feature of transnational education. This echoes Eaves (2011) article

discussed above who argued that differences in learning styles exist but that the notion of ‘learning styles’

is nevertheless a problematic and misunderstood concept. The survey and focus responses also suggest,

however, that more work needs to be done in understanding what exactly a ‘learning style’ is and what

practices either support or drive particular approaches to learning. For example, one respondent

commenting on differences between their home-UK students and students on their TNE programme

remarked positively: “Traditional recall of knowledge was often stronger than some of the home

students.” (FGResp 1) Indeed focus group respondents were very keen to emphasise that different

students bring different strengths to their learning. Nonetheless, this same respondent also felt that

students on some programmes displayed what would be regarded as a “weak approach to knowledge” to

knowledge in a UK HEI: “the concepts, they understood and could repeat that knowledge. But [they] couldn’t do the debating of the different concepts”. The point was reinforced by another respondent

who remarked: “they could talk about a theory and then another theory and then another theory, but

could [not compare] the benefits of each one of them” (FGResp3).

When the focus group participants were probed as to why they felt students might have a different

‘learning style’, a straightforward lack of skills was offered as one explanation: “That’s a different set of

skills that they didn’t seem to really have.” (FGResp3) A second explanation sought a deeper cause in the

cultures of the students’ home countries: “a lot of the cultures … they’re geared towards not

questioning what they’re told … whereas actually, you know, critical thinking is about questioning …

what you’re told”. (FGResp6) ‘Culture’ often functions to describe something that has not been

identified, generally a host of different and sometimes unrelated things. In this instance, further discussion

in the focus group suggested that a learning style may not in fact be the product of ‘culture’ but the

product of something else, or at least something much more specific, namely a particular approach to

assessment:

It’s the assessment as well which guides them towards that rote learning, knowing that actually in

their assessment they’re going to have to just regurgitate. A lot of our staff teaching the

programmes are local staff. So it’s making sure they are developing the right assessment so that

students are guided towards critical learning rather than rote learning. (FGResp6)

The comment suggests importantly that particular approaches to learning can come about as a result of a

particular approach to assessment. To follow the argument of Starr-Glass and Ali (2012) discussed

earlier, it is the assessment-style, and the values the assessment embodies, that needs first to be

considered, rather than assuming there is a deficiency in the student’s attitude to learning itself.

Responses to the survey show though that, however conceived, differences in ‘learning styles’ is regarded

as a challenge. Exploring this further in the focus group established it is a welcome challenge. One

participant remarked that the “most stimulating part” of her teaching was getting the students “to move

away from regurgitation to critical thinking”. “For me,” she added, “that feels like one of the important

added-value things.” (FGResp2) Another participant agreed, arguing that one of the things their students had got from the programme that “they may be weren’t initially expecting is that sort of completely

30

different way of viewing things and thinking about things”. (FGResp4) The same respondent described

how in student feedback on their course, the students:

all responded that it had enriched their personal lives because it made them think differently, not

just about their work side, but about everything. [It] made them look much more critically about

what they were doing and about the decisions they were making. (FGResp4)

The above discussion suggests that while staff may perceive differences in learning styles as a challenge

and may perhaps have varying approaches to understanding or explaining these perceived differences,

they nevertheless derive enjoyment from supporting students to learn in new and different ways; this was

a rewarding experience for staff and, they believed, for the students they taught. This lends support to

Eaves (2011) who argued that learning style categories, if applied with caution, are useful in allowing

teachers to develop insights into the learning needs of their students.

While the staff discussed in the preceding section were positive about TNE teaching, there are

indications that staff commitment to TNE is not an uncomplicated issue. In the focus group one of the

respondents remarked “recruitment of teaching staff for offshore educational programmes is becoming a

problem for me/us/my institution” (FGResp3) and the survey results show that recruitment of staff is still

regarded as challenging. The next section seeks to understand or explore staff appreciation of TNE. The

value of transnational education has been emphasised in recent times by the UK Government, but if this

value is to be realised, it is essential that there is an understanding about how staff themselves perceive

the value of the education they deliver. This is important not only for issues of staff recruitment and

retention but because staff delivering TNE can enhance their teaching by developing an appreciation of the benefits to students of any particular course of study.

The benefits of TNE

In the TNELT survey, we asked the question: “What do you personally believe are the benefits to

offshore students who receive a UK-accredited education?” Responses can be divided into three broad

categories: market value, widening participation and the intrinsic, or non-instrumental, value of education.

Many of the responses given related to what can be described as market or exchange value. These

included remarks such as “having a UK degree has prestige”, another that “UK degrees are

internationally recognised” and another that UK-type accredited education offered “possible international

employment”. Focus group participants were offered a similar opportunity to discuss the value of TNE

and again many comments related to the market value of a UK education. For example, one participant

remarked “it means that you’ll get an interview much easier” (FGResp1), and another that “higher

education is something that Britain still makes that the world still wants” (FGResp3).

Respondents’ appreciation of the value of offshore UK education was closely related to price. Responses

included that studying offshore was “affordable quality education”, an education at a “reduced cost and

increased convenience compared with overseas travel” and that it is “cheaper and easier logistically than

having to pay for a nine-week course in the UK”. This concern with price was reflected too in the focus

group discussion: one respondent, commenting on the possible distinction between an international and a

transnational student, remarked drily that it was “about five and a half grand” (FGResp1). The reality may

of course be a lot more than £5,000, but the response illustrates that staff are conscious there is a

difference between international students coming to the UK and students who stay in their own country

while availing of a British education. Students who are in a position to study abroad are in a minority, and

many respondents noted that part of the value of TNE was that it widened participation to education

often to students unable to travel outside their own country, and also to students who have missed what

are often one-off opportunities to study at the tertiary level in their own country. “It enables students

who would otherwise not study at HE level the opportunity to do so” was one survey response, another

that “TNE is a form of global widening participation”, and another that “many overseas students are

unable to afford the expense of coming to study in the UK, or [their own] system does not allow them to study a degree at an in-country HEI”.

