Strengthening Cooperation on Quality Assurance and Information Exchange in Cross-Border

Education in the APEC Region

Christopher Ziguras

Seminar on Capacity Building for Polices & Monitoring ofCross-Border Education in the APEC Region

June 27 – 28, 2011Shanghai, People’s Republic of China

Three Important Developments That I Will Not Discuss

• The scale of cross-border higher education within APEC continues to grow rapidly and all stakeholders now have a shared interest in ensuring that national quality assurance systems adequately address cross-border provision

• Many national quality assurance agencies are now engaging and sharing good practice and information through international networks, such as:

– International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE), secretariat in The Hague

– Asia-Pacific Quality Network (APQN), secretariat in Shanghai

• Education consuls now play a major role in improving the quality and scale of cross-border mobility through supporting expatriate students, liaising regularly with home and host country education providers, sharing views between governments

2

Three Key Challenges That I Will Discuss Today

1. Sharing information on international student mobility

2. Sharing information on transnational provision

3. Sharing expertise and information between institutions

3

Student Mobility

• We have good data collected by UNESCO for most countries in the region

• A growing proportion of the cross-border education is taking place between countries within the region

4

‘Core-Periphery’ MobilityEurope

United States

• International student mobility was predominantly from:

– Post-colonial states to former colonial powers

– Newly-industrialising economies to post-industrial economies

5

Regional Mobility

• Over the past decade, as trade and investment between countries in the region has grown, so has student mobility

• More countries are seeking to recruit international students

• Historical, cultural, economic, political and linguistic connections shape patterns of mobility

Inter-Regional Mobility of East Asia and Pacific Students

6

Top Ten Host Countries of East Asia and Pacific Students

7

Region of Origin of International Students in the Asia Pacific

8

Sharing Information on Short-Term Student Mobility

• UNESCO data covers students who are resident in the host country for 12 months or more

• We have no comparable data on students travelling abroad to undertake shorter-term studies towards a degree in their home country

– Exchange

– Study abroad

– Study tours

– Intensive programs

– Internships

• There are two main ways to collect this type of data, from home universities or through immigration records

9

Sharing Data Between Home Institutions

• The Australian Universities International Directors’ Forum surveys all universities to collect outbound student mobility data, as well as other international statistics*

• A key indicator is the number of outbound undergraduate students as a percentage of undergraduate completions, was 8.8% in 2009

• This allows universities to compare their performance to national and international benchmarks

• International cooperation to develop agreed principles for classifying and counting such students would greatly assist sharing of information within and between universities

10

* See Alan Olsen (2010) AUIDF Research Agenda 2010 and Good Practice in International Student Recruitment, Paper presented to the Australian International Education Conference, Sydney, http://www.aiec.idp.com/pdf/2010_Olsen_Wed_1430_B104_Paper.pdf

Short-term Mobility and Immigration Data

11

• Most countries now publish data on the total number of incoming students, which is usually significantly higher than UNESCO data

• These are often based on visas records

• International cooperation to develop agreed principles for classifying and counting short-term mobile students would greatly improve comparability of data

Transnational Higher Education

• Cross-border programs through partnerships and online, branch campuses

• Very limited data is available

• Policy development for transnational education is currently hampered by a lack of international consistency in the terminology, classification and counting of enrolments (eg. external, joint, distance, franchise programs)

• Australia and the UK are the only countries that publish data on their offshore programs and enrolments, but they unfortunately use different methodologies

• International cooperation to develop agreed principles for classifying and counting transnational programs would greatly assist sharing of information between governments and education providers

• Official databases of accredited transnational programs are very valuable, eg. AusList - www.auslist.deewr.gov.au

12

13

Sharing Good Practice Between Institutions

• Quality assurance processes within institutions are critically important, and depend both on external drivers (regulatory agencies) and internal capability

• There is a wide range of technical processes that could be shared much more widely, eg:

– Tracking international student achievement by entry pathway, recruitment channel

– Common approaches to surveying international students both onshore and offshore, such as iGraduate’s International Student Barometer and Transnational Student Barometer

– Evaluation of short-term international experiences

– Management of transnational programs

• This sharing typically takes place through three ways:

– Mobility of expert staff between institutions

– Dissemination of applied research on cross-border HE

– Conferences that bring together practitioners, policy-makers and researchers

14

Encouraging Regional Collaboration in Research on Cross-Border Higher Education

• Many countries in the region have academic societies for research on comparative and international education, and and annual meeting that brings them together

• These tend to be quite far removed from the applied research conducted and commissioned by institutions and governments

• Higher education research networks tend to focus on national systems, and often comparisons between them, but little interest in cross-border education

• The International Education Association of Australia has been for the past three years establishing research networks that span academic researchers, research students, government agencies and institutional researchers, that addresses strategic issues and has an impact on policy and practice

RMIT University© 15

Regional Professional Associations for International Educators

• These conferences are crucial in establishing connections between individuals, focusing attention on critical issues and showcasing good practice

• NAFSA: Association of International Educators, began in 1948 as National Association of Foreign Student Advisers. Over 9000 participants attended the most recent conference.

• European Association for International Education (EAIE), first annual conference in 1989, over 3600 participants in 2010

• The Asia-Pacific Association for International Education (APAIE) was formed in 2004, with a secretariat in Seoul, first annual conference in 2006, now over 800 participants

• There are also many national associations across APEC and there is much scope for greater cooperation between them

16

Conclusions

• There is much more sharing of good practice in cross-border higher education across APEC today than ever before

• There are strengthening bilateral and regional connections between governments and quality assurance agencies

• Governments have a key role to play in supporting common approaches to classifying and counting cross-border higher education

• Sharing of expertise, good practice and information between institutions is critical, but has lagged behind

• Regional networks in which researchers, institutions and government agencies share good practice and discuss issues can play a much more significant role than they have to date

17