ContentsThe growing consumer-trend in higher education: Student satisfactionPage 3

Terrorism and student mobilityPage 4

Workshop on Career Pathway for AcademicsPage 6

Financing Higher Education: Policy Options For The Commonwealth Pacific NationsTowards An Issues PaperPage 6

Global Higher Education Forum 2016 (GHEF2016)Page 7

“The whole purpose of education is to turn mirrors into windows”

-Sydney J. Harris

Editorial Board

AdvisorProfessor Dr. Wan Mohd. Fauzy Wan Ismail

EditorsProf. Dr. Sarjit KaurDr. Wan Chang Da

Co-EditorsMs. Ooi Poh LingMs. Noraini Mohamad Yusof

Graphics & LayoutMr. Asnizal Haidy Jasni

Contact Us

Institut Penyelidikan Pendidikan Tinggi Negara, Block C, Level 2 sains@usm, No.10 Persiaran Bukit Jambul, 11900 Bayan Lepas, Pulau Pinang

604 6535 758 | 604 6535 763

www.ipptn.usm.my

ipptn@usm.my

ipptn.usm1

Internationalisation at home

Internationalisation of higher education is not just about student and staff mobility. Although internationalisation is often understood as sending and receiving international students, this trend is only a part of internationalisation. A higher education institution that has multi-ethnic and diverse population of students may have already achieved an environment suitable for creating an international experience but further than that is the curriculum that encapsulates the true spirit of internationalisation.

International higher education is set to provide students with international knowledge and experience with exposure to diversity as an essential skill to be global citizens and workers. University curriculum therefore is one of the ways to implement internationalisation within diverse cultures. Apart from mobility, internationalisation has gained momentum in higher education by the introduction of ‘internationalisation at home’.

How internationalisation at home came about

Teekens (2013) confirms that the term ‘internationalisation at home’ was coined 15 years ago when she along with a group of people started to discuss and publish about this new term. At that time, the spirit of this term was about inclusion, diversity and reciprocity and crossing borders to reach out to ‘otherness’ and differences. The idea behind the term was mainly to look into ways to improve cultural and diversity exchange between students in classrooms. This was because too much effort and attention had been put into recruiting international students without looking into the teaching and learning curriculum. There was an assumption that as long as an institution was able to provide an environment of multi-ethnic and -level of students, the exchange of cultural diversity between students would take place. It is true that students in such environments are already exposed to

diversity but without incorporating strategized methodology of teaching and learning, classrooms do not employ the full advantage of internationalisation.

The benefits

What are the advantages of implementing internationalisation at home? According to Teekens, the increasing number of international students only make up for about 2% of enrolment worldwide while the rest of the student population pursue higher education in their own countries. International experience can be extended to all institutions around the world through the internationalisation of their curriculums and teaching and learning methodology. Teekens gives the following reasons why internationalisation at home is even more important now than 15 years ago:

2

• Our societies are becoming more diverse now than before. Mobility and immigration are not new and the increasing opportunities open between countries encourage higher mobility of students as well as professionals. The ability to mix and face more and more diverse cultures is an essential skill to ensure better integration between immigrants and natives.

• International higher education is mainly a business of the English-speaking countries which dominate 65% of the international student market share. Institutions from non-English speaking countries should increase their internationalisation efforts to promote the local cultures and integrate it with a tinge of international experience.

• In the effort to increase high skilled workers, many countries offer very promising future and prospects for graduates, particularly international students who are talented in science and technology. Many students also hope to build a better future in the countries of their studies. Thus, to counter brain drain, internationalisation at home should be practiced as it has the potential to attract graduates to study and work in their native countries.

Implementation

Beelen and Jones (2015) define internationalisation at home as internationalisation of the curriculum regardless of where it is delivered, abroad or home. The key determinant of successful implementation is whether intended learning outcomes can be achieved. In this regard, teaching staff play a vital role in ensuring the implementation process. As suggested by Beelen and Jones, there are ways to make classrooms more effective in engaging students with internationalisation:

• Individual programmes of study have to be tailored to meet the international context• Outcomes and assessment have to be relooked into to incorporate details of internationalisation• A few people have to be involved; they can be teachers or academics, internationalisation experts, university leaders and

even the administrative staff. As the implementation is carried out, these people also need to assess the outcomes and identify which areas are lacking or need improvement.

• Quoting a definition from The European Higher Education Area: Between Critical Reflections and Future Policies, which states “Internationalisation at home is the purposeful integration of international and intercultural dimensions into the formal and informal curriculum for all students, within domestic learning environments”, it is argued that simply inserting some elements or electives of internationalisation into a study programme is not sufficient.