31

Alongside an appreciation of how cost may be a significant obstacle to education, there was also an

understanding that there are socio-cultural factors that make it more difficult for some aspiring students,

women for example, to travel abroad in pursuit of an ‘international experience’. In this context, TNE was

an opportunity these students would otherwise not have, one that allows them to achieve, as one

respondent commented: “a recognised respected qualification within the social constraints of their

culture”. Such students can, as another survey respondent noted:

experience a UK-style education experience that takes account of the host country's cultural and

educational context under conditions that need not separate them from their families and friends.

The student experience from the perspective of staff

While both market-value and widening participation are understood by staff-respondents to constitute

much of the value of transnational education, there was a third set of responses that emphasised the very

specific, or intrinsic value, of a UK education. Each of the comments that follow is from a different survey

respondent. These respondents felt that a UK education offered a worthwhile and very particular

pedagogical learning experience. It gave students, one respondent suggested, “better knowledge and

skills”, an “opportunity to gain skills and knowledge that differ from that provided locally”, exposed them,

another argued “to ‘UK’ requirements for education”, offered a “high standard of teaching and

assessment”, and used “a range of assessments methods and teaching materials that cover a global

perspective”. What staff understand by a ‘high standard’ of education is not made explicit but one

respondent when asked about the benefits of a UK education, commented “individualised learning” and others stressed that UK teaching emphasises the importance of questioning and critical thinking that

“require [students] to use knowledge and extend knowledge” to develop “transferable skills” and offers

“opportunities to challenge and critique the establishment and create improvements for others”,

something it was argued “not always accepted by other traditions”.

The set of responses above indicates that staff clearly believe a UK offshore education has many benefits:

accessible, relatively cheap, and a good quality learning experience. However, despite the pride evident in

staff’s description of UK education, there are reservations expressed in the focus group interview and in

other survey responses that suggest the UK TNE offer is not ideal. Staff were, on the one hand,

enthusiastic about the quality of UK teaching but on the other hand had anxieties about whether it was

the ‘right education’ in an offshore context. “For me”, one focus group participant remarked, there “is a

bit of a tension - it’s that are we educating people to be frustrated, you know … with ideas that are new,

into a system that doesn’t allow for them to exercise those skills and abilities?” (FGResp2) Another

respondent commenting on follow-up interviews their TNE programme had conducted with students

who had graduated reported that some “really felt as if they were almost hamstrung” because:

they had all this new knowledge and they weren’t allowed to put it into practice … those who

they were working with didn’t understand where they were coming from and hadn’t been

through that same process. (FGResp4)

Similar concerns were expressed in the survey responses. One respondent, for example, reported that

local knowledge and expertise was not taken into account and that the programme was not suitably

contextualised to “prepare them [students] for local work ... It comes across as ‘our way is the only

way’”. Concerns with programme design and a very keen sense that the curriculum was not fit-for-

purpose were matters raised by the focus group participants too:

I’m working in a culture where we are imposing - not necessarily imposing, because obviously

they bought into that - but we are putting in a programme that was very, very specifically written

for the NHS in the British education system, dumping it into another country with a completely

different healthcare system, a completely different education system and then bringing staff in from India, which is a completely different healthcare system and a completely different education

32

system, again, to teach the programme and then [we] wonder why there’s problems … The

students are … exposed to different ways of thinking and I think ultimately they do benefit from

that. But it’s not the right product for them. (FGResp4)

As with the staff discussed in Dobos’ (2011) research, there is a sense in these responses of

dissatisfaction with programme and content, and even a loss of control and a degree of alienation from

the curricula. This is an important issue; staff are key stakeholders in TNE delivery and if they not happy

with the educational ‘product’, if they do not believe in it, it becomes difficult for them to be fully

committed to what they are doing. The focus group interview attempted to probe further into what

would make staff more satisfied with the type of TNE the UK currently delivers and what, ideally, they

would want TNE to look like in the future. The answers suggest that what staff would most value is

partnership-working that can deliver a more bespoke transnational education. One focus group

participant said they would like to see the spread of varied qualifications that have in mind the “in-

country employment market” (FGResp3), another wanted “a gradual move away from validating the

franchise types of provision towards genuinely dual and joint awards” (FGResp1), another called for

“more collaborative designing of the curriculum … transformative partnerships” (FGResp4), and a fourth

thought “we need to get the balance right between us and what they want … and that expectations are

met, you know, in a culturally sensitive way”. He went on to explain: “I have a particular thing about this

because I’ve [a programme] in Singapore, you’ve got Chinese Singapore and Malay Singapore and Indian

Singapore. They’re all in the same group. So you’re not teaching a homogenous group.” (FGResp2) Such

views were apparent in the survey responses too. For example:

mutual benefit is important and being clear why the students will benefit from a degree from a UK university. We have a responsibility to consider what happens after the degree has been

completed (as we have for home students).

