Upload
margery-jackson
View
216
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
International Conference on “Impacts of Globalization on Quality in Higher Education”
HCMC June 20-21 2013
CURRENT ISSUES IN GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT:
A CASE STUDY OF EDUCATION COMMERCIALIZATION VIA JOINT-PROGRAMS
BETWEEN VIETNAMESE AND OVERSEAS UNIVERSITIES
Nguyen Huu Cuong1, Nhan Thi Thuy2, Vu Thi Phuong Thao3
1 Ministry of Education and Training, Vietnam2Da Nang Architecture University, Vietnam
3University of Languages and International Studies, VNU, Vietnam
Purpose • to investigate current issues of regulating joint-programs in
Vietnam under the impact of commercialization; • to propose solutions accordingly
Scope• programs at tertiary level held in Vietnam jointly by domestic
and foreign providers (excl. franchising, distance learning, e-learning)
• efficient practices in cross-border educational activities drawn from achievements of Australian institutions
①Introduction
②Literature review
INTERNATIONALIZATION
COMMERCIALIZATION
JOINT-PROGRAMS
•Benefiting different groups •Institutions restructuring educational systems•Countries seeking educational barrier removed
• Education: a ‘tradable commodity’ (WTO,2008)• Guidelines in The General Agreement on Trade
in Services (GATS) including 4 modes: Cross-border education, Consumption abroad, commercial presence, natural person
• Collaborative programs (partially or fully offshored curriculum, administrative staff and teachers) between one local and another foreign institution, both awarding degrees (Huang, 2009)
• Vietnam emerging as a dynamic spot for a variety of transnational higher education practices (Altbach & Knight, 2007)
• the number of joint-programs increasing substantially (Altbach & Knight, 2007; Thanh, 2008)
Context of joint-programs in Vietnam
TNHE practices in Vietnam:
• ‘import-oriented’ (Huang, 2007, p. 246), adopting “whole package” foreign programs and standards.
• a pivotal contributor to the local socio-economic advancement
• adopting all the four GATS trading modes in education (Pham, 2007)
• operating within a basic regulation framework for educational services (Pham, 2007)
Issues in Vietnam’s current regulation of joint-programs
Joint-program lifetimeJoint-program lifetime
Partner selectionPartner
selection
Decision MakingDecision Making
Learning and Teaching StrategyLearning and Teaching Strategy
Quality AssuranceQuality Assurance
Issues in Vietnam’s current regulation of joint-programs
Joint-program lifetimeJoint-program lifetime
Partner selectionPartner
selection
Decision MakingDecision Making
Learning and Teaching StrategyLearning and Teaching Strategy
Quality AssuranceQuality Assurance
Issues in Vietnam’s current regulation of joint-programs
Decision MakingDecision Making
?
• unauthorized providers illegally calling for academic enrolment; fake accreditation certificates
• exceeding numbers of courses and students allowed for intake
• a lack of channels for complete and accurate information for students to make informed and rational choices
• unauthorized providers illegally calling for academic enrolment; fake accreditation certificates
• exceeding numbers of courses and students allowed for intake
• a lack of channels for complete and accurate information for students to make informed and rational choices
Issues in Vietnam’s current regulation of joint-programs
Joint-program lifetimeJoint-program lifetime
Partner selectionPartner
selection
Decision MakingDecision Making
Learning and Teaching StrategyLearning and Teaching Strategy
Quality AssuranceQuality Assurance
Issues in Vietnam’s current regulation of joint-programs
Partner selectionPartner
selectionLearning and Teaching StrategyLearning and Teaching Strategy
Issues in Vietnam’s current regulation of joint-programs
Joint-program lifetimeJoint-program lifetime
Partner selectionPartner
selection
Decision MakingDecision Making
Learning and Teaching StrategyLearning and Teaching Strategy
Quality AssuranceQuality Assurance
Most problematic issue
• the quality of imported programs lower than the programs themselves in the home branch (Thanh,2008)
• an official and independent quality assurance framework still missing
• a loophole for unqualified providers to leak into the market via counterfeit accreditation mills. (Altbach & Knight, 2007)
Issues in Vietnam’s current regulation of joint-programs
Joint-program lifetimeJoint-program lifetime
Partner selectionPartner
selection
Decision MakingDecision Making
Learning and Teaching StrategyLearning and Teaching Strategy
Quality AssuranceQuality Assuranceglobalization or
localization?‘a global template’
(Yang, 2008; Ziguras & Fazal, 2001)
unsuitable or low-quality course content
and delivery; little participation of highly-