• It can also be extended beyond classrooms to include local people, environment and culture to establish intercultural and international learning opportunities within the local community.

• Technology related courses are also a means to implementing internationalisation at home by exploiting the virtual international diversity while learning in the local context.

Sources:

Beelen, J., & Jones, E. (2015, December 4). Defining ‘internationalisation at home’. University World News. Retrieved January 4, 2016, from http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20151202144353164 Teekens, H. (2013, June 15). Internationalisation at home – Crossing other borders. University World News. Retrieved January 4, 2016, from http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20130613084529186

3

The growing consumer-trend in higher education: Student satisfaction

The marketisation of higher education has been increasingly influential. It has branched out to many outcomes, both good and bad. Some are the direct products of marketisation while others are ripples from the primary effect. Student experience that is spreading in many higher education institutions, particularly in those who are set to attract international students, is one of the ripples of higher education marketisation.

Competition between higher education institutions is not new; however there have been changes in the mission and objective of competition. Before marketisation became one of the main activities in higher education, competition served to enhance quality in terms of academic achievements; where as of now, competition between institutions goes as far as recruiting more students because students are a source of income. As a consequence, students have slowly transformed into becoming customers of education and universities the service providers.

Nixon (2015) reports the establishment of a new market-focused regulator in the United Kingdom which was proposed in the UK government’s green paper. According to Nixon, the document titled ‘Office for Students’ marked further dedication to making students the supreme consumers of education. The document indicates a keen interest to ensure students’ point of view and situation are taken into account.

What constitutes student satisfaction?

To some extent, students contribute to the income of universities through fees and that characterizes students as consumers. Fewer students mean less income. Therefore, in the strictest economic sense, universities need to maintain the number of students to ensure a flow of funding. As a result, student experience or satisfaction has developed into a strategy to attract students as well as to pacify demanding parents.

Student satisfaction is channeled through the feedback they give after a lecture or at the end of a course in a semester. Student experience is enhanced when they feel there is adequate information to guide them through university life. Students feel more at ease when they are being assisted by teaching staff or administrative staff in times of needs. These are some of the student experiences that have been practiced by universities to ensure comfort and convenience for students. Students are customers or clients that judge how far universities’ services are satisfactory.

For Nixon, ‘student satisfaction’ is not applicable in the realm of education because student satisfaction is not linked in any way to quality learning that gives challenges, struggles and even discomfort to the learners. When it comes to teaching and learning, students are expected to struggle and put effort; on the contrary, student satisfaction that is being bragged about by universities’ management is about students’ comfort and ease of learning.

Consequences

The increasing consumerism in higher education is a result of marketisation of higher education which subsequently promotes the potentiality of higher education as a commodity. Furedi (2011) provides some changes in the higher education atmosphere as student satisfaction gains higher importance:

• Relationship between academics and students is recast as that of service provider and customer• Governments also take part to promote student satisfaction as part of the strategy to attract more international students.

Branding is stressed and reputation is advertised globally to compete for students. Better services are given to students to ensure they have comfort studying abroad.

• Student survey on lectures, teachers and academic programmes are taken in universities’ decision making. A programme’s existence depends on how popular it is amongst students.

• Intellectual development might be compromised when students think of themselves as customers of education; degrees can be bought.

• The relationship between student and academic will be blurred; is it an academic relationship or a commercial transaction?

Nixon (2015) also finds consumerism in higher education a worrying trend:

• Student satisfaction is fast becoming the politics in higher education• Marketing ideology that customers’ needs and expectations have to be fulfilled in order to compete with other providers to

earn customers’ trust is usurping into the higher education sector and causing damage to academic relevance

4

Terrorism and student mobility

News on terrorist attacks have been circulating every now and then. Those sad and shocking attacks which to some of us are only news we hear but could happen in any part of the world render many of us more careful in choosing our travel destinations and plans. The same goes to students’ choice of study destinations. That somehow affects student mobility, in both sending and receiving countries. However, terrorism alone does not contribute to major changes in student mobility. The perceived risk and uncertainty provided by terrorism coupled with many emerging education hubs, student mobility does face some significant shifts. Moreover, some of the receiving countries in the West have begun to apply more stringent rules on student visa to monitor the flow of foreigners as a consequence of terorrist attacks.

Changing pattern of student mobility

International student mobility is bound to increase year by year; however its pattern is likely going to change along with global events. Dennis (2016) provides the current changes as well as future trends in international student mobility:

• The United States (US) still remains the biggest exporter of higher education but the US is slowly losing its share of international students. Chinese students who enrol in US postgraduate programmes have decreased for three years in a row.