This section has described how staff perceive the value of the TNE-student learning experience. The

value of offshore education includes most obviously the relative price and the opportunity to access

education; however, staff also pointed to what they perceived as the value of a specific UK-type

education: quality assessment models, transferable skills, and a questioning and ‘critical approach’ to

knowledge and ideas. The idea that ‘rote-learning’ was a more common approach in the TNE delivery

countries was suggested by respondents without making the claim that ‘critical thinking’ is peculiar to

Western tradition.15 However, despite their support for the ‘UK brand’, staff pointed to the need for

new collaborations that can better provide an education suited to the context in which TNE is delivered.

Such collaborations would need, as Pyvis (2011) argued, to respect the diversity of education traditions

and to draw upon various professional understandings of ‘education quality’. The momentum for

partnership working is growing but what a ‘better TNE’ in terms of content or delivery might look like

exactly is difficult to grasp. This final section discusses some issues around good practice reported by the

survey and focus group respondents.

Enhancing TNE practice: reflexive learning and innovation

The TNELT survey included two open-ended questions designed to elicit further information from

respondents about how staff address the complexities of teaching in an offshore context. These questions

were geared at finding out if lecturers adapted or modified their teaching when difficulties or challenges

were encountered in meeting students’ needs or with the teaching environment. We asked respondents

to give examples of action they have taken to maintain educational standards in offshore programmes,

and also to give examples of any innovations they might have introduced in their TNE delivery.

15 For a critical consideration of ‘critical thinking’ see Higher Education Academy (HEA) (2011), International student lifecycle

resources bank: Critical thinking

33

Nearly all respondents provided an answer to these questions and the range of responses show that,

first, TNE staff respondents are able to identify aspects of their provision that require improving; second,

staff take action aimed at improving their provision, that is, they introduce changes and modify or adapt

their practice to enhance student learning; third, these adaptations are ones induced by, and fashioned in

response to, the specific conditions of the offshore context; and fourth these adaptations have proved to

be an opportunity for reflexive learning on the part of staff, that is, the responses illustrate how staff have

reflected on changes introduced offshore and considered how they could be used to enhance provision

at home in the UK.

The following examples of responses give a flavour of the range of student and teaching needs that

emerge in offshore teaching contexts and the practices and changes that the respondents in this research

made to address these challenges. This set of practices is additional to those already identified in the

learning and teaching section above. They are a mix of the practical and the pedagogical. Many are

prompted by the distance between the home institution and the partner institution, and the greater

difficulty this distance poses in maintaining quality of teaching. For example, a number of responses

centred on closing the gap between the quality of provision at home and the quality offshore. Much of

these are concerned with admissions and assessment standards. For example, one survey respondent

explained that the offshore students’ English language test scores were not at an appropriate level for

entry into their part of the programme. As such, “I initiated a 10-week programme (four hours per week)

for interested students - 150 enrolled.” Another explained there was a gap between their increasing

home campus admissions requirements and those for their offshore programme, which they worked to

close. A third complained that the delivering institution tries to reduce standards in English language, and

added “[We] have put in place an English language course in country A that is compatible with our UK course.” A fourth reported that they had recently conducted a business review of all their collaborative

partnerships and “it was decided to terminate those who did not meet our quality or financial criteria”. A

fifth said they quite often query aspects of the curriculum and on several occasions they had required a

replacement for a proposed examination paper: “We also once required a wholesale review and

remarking of UG dissertations (which had mostly been too highly marked).” A sixth explained they had

introduced “tighter enforcement of student feedback”, that they “review tutors who deliver and [are]

prepared to change them if there is poor feedback”.

There is nothing especially surprising in this list of issues nor in the actions taken to resolve them; these

are practices that UK institutions introduce at home when the need arises. Indeed, one respondent

noting that her university had sought to roll out ‘innovations’ in their UK programme offshore,

nevertheless commented that: “In most respects, the offshore provision follows what has taken place

onshore.”

Further responses, however, reveal teaching adaptations and practices that are less familiar, arising as

they do in response to the exigencies of the transnational teaching environment. Some of these

adaptations are practical measures but these too are important for they show there are practical

difficulties that arise offshore that the home institution will not experience. For example, one respondent

reported that teachers and students had a problem with the offshore programme because the offshore

semester started earlier than the home one. To address this, they “introduced reading packs for early

modules to counter lack of access to university logins in the first two weeks of teaching (which fall prior

to the home semester start in September)”. Another respondent explained that home administration

staff were flown out “to work with the partners' admin staff to familiarise the partner with processes and

procedures from an administrative viewpoint (eg registration, exam board info collation, record keeping,

UK IS system for admin)”.

Both of these examples describe solutions that can be arrived at relatively easily by turning to the home

campus for further support. But there are, however, other adaptations and teaching practices that cannot

simply be transplanted from the home environment, and which can only be designed and delivered in

response to the specific needs of the transnational student and of transnational staff. Some of these relate to the pedagogical needs of students, and others are innovations geared importantly at improving

34

communications and establishing networks between home and host staff. For example, one respondent

explained: “More students fail the first time around offshore than at home. They need more support to

resubmit.” Another respondent reported that they have “joint projects using such things as Skype

between UK and offshore cohorts”. There was recognition too that staff needed specific training: one

respondent explained that his HEI increased staffing levels “to allow shadowing and team teaching for

new UK and local staff to assist their integration into the programme”. Another explained they deliver

CPD for flying-faculty with a focus on the softer skills, such as being aware of cultural boundaries,

students' learning styles, family [or] peer pressure, etc” and another that they introduce “a peer

observation and mentoring programme”. Using mock assessment boards is a final example, and these

were introduced to “give academic and administrative staff in partner institutions an appreciation of the

decision-making process”.

