Enhancing student learning and teacher
development in transnational education
Joan O’ Mahony
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
2
References
39
Appendices
43
Appendix 1 TNELT survey tables
43
Appendix 2 TNE learning and teaching survey questions
45
3
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 homeHEI 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.
4
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.
5
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.
6
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.
7
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
Year
EU
Non-EU
Excluding Oxford
Brookes
Total
Increase
Total
Increase
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
2008
46,370
23.6
150,265
76.4
196,635
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
195,800
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.”
8
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
9
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.
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]
5
10
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/positiveimpact-of-transnational-education [4 December 2013].
11
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 crossnational 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.
12
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
Trade (TNE as marketplace)
Student experiences of TNE
Student identity (such as: sense of belonging,
community)
Student mobility
Quality




Governance
Regulation
Partnership
Policy


Teaching
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/
13
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 cooccur
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.
14
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.
15
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.
16
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:
17
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.
18
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.
19
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 followup 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).
11
Future 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.
20
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.
21
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
22
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.
23
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).
24
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 homebased 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.
25
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.
26
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
27
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.
28
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
29
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”.
30
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-forpurpose 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
31
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 “incountry 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
32
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
33
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
34
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.
35
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.
36
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.
37

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 overemphasis 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.
38
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-globalgrowth-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-ofhe-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.
39
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/highereducation/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-heioffshore-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.
40
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-educationnetwork/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-educationpartnerships-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).
41
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).
42
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
43
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
44
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
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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
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
7
Mainly by flying faculty
Mainly by local staff
Mainly virtual delivery
Mix of methods
Other (please specify)
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.
45
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
11
Response options
From your experience delivering offshore educational programmes, please rate how significant the following
challenges have been for you
a Different cultural context
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
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
not challenging
slightly challenging
challenging
very challenging
not applicable
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
13
Have you experienced any other kinds of challenges delivering high quality
learning and teaching on offshore programmes that are not listed above?
What does your offshore educational programme do to improve or
maintain the standard of education and teaching? (select all that apply)
open-ended
 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):
46
Section 2 – Learning and teaching on your offshore programmes (continued)
Question
14
a
Response options
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?
Compared to what students receive at our HEI in the UK, your offshore teaching is
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
 worse
 slightly
worse
 as good as
 better
 cannot say
 do not
know
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.
16
Please give us an example of any innovations or novel practices you have introduced in any of
open-ended
your offshore educational programmes.
17
Is there anything else you want to say?
open-ended
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
47
Contact us
The Higher Education Academy
Innovation Way
York Science Park
Heslington
York
YO10 5BR
+44 (0)1904 717500
[email protected]
© 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.
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 [email protected]
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.
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.
Through our partnership managers we work directly
with HE providers to understand individual
The Higher Education Academy and its logo are
registered trademarks and should not be used without
our permission.