• The US prestigious higher education is also losing ground when polls in Germany, Greece and South American countries showed that the perception of US influence in higher education is declining. Mass shooting in the US has created a sense of risk and safety issue for parents and students.

• The Chinese economy is slowing down while China is opting to attract more international students. Both push and pull factors will affect the pattern of student mobility as China is the biggest student sending country.

• Chinese universities are gaining ground with an allocated budget of 2.5% of its gross domestic product on higher education. China, like many other countries, is trying to have world class universities. For emerging countries, China has five universities in the top 10 ranking according to Times Higher Education. This would be an attraction for international students especially those from the Asia region; studying in China would be closer to home while earning quality education.

• Japan, Singapore and Malaysia are also targetting international students and have focused on the goal of being international education hubs.

• Countries in other regions such as Africa, South and Central America have also aimed to attract more international students.• With new emerging players in the international student market, options are diverse. The top higher education exporting

countries are facing competition from Asian countries that also aim to be regional hubs of education.• Apart from the changing trend of student mobility, terrorist attacks add another factor that influences student mobility.

• Consumer culture dictates the performance by employment rates, student satisfaction and value for money. These dominant characteristics replace intangible values of education in the evaluative criteria to determine the success of a university education.

• Student satisfaction rules the university managerialism by considering students’ point of view, thus undermining academics’ opinion.

• Higher education is considered as a commodity that students buy to get a well-paid job.• In order to please students, teachers may resort to soften their teaching methods; the best tutors are those that make

students feel dear instead of the tutors that make them learn the most.

In conclusion, before this trend of consumerism takes a toll on higher education systems and put students’ views as the ultimate evaluation of lecturers’ performance, there is an urgent need to look at what higher education is about. Colleges and universities are places to learn and gain experience through efforts; by ‘experience’, it is not the satisfying student experience that has been glorified in the so-called tactic of attracting international students. The satisfying experience of learning is when the thirst for knowledge is quenched and the search for knowledge leads to more enquiries and curiosity. Along this path, student satisfaction does not mean that they are always right as customers but that their mistakes will serve as a satisfaction for them to learn when they stumble.

Sources:

Furedi, F. (2011). Introduction to the marketisation of higher education and the student as consumer. In M. Molesworth, R. Scullion & E. Nixon, The marketisation of higher education and the student as consumer (pp. 1-7). New York: Routledge.

Nixon, E. (2015, December 11). United Kingdom: The politics of student satisfaction. University World News. Retrieved December 28, 2015, from http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20151208203013539

5

Effects of terrorism on student mobility

The issue of safety as a consequence of uncertainties due to random terrorist attacks has become more and more stringent. Some international students have found themselves burdened by stringent regulations because of their citizenships. In fact, institutions are also affected by the increasing terrorist attacks because it is their responsibility to ensure students’ safety. As reported by Abidi (2015) who gives the example of Pakistan, the impact of terrorist attacks on student mobility is quite significant:

• Being one of the Muslim countries, Pakistani students who are studying in the West and are applying to pursue their studies in the popular destinations such as United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia and other OECD countries have their fair share of problems due to global terrorism. Moreover, some of the terrorists were found to be entering the host countries on student visa; youths and students are among the ones involved in terrorist acts.

• Since the bombing of 9/11, popular host countries especially the English speaking countries have begun to implement new regulations for student admission which include eligibility criteria, admission letters, acceptance letters and strict requirements for student visa application.

• Countries that are facing political instability and increasing crime rate would also be subject to more scrutiny by host countries. The increasing involvement of youths in crimes and terrorism in certain countries has rendered those countries under scrutiny. Therefore, students coming from these countries would face more barriers and restrictions.

Suggestions to ease the situation for both institutions and students

Dennis suggests that safety measures taken by institutions be reviewed in order to provide security, understanding and assurance to parents. These measures should be comprehensive so that in case of emergency, international students as well as institutional administrators know exactly what to do.

From the point of view of Abidi (2015) who is from the sending country, he opines that embassies play a role in ensuring the monitoring of students studying abroad through registration. The registration process serves as a measure to keep track of students, graduates who stay on and those who migrated for the purpose of regulating immigration, taking care of emigrants’ welfare and employment. The main objective of monitoring the student flow is to create a database so that the sending country can defend and carry out investigation on their students when allegations are made against their students. A strong commitment to abiding to the international regulations of visa as well as reducing illegal activities in helping non-genuine students to enter destination countries will also help in monitoring the flow of students.