Building communications between staff was seen as central to a better TNE delivery. To address this, one

respondent reported making “excellent use of blogs” to allow for “supervision records to be viewed and

added to by staff from Oman and the UK”. This communication tool enabled “consistency in advice and

feedback provided to students”. Another respondent noted that regular communication between the

home HEI and the partner institutions “at different levels" helped to “identify issues promptly”. The point

was reinforced by another response which noted that having “key staff in each institution 'meet' regularly

to discuss academic and administrative issues” was very effective. Finally, “developing joint research

programmes to enhance staff contact” was an interesting initiative reported by a third respondent. A final

respondent supported the value of communication in their remark that “there should be a forum to

share 'good practice' to ensure students’ expectations are managed”. This, they noted, is an area “often

forgotten as people focus on the mechanical process of validation etc”.

A final feature of the responses relating to good practice is the evident realisation on the part of staff that

practices that are developed for the benefit of transnational students might be of benefit to all students.

Respondents had not been asked to reflect on whether their offshore teaching practices could be

transplanted to their home institution but many had clearly been struck by the fact that they could or

should be. For example, one response included a description of an assessment system involving an “online

staged report” with steps for the examination setter and marker's comments, followed by the second

marker’s comments, the response by the first marker to the second marker, the moderator's comments,

the response of first marker to moderator's comments, external examiner's comments and comments on

all previous markers. “This works well”, the response noted, “and should probably be introduced into

University of X’s own [home] system.” Another response mentioned the introduction of a dissertation

workshop series and noted “now also introduced in UK as a result of good practice dissemination!”.

Another respondent explained that they used Moodle to provide much of their learning materials to

students on an offshore programme and added “this has also helped home students as module tutors

have had to think more strategically about their module materials”.

Managing parent expectations was highlighted in the focus group discussion as an area that needs

consideration. The importance of parental support and involvement was mentioned too by a survey

respondent who explained they had issued a parents’ handbook and helped some of their partners to

include parents in the induction of new students. The respondent noted:

The [offshore] programme has raised important insights into how we deliver HE in the UK and

made the team think hard about matters we have taken for granted, for example regarding the

setting of deadlines.

The above section described how staff adapt their teaching practices to better meet the needs of their

transnational students. Some of the adaptations concentrate on improving quality, in marking systems for

example. In these instances, it was possible to transplant practices from the home-HEI to the offshore

institution. However, innovation or untried practices were seen as important to meet needs that may be

more typical or even specific to a particular TNE context; training to understand particular kinds of family or peer pressure for example. Putting in place opportunities for regular communication between home

35

and offshore providers was also seen as essential to the task of identifying and delivering better practice

on an ongoing basis. Finally, through their comments, the staff respondents revealed how reflection on

practices designed and delivered specifically for the offshore context can contribute to developing better

practice at home. These views point to the benefits of ongoing partner-communication that, as the

literature themes highlighted (Smith 2009; Dobos 2011), are essential to building teaching excellence in

TNE; excellence that can draw on the professional strengths and practical expertise of all the partners

involved in its delivery.

36

Gaps and areas for future research

Transnational education has drawn increasing interest from government and leaders in the UK higher

education sector. In the plethora of emerging voices, the viewpoints, experiences, and needs of the

people who actually deliver this type of education should not be overlooked. This research has gone

some way to addressing the knowledge gap by seeking to understand how UK staff understand and

practice TNE delivery, but there is scope for a great deal of detailed research at the level of individual

HEIs, the sector as a whole, and with the staff who work in current and emerging TNE markets.

Alongside the importance of understanding the views of the staff who manage and deliver TNE, there is a

need to understand the views of the students who study on UK offshore programmes. This report has

pointed to the paucity of literature in this area and the need to undertake research on the student

learning experience. Without such research it will be impossible to address, with confidence, the

pedagogical challenges that staff so clearly recognise exist in TNE programme delivery. Future research

on the TNE-student-learning experience may also benefit from a more careful consideration of the

learning styles debate. This report supports the argument that there is a need to understand ‘learning

styles’ from a less western and a more diverse perspective, one that includes the perspectives of non-UK

staff involved in programme delivery.

Finally, while the economic value of TNE for provider countries, such as the UK, is an obvious attraction,

there is a need for more research into the economic benefits of TNE for host countries. Offshore

education has benefits for the individuals who avail of it: access to new employment markets, second or even first chances at education, and other outcomes such as personal transformation. However, not

enough is known about how TNE impacts on the home-education market or the extent to which the

type of education the UK delivers is fit-for-purpose in an offshore context. These are questions in the

minds of the staff who contributed their views to this research and answering them will be critical to

securing the full commitment of the students, lecturing and teaching staff who work together to realise

value from a transnational education.

37

Recommendations for HEIs delivering transnational education

This report examined the views and experience of teaching staff on UK transnational programmes and

sought to establish the prospective ways in which UK higher education providers can enhance the

student learning experience. The research established the ways in which staff find the delivery of TNE

challenging but also showed that staff identify many benefits to students arising from offshore teaching

arrangements – access to high quality higher education, the value attached to a UK qualification as well as

the intrinsic value of the learning experience to the individual. The final section draws upon some of the

findings in the literature review, the survey and the focus group research to make a number of

recommendations aimed at addressing the challenges faced by the sector and the support that staff

require in delivering TNE. Most of these recommendations are ones that would need to be supported

and adopted at the strategic level; as such, they are addressed primarily at staff who have overall

responsibility for their institutions’ TNE delivery.16 Each point below highlights the challenges that staff

face and makes a recommendation of how that challenge can begin to be addressed.