qualified foreign teaching staff
“[…] reinforce the perception that real or proper knowledge is only produced by particular countries in a
particular way, and warns us that the Western educational system and structures continue to define
education for the rest of the world.” (Goodman, 1984, as cited in Yang, 2008, p. 284)
Issues in Vietnam’s current regulation of joint-programs
Lack of consistency, transparency and reliabilityLack of consistency, transparency and reliability
Partner selectionPartner
selection
Decision MakingDecision Making
Learning and Teaching StrategyLearning and Teaching Strategy
Quality AssuranceQuality Assurance
Issues in Vietnam’s current regulation of joint-programs
Lack of consistency, transparency and reliabilityLack of consistency, transparency and reliability THREATSTHREATS
• quality compromises • foreign values'
invasion to the national education sovereignty and autonomy
• local institutions' failure to fulfil their community-oriented education service
• quality compromises • foreign values'
invasion to the national education sovereignty and autonomy
• local institutions' failure to fulfil their community-oriented education service
Legal loopholes for commercialized practicesLegal loopholes for commercialized practices
COMMERCIALIZATION COMMERCIALIZATION
Recommended solutions
• provide specific and transparent guidelines for the selection and registration of joint-program partners (HONG KONG, MALAYSIA)
• establish an independent quality assurance body and standardisation at the governmental level (EUROPE, the USA)
• improve the quality assurance capacity and autonomy in the institutional administrators (HONG KONG)
• implement strictly and consistently the legal framework defining the extent of violation that leads to dissolution of a joint program (INDIA)
ConclusionJoint-programs in Vietnam•key issues: lacking consistency, transparency, reliability in quality and regulation aspects•key solutions: guidelines, quality assurance body, legal framework
Further research:•applying international good TNHE practices in Vietnam: ‘adapting’ vs. ‘adopting’
References
Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11, 290-305.
Dang, Q. A. (2011). Internationalisation of Higher Education: China and Vietnam: from importers of education to partners in cooperation. MSc MSc Thesis, Copenhagen.
Daniel, J., Kanwar, A., & Uvalié-Trumbié, S. (2009). Form innocence to experience: The politics and projects of cross-border higher education. In J. Fegan & M. H. Field (Eds.), Education Across Border - Plotics, Policy and Legislative Action (Vol. 19-31): Springer.
Deem, R., Mok, K., & Lucas, H. L. (2008). Transforming higher education in whose image? Exploring the concept of the 'world-class' university in Europe and Asia. Higher Education Policy, 21, 83-97.
Doorbar, A., & Bateman, C. (2008). The growth of transnational higher education: The UK perspective. In L. Dunn & M. Wallace (Eds.), Teaching in Transnational Higher Education - Enhancing learning for offshore international students (pp. 14-22): Routledge.
Fang, W. (2011). The development of transnational higher education in China: A comparative study of research universities and teaching universities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 16(1), 5-23.
Fang, W. (2012). The Development of Transnational Higher Education in China: A Comparative Study of Research Universities and Teaching Universities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 16(1), 5-23. doi: 10.1177/1028315311410607
Field, M. H. (2009). Crossing border in education is inevitable. In J. Fegan & M. H. Field (Eds.), Education Across Borders - Polictics, Policy and Legislative Action (pp. 1-18): Springer.
Garret, R., & Verbik, L. (2003). Transnational higher education: The major markets - Hong Kong and Singapore. London: Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.
References
Gezgin, U. B. (2009). The currents and trends in the Vietnamese education system within the internationalized context: A comparative perspective. Paper presented at the Hợp tác Quốc tế trong Giáo dục và Đào tạo Đại học Viet Nam-Cơ hội và Thách thức, Vietnam.
Hacket, J., & Nowak, R. (1999). Onshore and offshore delivery of higher education programs: A comparison of academic outcomes Paper presented at the 13th Australian International Education Conference, Frematle.
Hong, H. (2010). Tổng kiểm tra các chương trình liên kết đào tạo với nước ngoài [All-sided inspection of joint-programs] Retrieved May 22, 2013, from http://dantri.com.vn/giao-duc-khuyen-hoc/tong-kiem-tra-cac-chuong-trinh-lien-ket-dao-tao-voi-nuoc-ngoai-374895.htm
Huang, F. (2003a). Transnational higher education: A perspective from China. Higher Education Reseach & Development, 22(2), 193-203.