Sources:

Dennis, M. (2016, January 26). Global: Disruption the new norm. University World News. Retrieved February 26, 2016, from http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=2016012612232911

Abidi, S. (2015, December 21). Impact of global terrorism on student mobility from Pakistan. The News. Retrieved February 26, 2016 from http://www.thenews.com.pk/print/83211-Impact-of-global-terrorism-on-student-mobility-from-Pakistan

Appointment

En. Mohd Hanizam Abd Hamid has been transferred to IPPTN to take on the role of a driver. This post was previously held by En. Hilridzuan Romli. En. Mohd Hanizam reported for work at IPPTN on 15 February 2016.

Up Coming Events

Research Workshop on “Doctoral Education in Commonwealth Africa”July 2016

Workshop on “Financing Tertiary Education: Policy Options for the Commonwealth Pacific - Towards an Issues Paper”July 2016

GHEN Open Series Seminar 20165 August 2016

Flexible Education Colloquium 201616-17 August 2016

6

NEWS & EVENTSWorkshop on Career Pathway for Academics

13th January 2016Akademi Kepimpinan Pengajian Tinggi (AKEPT), Bandar Enstek, Negeri Sembilan

The Higher Education Leadership Academy (AKEPT), Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia in collaboration with IPPTN organised a workshop titled Career Pathway for Academics on 13th January 2016 to listen to comments and recommendations from academics from both private and public higher education institutions. The workshop began with welcoming remarks by the Director of AKEPT, Professor Dr. Mohamad Kamal Haji Harun and three plenary sessions to expose participants to related information regarding career pathways for academics and the implementation of achieving talent excellence as indicated in the Malaysia Education Blueprint 2015-2025.

The main points and elaborations were on the four tracks of an academic’s career pathway which are teaching, research, practitioner and institutional leadership or administrative. The participants were then divided into four groups to discuss the following issues:

1. Feedback and comments on the promotion criteria listed or suggested in Plenary 3 titled Strengthening Career Pathway and Leadership Development by Professor Dr. Rose Alinda Alias.

2. What kind of training programmes should be provided to help academics achieve excellence or become institutional leaders based on the promotion criteria?

Some of the feedback and comments were:

• The criteria listed for promotion for the teaching track was perceived to be very stringent and many felt that this might force academics to opt for the research track

• The Hybrid track (teaching+research+practitioner) is the more likely acceptable track in view of the activities and background of most academics

• Institutional leadership should not be a track that academics chase after as it does not reflect the academic characteristics such as teaching, research and publication.

• Weightage of teaching, research, practitioner and leadership skills should be decided by individual higher education institutions

• Experiential learning is more important than formal training

The workshop ended with a speech by Professor Dato’ Dr. Morshidi Sirat who stressed that academics should know the path to focus on in achieving excellent scholarship; leadership may be part of the experience in academics’ career path but it is not a scholarship achievement, rather it is an administrative position.

Financing Higher Education: Policy Options For The Commonwealth Pacific NationsTowards An Issues Paper

A Focus Group Discussion Between Ctef And Stakeholders

2nd February 2016Fiji Higher Education Commission Conference Room, Fiji

Contributed by S.Sri Jeyanthirar, Research Officer, CTEF

The focus group discussion (FGD) on Financing Higher Education: Policy Options for the Commonwealth Pacific Nations – Towards an Issues Paper was a platform for various stakeholders to engage and develop the policy brief formulated in April 2015 with additional insights, thus formulate an issues paper. A research team representing CTEF in collaboration with various stakeholders from the Commonwealth Pacific Nations (CPN) met to discuss the way forward for an issues paper with regards to financing higher education in CPN. The FGD was organised in collaboration with the Fiji Higher Education Commission (FHEC).

CTEF organised this FGD as a succession from the inaugural focus group discussion on Higher Education Funding and Access Issues in selected Commonwealth countries held in sains@usm, Universiti Sains Malaysia on February 26 – 27, 2014 where various organisations and academics from the Commonwealth countries had participated. Subsequently in April 2015, a policy brief was discussed and

7

Global Higher Education Forum 2016 (GHEF2016)

The 5th Global Higher Education Forum 2016 was held at St. Giles Wembley Hotel, Penang from 5th to 7th April 2016. There were about 150 participants which included invited speakers and paper presenters. The main theme of the forum was “The Role of Higher Education in Developing Societal Resilience and Sustainability”. There were also four sub themes that explored the practicality and

future of higher education in strengthening resilience as well as possible partnerships towards sustainability. The forum was officiated by Datin Paduka Ir. Dr. Siti Hamisah Tapsir, Deputy Director General Of Higher Education (Public Sector) while the welcoming remarks were given by the Vice-Chancellor, Universiti Sains Malaysia, represented by Profesor Dato’ Dr. Ahmad Shukri Mustapa Kamal and the Director of UNESCO Bangkok, represented by Mr. Wesley Robert Teter.