Recognise that offshore staff, both flying faculty and locally-based, face challenges that

are specific to the transnational teaching context. HE providers need to understand what

these specific challenges are and may find it useful to survey all of their TNE staff at home and abroad

to help establish a baseline understanding of teaching and pedagogical needs.

Support staff on offshore programmes to be aware of cultural and social adjustments

required of themselves and their students. Staff working offshore can benefit from bespoke

induction processes. In addition, TNE staff need continued and tailored professional development

including student-specific and context-specific cross-cultural training.

Tailor teaching in offshore programmes to the offshore context. Support heads of programmes to think of best practice from the provider-institution and offshore standpoint: what

counts as best practice in the provider country may not translate well overseas. Teaching staff may

well need to be supported to reflect on some of their beliefs about different learning styles among

students. Professional development opportunities can support staff in thinking through best practice

from a number of viewpoints.

Promote cross-national collaborative TNE research. TNE research is predominantly

undertaken by TNE-provider countries. More transnational research should be undertaken

transnationally: research relationships should be fostered between host and providers with both on an

equal footing in terms of their involvement in the research.

Institutionalise opportunities to share experience and ideas about best practice. TNE staff,

both home-based and local, are often isolated within departments and teaching units. Look at ways in

which staff can be supported to share experiences and best practice either within their own

institution or through involvement in cross-institution initiatives. Local staff and peripatetic staff may

not always be aware of what quality development processes are already in place. Communicate to

staff what is already being done to improve or maintain the standard of learning and teaching.

Regularly review outcomes and attend to staff and student feedback.

Appreciate the value in different styles of learning and teaching. Experimentation with cross-cultural assessment can help integrate host and provider approaches to teaching, and mediate

between different styles of learning.

16 QAA’s (2013, p. 17) ‘top tips’ for TNE http://www.qaa.ac.uk/InstitutionReports/types-of-review/overseas/Pages/default.aspx

have a different emphasis but are usefully read in conjunction with the recommendations offered here.

38

Promote good quality relationships between TNE partners to facilitate high quality

teaching. Building strong communication channels and cultivating good relations between partners

and staff across institutions is essential to good quality teaching. Careful management of the

relationship between host and provider campuses, especially in relation to quality assurance, is critical

and can be supported through the establishment of dedicated groups in partner institutions to handle

communication between the two. This requires regular face-to-face interaction and dialogue between

partners. In general, work on offshore programmes needs to be seen not as an “add-on” but as

integrated with work in host programmes.

Communicate the value of transnational education from multiple perspectives. Academic staff may place a different emphasis on the value of TNE than HEI strategic leads. Students appreciate

TNE differently, some seeking an ‘international education’, others a more ‘Western’ one (see

Chapman and Pyvis 2007b). Meeting expectations involves frequent reviewing of the curriculum to

ensure it is fit-for-purpose. Providers should use context-sensitive measures of quality. An over-

emphasis on trying to offer the ‘same’ qualification can lead to educational and cultural imperialism

and result in qualifications of less worth or value.

Encourage an awareness of, and responsibility to, the transnational student body. All

relevant staff, teaching and non-teaching, should know if their HEI has offshore students and where these students are. All staff need to share a commitment to their institution’s TNE mission. HE

providers should ensure that staff, including those not involved in TNE, understand the nature,

extent, and purpose of their offshore delivery, and appreciate their collective responsibilities to

offshore students so that these students are supported throughout the entire student lifecycle.

39

References

Adam, S. (2001) Transnational Education Project: Report and Recommendations. Confederation of European

Union Rectors’ Conferences, University of Westminster.

Agresti, A. (2010) Analysis of Ordinal Categorical Data. Second edition. Hoboken, USA: Wiley.

Andrews, J., Clark, C. and Thomas, L. (eds) (2012) Compendium of effective practice in higher education

retention and success. York: Higher Education Academy. Available from:

http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/what-works-student-retention/Compendium_Effective_Practice (accessed 21

October 2013).

Bambacas, M., Sanderson, G., Feast, V., and Yang, S. (2008) Understanding transnational MBA students’

instructional communication preferences. Journal of International Education in Business. 1(1), 15-28.

Baskerville, S., MacLeod, F. and Saunders, N. (2011) A guide to UK higher education and partnerships for

overseas universities. Research Series 9. London: UK Higher Education International and Europe Unit.

British Council (2013) The shape of things to come: the evolution of transnational education: data,

definitions, opportunities and impacts analysis. British Council: UK. Available from: http://www.britishcouncil.org/education/ihe/knowledge-centre/transnational-education/the-shape-of-things-to-come-2 (accessed 28 October 2013).

Chapman, A. and Pyvis, D. (2007a) Dilemmas in the formation of student identity in offshore higher

education: a case study in Hong Kong. Educational Review. 58 (3), 291–302.

Chapman, A. and Pyvis, D. (2007b) Why university students choose an international education: a case

study in Malaysia. International Journal of Educational Development. 27, 235–246.

Council of Europe (2002) Code of good practice in the provision of transnational education. Available

from: http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/highereducation/recognition/code%20of%20good%20practice_EN.asp (accessed 25

November 2013).

Conlon, G., Litchfield, A. and Sadlier, G. (2011) Estimating the Value to the UK of Education Exports. BIS

research paper number 46. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (2013) International education: global growth and prosperity.

BIS–13–1081. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/international-education-strategy-global-

growth-and-prosperity (accessed 28 October 2013).

Dobos, K. (2011) “Serving two masters” – academics’ perspectives on working at an offshore campus in

Malaysia. Educational Review. 63 (1), 19–35.