Huang, F. (2003b). Transnational Higher Education: A perspective from China. Higher Education Research & Development, 22(2), 193-203. doi: 10.1080/07294360304114
Huang, F. (2009). Regulations and practice of transnational higher education in China. In L. Dunn & M. Wallace (Eds.), Teaching in Transnational Higher Education - Enhancing learning for offshore international students (pp. 23-33). London: Routledge.
IDP Eudcation Australia. (2000). Transnational education - Providers, partners and policy - Challenges for Australian institutions offshore. Paper presented at the 14th Australian International Education, Brisbane.
References
Knight, J. (2006a). Crossborder education: An analytical framework for program and provider mobility Vol. 21. J. Smart & B. Tierney (Eds.), Higher Education Handbook of Theory and Practice (pp. 345-395).
Knight, J. (2006b). Higher education crossing borders: a guide to the implications of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) for cross-border education. In G. Montgomery (Ed.), UNESCO Regional Meetings on “GATS and Higher Education (pp. 1-71).
Kritz, M. M. (2006). Globalisation and internationalisation of tertiary education Paper presented at the International Symposium on International Migration and Development, United Nations Population Division, Turin.
Le, Q. M. (2011). Good governance in higher education: Concepts, implement and training. . Paper presented at the DIES: Strengthening universities, enhancing capacities - Higher education management for development, Bonn, Germany.
McBurnie, G., & Ziguras, C. (2001). The regulation of transnational higher education in Southeast Asia: Case studies of Hong Kong, Malaysia and Australia. Higher Education, 42(1), 85-105.
McBurnie, G., & Ziguras, C. (2007). Transnational education: Issues and trends in offshore higher education: Routledge
Nix, J. V. (2009). Sino - U.S. Transnational education - "Buying" an American higher education program: A participant observation study. Doctoral dissertation, Washington State University.
Pham, D. N. T. (2007). Phát triển giáo dục đại học Việt Nam trong bối cảnh mới [Vietnam's education and training development strategy in the new context]. Tạp Chí Cộng Sản, 5(125), 6-12.
References
Yang, R. (2008). Transnational higher education in China: Contexts, characteristics and concerns. Australian Journal of Education, 52(3), 272-286.
Zeleza, P. T. (2012). Internationalization in higher education: Opportunities and challenges for the Knowledge Project in the Global South. Paper presented at the A SARUA Leadership Dialogue on Building the Capacity of Higher Education to Enhance Regional Development, Maputo, Mozambique.
Ziguras, C. (2003). The impacts of the GATS on transnational tertiary education: Comparing experiences of New Zealand, Australia, Singapore and Malaysia. The Australian Educational Researcher, 30(3), 89-109.
Ziguras, C. (2007). Good practice in transnational education: A guide for New Zealand providers. Melbourne: RMIT University.
Ziguras, C., & Fazal, R. (2001). Future directions in international online education. In D. Davis & D. Meares (Eds.), Transnational education: Australia online (pp. 151-164). Sydney: IDP Education Australia.
Ziguras, C., & McBurnie, G. (2008). The impact of trade liberalization on transnational education. In L. Dunn & M. Wallace (Eds.), Teaching in Transnational Higher Education - Enhancing learning for offshore international students (pp. 3-13): Routledge.
Table 1. Modes of supply for the delivery of educational services in cross-border trade (GATS, 1995)
Supply modes
Types of arrangement
Examples Market potential
Mode 1Cross-border
education
A service crosses the border while consumers
still remain inland.
distance education, e-learning, virtual universities
currently small market; seen to have great potential in technological age
Mode 2Consumption
abroad
There is physical movement of customers
across border.
part/whole of the course in a foreign country
currently the largest share of global market
Mode 3Commercial
presence
There is a commercial presence of the provider
in a foreign country to render service.
local branch, satellite campuses, twinning partnerships, franchising
strong potential for future growth
Mode 4Natural
presence
People travel to another country on a temporary
basis to provide the service.
professors, teachers, researchers working abroad
potentially a strong market, emphasizing mobility of professionals
For a business course that is jointly provided by Help University (Malaysia), International School (Vietnam National University – Hanoi) and Institute of Economics and Finance IEFS (Ho Chi Minh City), each student must cover a tuition fee of 11,000 USD. This amount will be divided among the partners: 46% for Help University, 27% for International School, 3% for Vietnam National University – Hanoi and the remaining 24% for IEFS. Accordingly, for each student, Vietnam National University earns 330 USD; and International School and IEFS make a profit of 50% after staff, translators and facilities costing (Thanh, 2010).