The session that stimulated the most discussion was Panel Response to Keynote 1 which was presented by Dr. Attaullah Wahidyar, Senior Policy Programme Advisor and Chief of Staff Ministry of Education, Afghanistan and Prof. Deane Neubauer, Co-Director, APHERP, USA. Among the concerns raised were financial support and implementation of programmes towards building societal resilience especially among university community. The competence and experience of teachers and leaders were considered very important to establish and develop a programme towards resilience.

Keynote 1 was presented by Dr. Gatot Hari Priowirjanto from SEAMEO, Bangkok. He shared his knowledge on building an education and training system that strengthens resilience and simultaneously mitigates the effects of disasters and conflicts.

Keynote 2 was presented by Professor Masafumi Nagao from United Nations University, Tokyo. He is a very experienced and renowned researcher in the field of sustainability. One of his discussed projects was on the ageing society in a small town in Japan with almost zero or very small number of youth population to sustain the community.

Mr. Guy Perring from i-graduate International Insight and Mr. Wesley Teter from UNESCO Bangkok were the two panelists for the Panel Response to Keynote 2. The former spoke about employability of graduates and the production of wholesome individuals responsible for the well-being of humanity while the latter spoke about linkages between stakeholders and higher education to achieve a more united effort in sustainability.

In order to engage the participants in strategic discussion, Global Kopitiam sessions were introduced in the GHEF2016 schedule of programmes. There was also a session on Summary on the Global Kopitiam and the Way Forward before the closing ceremony of the Global Higher Education Forum 2016. The forum was officially closed by Prof. Dato’ Dr. Omar Osman, Vice-Chancellor, Universiti Sains Malaysia.

produced where later it was presented in the 19th Conference of Commonwealth Education Ministers (CCEM) in The Bahamas and received the endorsement of education ministers from Commonwealth countries.

The results from this focus group discussion was a mutual agreement between the research team from CTEF, the collaborator (FHEC) and other stakeholders to work together and produce an issues paper which will be presented in the 20th CCEM in 2018 at Fiji. In order to work towards the issues paper, stakeholders from different Commonwealth Pacific Nations and affiliations will provide country reports focusing on current financial status of the higher education in CPN which underlines the current financial model structure and its challenges. It will also cover the planning, development and funding model for higher education institutions across CPN. The issues paper will highlight some recommendations and policies to be considered by the CPN education ministers upon the presentation in the 20th CCEM in 2018 at Fiji.

* Hea

dlin

es w

ere

com

piled

from

Tim

es H

ighe

r Edu

catio

n, T

he E

cono

mist

, Ins

ide

High

erEd

and

Unive

rsity

Wor

ld N

ews b

etwe

en F

ebru

ary

2016

and

Apr

il 201

6.

8

GLO

BAL

• N

ew d

irect

ions

– K

eepi

ng u

p wi

th st

uden

ts of

the

futu

re•

Histo

ry o

f stu

dent

loan

s goe

s bac

k to

the

Mid

dle

Ages

• Un

derg

radu

ates

‘poo

rly p

repa

red

for P

hDs’

• Un

limite

d stu

dent

recr

uitm

ent ‘

trans

form

s’ En

glish

uni

vers

ities

• Fr

om a

teac

hing

per

spec

tive,

‘impa

ct’ lo

oks v

ery

diffe

rent

• Ro

b Be

hren

s: ro

le o

f HE

ombu

dsm

an ‘n

ow a

ccep

ted’

by

unive

rsiti

es•

Whi

ch u

nive

rsiti

es d

elive

r the

bes

t “fe

elgo

od” e

xper

ienc

e?

Ambi

tious

plan

s for

new

Afri

can

Lead

ersh

ip U

nive

rsity

EU st

uden

ts up

by

over

40

per c

ent a

t som

e En

glish

un

ivers

ities

The

alarm

ing

rise

of fa

iled

unive

rsity

pr

esid

encie

s

Arab

uni

vers

ities

: The

kin

gdom

is k

ingPu

blish

or P

erish

? Ac

adem

ics in

Eur

opea

n Un

ivers

ities

Stud

ents

form

new

par

ties,

push

for s

elf-d

eter

min

atio

n

The

Califo

rnia

Mas

ter P

lan: e

xem

plar

of a

m

oder

n hi

gher

edu

catio

n se

ctor