Drew, S., McCaig, C., Marsden, D., Haughton, P., McBride, J., McBride, D., Willis, B. and Wolstenholme,

C. (2007) Transnational education and higher education institutions: exploring patterns of HE institutional activity.

Research report 08 07. Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/transnational-education-and-higher-education-institutions-exploring-patterns-of-

he-institutional-activity (accessed 28 October 2013).

Eaves, M. (2011) The relevance of learning styles for international pedagogy in higher education. Teachers

and Teaching: Theory and Practice. 17 (6), 677–691.

40

European Commission (2013) Delivering education across borders in the European Union. Final report.

Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/education/higher-education/doc/studies/borders_en.pdf (accessed 21 October

2013).

European Commission (2013) Report to the European Commission on improving the quality of teaching and

learning in Europe’s higher education institutions. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/education/higher-

education/doc/modernisation_en.pdf (accessed 28 October 2013).

Fielden, J. (2013) A guide to the financial aspects of UK HEI offshore activities. Research Series 10. UK Higher

Education International Unit in association with CHEMS Consulting. Available from: http://www.international.ac.uk/research-and-publications/research-and-publications/a-guide-to-the-financial-aspects-of-uk-hei-

offshore-activities.aspx (accessed 28 October 2013).

Higher Education Academy (2012) HEA internationalisation survey: analysis of the findings. Unpublished.

York: Higher Education Academy.

Gunn, V. and Fisk, A. (2013) Considering teaching excellence in higher education: 2007-2013. York:

Higher Education Academy. Available from:

http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/Research/considering_teaching_excellence_he. (accessed 30 November

2013).

Hénard, F., Diamond, L. and Roseveare, D. (2012) Approaches to internationalisation and their implications for

strategic management and institutional practice: A guide for higher education institutions. OECD Higher

Education Programme IMHE. Available from:

http://www.oecd.org/edu/imhe/Approaches%20to%20internationalisation%20-%20final%20-%20web.pdf (accessed 28

October 2013).

HESA 2013. Higher Education Student Enrolments and Qualifications 2012/13. Available from:

http://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3103&Itemid=161 (accessed 22 February 2014)

Higher Education Academy (2011) International student lifecycle resources bank: Critical thinking.

Available from: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/internationalisation/isl_critical_thinking (accessed 4

December 2013).

Hoare, L. (2012) Transnational student voices: reflections on a second chance. Journal of Studies in

International Education. 16 (3), 271–286.

Hoare, L. (2013) Swimming in the deep end: transnational teaching as culture learning? Higher Education

Research & Development 1-14. Published online ahead of print:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07294360.2012.700918.

Joy, S. and Kolb, D. A. (2009) Are there cultural differences in learning style? International Journal of

Intercultural Relations. 33 (1), 69-85.

Knight, J. and McNamara, J. (2013) Preliminary Findings from Research Project on the Impact of TNE on Host

Countries. London: British Council.

Kruger, R. A. and Casey, M. A. (2009) Focus groups. A practical guide for applied research. Fourth

Edition. USA: Sage.

Lambiotte, R. and Panzarasa, P. (2009) Communities, knowledge creation, and information diffusion.

Journal of Informetrics. 3 (3), 180-190.

McBurnie, G. and Ziguras, C. (2007) Transnational education. Issues and trends in offshore higher

education. Routledge: Oxon.

41

Million+ (2013) What’s the value of a UK degree? Behind the Headlines series. Million+ and London School

of Economics. Available from: http://www.millionplus.ac.uk/documents/reports/Value_of_a_UK_degree_Full_report.pdf

(accessed 28 October 2013).

Noether, G. E. (1981) Why Kendall Tau? Teaching Statistics. 3 (2), 41–43.

Pyvis, D. (2011) The need for context-sensitive measures of educational quality in transnational higher

education. Teaching in Higher Education. 16 (6), 733–744.

R Core Team (2013) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical

Computing. Vienna, Austria. Available from: http://www.R-project.org/

Ryan, J. (2005) Improving teaching and learning practices for international students. In: J. Carroll and J.

Ryan (eds). Teaching international students: improving learning for all. London: Routledge. 92–100.

Seah, W. T. and Edwards, J. (2006). Flying in, flying out: offshore teaching in higher education. Australian

Journal of Education. 50 (3), 297–311.

Smith, L. (2009) Sinking in the sand? Academic work in an offshore campus of an Australian university.

Higher Education Research & Development. 28 (5), 467–479.

Starr-Glass, D. and Ali, T. (2010) Double standards: when an undergraduate dissertation becomes the object of two different assessment approaches. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 37 (2), 179–

192.

THES (2013) QAA queries UK's most international degree course. Times Higher Education Supplement. 21

March 2013.

Thomas, L. (2012) Building student engagement and belonging in higher education at a time of change: final

report from the What Works? Student Retention and Success programme. York: Higher Education Academy.

Available from: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/what-works-student-retention/What_works_final_report

(accessed 28 October 2013).

Thuraisingam, T., Kaur, P., Yeo, S., Briguglio, C., Sanderson, G., Mahmud, S. and Wallace, M. (2012) An

Activity Theory Approach to Fair Assessment Moderation in Transnational Education. Journal of

Interdisciplinary Research in Education. 2 (1), 1.

Wang, T. and Moore, L. (2007) Exploring learning style preferences of Chinese postgraduate students in

Australian transnational programs. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning. 3 (2), 31-41.

Whitehead, F. (1 August 2011) British universities overseas: it's about more than just a piece of paper.

The Guardian Higher Education Network. Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-

network/2011/aug/01/british-universities-overseas-piece-paper (accessed 21 October 2013).

Woodfield, S., Middlehurst, R., Fielden, J. and Forland, H. (2009) Universities and international higher

education partnerships: making a difference. Project Report. London: Million+. Available from: http://www.millionplus.ac.uk/research-policy/reports/2009-reports-archive/universities-and-international-higher-education-

partnerships-making-a-difference (accessed 28 October 2013).

Quality Assurance Agency (2012) Managing higher education provision with others. In: QAA. UK Quality

Code for Higher Education. Chapter B10. Available from:

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/publications/informationandguidance/pages/quality-code-B10.aspx (accessed 28 October 2013).

42

Quality Assurance Agency (2013) Review of UK transnational education in China 2012: Overview. QAA case

studies series: Setting and Maintaining Academic Standards. Available from:

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Pages/TNE-China-Overview.aspx (accessed 28 October

2013).

43

Appendices

Appendix 1 TNELT survey tables

Table 4 Responses to challenge question

Challenge Not challenging Slightly challenging Challenging

N % N % N % N

communication styles 2 6.2 13 40.6 16 50.0 1

cultural context 1 3.1 13 40.6 18 56.2 0

curricular design 3 9.4 15 46.9 12 37.5 2

Internet provision 6 18.8 9 28.1 15 46.9 2

learning environment 8 25.0 15 46.9 9 28.1 0

local regulatory systems 3 9.4 11 34.4 17 53.1 1

local staff enthusiasm 19 59.4 8 25.0 5 15.6 0

local staff expectations 3 9.4 17 53.1 10 31.2 2

local teaching styles 2 6.2 14 43.8 15 46.9 1

quality control 6 18.8 9 28.1 17 53.1 0

staff recruitment 8 25.0 6 18.8 12 37.5 6

student expectations 2 6.2 10 31.2 19 59.4 1

student learning styles 4 12.5 8 25.0 19 59.4 1

training, local 5 15.6 14 43.8 11 34.4 2

training, non-teaching 6 18.8 13 40.6 8 25.0 5

training, UK 6 18.8 12 37.5 10 31.2 4

UK staff enthusiasm 10 31.2 10 31.2 9 28.1 3

Table 5 Associations between challenge responses where statistically significant (Kendall's Tau, p<=0.05)

Challenge 1 Challenge 2 tau odds ratio p-value

communication styles cultural context 0.63 4.34 0.00

local regulatory systems quality control 0.58 3.78 0.00

training, local communication styles 0.54 3.36 0.00

training, local training, UK 0.53 3.26 0.00

learning environment Internet provision 0.51 3.12 0.00

training, local local teaching styles 0.51 3.10 0.00

training, local curricular design 0.49 2.89 0.00

local staff expectations local teaching styles 0.48 2.85 0.00

staff recruitment Internet provision 0.46 2.71 0.00

staff recruitment local teaching styles 0.45 2.64 0.00

local teaching styles communication styles 0.42 2.46 0.01

44

staff recruitment quality control 0.41 2.41 0.01

Internet provision quality control 0.41 2.40 0.01

student learning styles student expectations 0.41 2.40 0.01

learning environment curricular design 0.41 2.40 0.01

training, UK curricular design 0.40 2.34 0.01

communication styles local regulatory systems 0.40 2.32 0.01

internet provision training, local 0.40 2.31 0.01

staff recruitment UK staff enthusiasm 0.38 2.24 0.01

training, UK student learning styles 0.38 2.21 0.01

training, local student expectations 0.38 2.20 0.02

quality control training, non-teaching 0.37 2.16 0.02

staff recruitment training, local 0.37 2.15 0.02

local staff expectations training, local 0.36 2.15 0.03

local teaching styles student expectations 0.36 2.15 0.02

curricular design communication styles 0.36 2.14 0.03

local teaching styles cultural context 0.36 2.12 0.03

quality control communication styles 0.35 2.09 0.03

Internet provision curricular design 0.35 2.09 0.03

student learning styles cultural context 0.34 2.05 0.03

training, local quality control 0.34 2.03 0.03

Internet provision local staff expectations 0.34 2.02 0.03

curricular design staff recruitment 0.34 2.02 0.03

local staff expectations student learning styles 0.32 1.95 0.04

Internet provision local teaching styles 0.32 1.95 0.04

quality control curricular design 0.32 1.95 0.04

local staff enthusiasm quality control 0.32 1.93 0.04

local teaching styles quality control 0.31 1.92 0.04

training, non-teaching training, local 0.31 1.92 0.05

student learning styles training, local 0.31 1.92 0.05

Table 6: Learning and teaching comparisons table

worse as good as better

N % N % N %

teaching 9 30.0 18 60.0 3 10.0

learning 11 37.9 14 48.3 4 13.8

resources 15 48.4 13 41.9 3 9.7

outcomes 4 13.8 15 51.7 10 34.5

45

Appendix 2 TNE learning and teaching survey questions

Transnational education learning and teaching survey - questions

Section 1 - Offshore education and your higher education institution17

Question Response options

1 Name of your Higher Education Institution open-ended

2 Are you a member of an academic department? yes, no, other (open-ended)

3 Does your HEI currently deliver offshore educational programmes (with

awards or credits from your HEI) in countries outside the UK? yes, no, other (open-ended)

4 Are you a head, manager or teaching lead of a UK-HEI offshore educational

programme? yes, no, other (open-ended)

5 How many offshore educational programmes do you currently lead or

manage? 1,2,3,5,6 or more

6 To which countries does your offshore programme deliver? open-ended

7

What types of offshore educational provision are you mainly involved in? Tick

all boxes that apply. Please click on the More Info button for definitions of

provision type.

Overseas campus of your

UK HEI

Distance, flexible,

distributed learning

Collaborative or franchised

provision, including

consortia and joint award

arrangements

Overseas partner

organisation

Other (please specify)

8 How are the educational programmes you manage mainly delivered? (select

all that apply)

1. Mainly by flying faculty

2. Mainly by local staff

3. Mainly virtual delivery

4. Mix of methods

5. Other (please specify)

9 Some HEIs use a different phrase for transnational or offshore education.

What phrase does your HEI, unit or department use? open-ended

10 What do you personally believe are the benefits to offshore students who

receive a UK accredited education? open-ended

17 The introductory pages to the survey included the statement: “This survey is aimed at heads, managers, or teaching leads of

UK-HEI transnational programmes, that is award- or credit-bearing educational programmes delivered by your HEI in

countries outside of the UK. For the sake of convenience these are described in the survey as offshore educational

programmes.

46

Section 2 – Learning and teaching on your offshore programmes

In this section we would like to hear about the challenges you have experienced delivering high quality

learning and teaching in offshore educational programmes.

Question Response options

11 From your experience delivering offshore educational programmes, please rate how significant the following

challenges have been for you

a Different cultural context

1. not challenging

2. slightly challenging

3. challenging

4. very challenging

5. not applicable

b Different styles of communication

c Ensuring appropriate curricular design

d Lack of, or different, quality-control systems abroad

e Local regulatory systems

f Different student expectations of learning

g Different student styles of learning

h Different local style of teaching

i Different local staff expectations of students

j Training and development for offshore education of UK-based teaching staff

k Training and development of locally based teaching staff

l Training and development of non-teaching staff

m Reliable internet provision

n Recruitment of teaching staff for offshore educational programmes

o Enthusiasm of local staff on offshore educational programmes

p Enthusiam of UK staff on offshore educational programmes

q The physical learning and teaching environment

12 Have you experienced any other kinds of challenges delivering high quality

learning and teaching on offshore programmes that are not listed above? open-ended

13 What does your offshore educational programme do to improve or

maintain the standard of education and teaching? (select all that apply)

Board or departmental

review of course content

Board or departmental

review of exam papers and

exam procedure

Student review of teaching

practice

Peer review of teaching

practice

Using a student survey to

gather opinions on quality of

delivery

Continuing professional

development for local staff

Continuing professional

development for flying faculty

or home-HEI staff

Other (please specify):

47

Section 2 – Learning and teaching on your offshore programmes (continued)

Question Response options

14 Please tell us how you think the learning and teaching experience for the offshore students on your

programmes compares to that of students at your HEI in the UK?

a Compared to what students receive at our HEI in the UK, your offshore teaching is

worse

slightly

worse

as good as

better

cannot say

do not

know

b Compared to students at our HEI in the UK, your offshore students' learning experience is

c Compared to the learning resources that are provided to students at our HEI in the UK, the

resources provided to your offshore students are

d Compared to the educational outcomes of students at our HEI in the UK, the educational

outcomes of our offshore students are broadly

15 Please give us an example of any remedial action you have taken to maintain the standard of

education in any of your offshore programmes. open-ended

16 Please give us an example of any innovations or novel practices you have introduced in any of

your offshore educational programmes. open-ended

17 Is there anything else you want to say? open-ended

The views expressed in this publication are those

of the author and not necessarily those of the

Higher Education Academy. No part of this

publication may be reproduced or transmitted in

any form or by any means, electronic or

mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or

any storage and retrieval system without the

written permission of the Editor. Such permission will normally be granted for

, please contact the communi

Contact us

The Higher Education Academy

Innovation Way

York Science Park

Heslington

York

YO10 5BR

+44 (0)1904 717500

enquiries@heacademy.ac.uk

© The Higher Education Academy, 2014

The Higher Education Academy (HEA) is a national

body for learning and teaching in higher education. We

work with universities and other higher education

providers to bring about change in learning and

teaching. We do this to improve the experience that

students have while they are studying, and to support

and develop those who teach them. Our activities focus

on rewarding and recognising excellence in teaching,

bringing together people and resources to research and

share best practice, and by helping to influence, shape

and implement policy - locally, nationally, and

internationally.

The HEA supports staff in higher education throughout

their careers, from those who are new to teaching

through to senior management. We offer services at a

generic learning and teaching level as well as in 28

different disciplines.

Through our partnership managers we work directly

with HE providers to understand individual

circumstances and priorities, and bring together

resources to meet them.

The HEA has knowledge, experience and expertise in

higher education. Our service and product range is

broader than any other competitor.

www.heacademy.ac.uk | www.twitter.com/heacademy

The views expressed in this publication are those of the

author and not necessarily those of the Higher

Education Academy. No part of this publication may be

reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any

means, electronic or mechanical, including

photocopying, recording, or any storage and retrieval

system without the written permission of the Editor.

Such permission will normally be granted for

educational purposes provided that due

acknowledgement is given.

To request copies of this report in large print or in a

different format, please contact the communications

office at the Higher Education Academy: 01904 717500

or pressoffice@heacademy.ac.uk

The Higher Education Academy is a company limited by

guarantee registered in England and Wales no.

04931031. Registered as a charity in England and Wales

no. 1101607. Registered as a charity in Scotland no.

SC043946.

The Higher Education Academy and its logo are

registered trademarks and should not be used without

our permission.