“Regionally Aligned” Student Mobility：A Key Domain for Indicators of Higher

Education Internationalization

Yasushi HirosatoProfessor, Faculty of Global Studies

ASEAN Hub Center (Bangkok)Sophia University

Email: yasushi.hirosato58@gmail.com

(This presentation is based upon consultations with and the data collected by Dr. Taiji Hotta, HiroshimaUniversity, during the workshops of the ACTFA Project in 2016, organized by SEAMEO RIHED and funded by ADB.Views expressed in this panel are solely presenter’s views, but not of Dr. Hotta, SEAMEO RIHED or ADB)

2nd Stakeholders Meeting on Indicators for Internationalization of Higher Education in Asia and

the Pacific, 9-10 November 2017, Bangkok, Thailand

Panel Discussion III: What are the Key Domains for Indicators of

Higher Education Internationalization

This Presentation Suggests:

1. A key domain for indicators of higher education internationalization in Asia and the Pacific ⇒ “regionally aligned” student mobility, including its framework for credit transfer (a domain of regional connectivity, harmonization, integration): a kind of combined domain.

2. Common indicators for “regionally aligned” student mobility ⇒those that can be collected and utilized by governments and higher education institutions, especially their international relations office (IROs), in CLMV ⇒ based on “Voices from 24 Participating Universities of the Academic Credit Transfer Framework for Asia (ACTFA) Project-Workshops in 2016.”

3. A priority action in making collection and utilization of common indicators work is to strengthen the capacity of IROs.

2

Student Mobility “This division of labor…is the necessary consequence of a certain propensity in human nature…; the propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another.”

from Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Cause of the Wealth of Nations, New York: The Modern Library, 1937 (Chapter 2: Of the Principle which Gives Occasion to the Division of Labor, p. 13)

“Encouraging and supporting students to study abroad is arguably the best way to foster the development of a well-trained international workforce, which can improve the quality and quantity of human resources in the economy as well as the domestic education sector.”

from OECD/World Bank, Cross-Border Tertiary Education: A Way towards Capacity Development. Paris: OECD, 2007, pp. 72-73.

3

Counts by Component of Internationalization, Literature and Data (% total) (see also Appendixes 2 and 3)

4

Source: J. H. Williams, et. al. Internationalization of Higher Education in the Asia-Pacific: Towards a Mapping of Indicators and Their Utilization (Working Paper), June 2017, p. 25.

Student Mobility Programs in Asia and the Pacific

• UMAP Student Online Consortium (UMAP) by (rough estimate of) around 40- 60 universities of 12 countries (eligible members are over 570 universities of 35 countries/territories in Asia and the Pacific

• AUN Student Exchange Program (AUN) by 48 universities of ASEAN+3 countries (of which 30 leading universities in ASEAN)

• AIMS Program (SEAMEO RIHED) by 68 universities of ASEAN 6 countries, S. Korea and Japan

• GMS-UC Student Exchange Program (SEAMEO RIHED ) by 24 universities of GMS 6 countries (Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, PRC-Yunnan Province and Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Thailand, and Vietnam) with the implementation of the ACTFA project (funded by ADB)

• “Campus Asia” joint study/exchange programs (3 Governments)by 36 universities in PRC, S. Korea and Japan

5

GMS-UC UMAP

CAMPUS ASIA

AIMS

AUN

Spatial Domain of Student Mobility Programs

Source: Modified from Miki Sugimura, “Dynamics in Asia Higher Education Area,” College Management, No. 204 (May-June 2017), p. 52.

“Regionally Aligned” Student Mobility

under a “Permeable Framework” for Credit Transfer

1. SEAMEO RIHED developed and initiated ACTFA as a regional educational framework to promote student mobility with the support of ADB since 2013.

2. “Credit transfer frameworks are being developed to accommodate among the existing systems such as ACTFA” - mentioned in “ASEAN Plus Three Guidelines on Transcripts and Supplemental Documents for Academic Record of Exchange Students - ANNEX 1” (Draft: 27 October 2017) .

: 7

An Original Concept of ACTFA: 4 Pillars

8

Mutual Recognition & Trust

Credit Transfer Grade Transfer Supporting Mechanisms & System Context

1 2 3 4

(Must agree) (Must agree) (Flexible)

Source: SEAMEO RIHED, “Promoting GMS Higher Education Harmonization and

Networking.” Presented at 12th Meeting of the GMS Working Group on Human

Resource Development, 31 October 2013, Bangkok, Thailand, and Yasushi

Hirosato, “Subregional Collaboration in Higher Education: Harmonization and

Networking in the GMS.” in Akiyoshi Yonezawa, et. al. Emerging International

Dimensions in East Asian Higher Education. Dordrecht: Springer, p. 157.

Challenges for 4 Pillars of ACTFA

• Mutual Recognition and Trust: Universities must mutually recognize

and trust the compatibility of institutions, curriculums, credits,

grades, academic degrees, etc...

• Credit Transfer: SEAMEO RIHED is reviewing a possible use of

the concept of “Asian Academic Credits (AACs).”

• Grade Transfer: Most difficult issue,…

• Supporting Mechanism:

(1) To establish and strengthen IROs for student mobility; and

(2) To improve transparency of educational activities by providing

the same format of ACTFA-documents; i.e., Information Package,

Syllabi, Study Plan, and Transcript

9

A Concept of Asian Academic Credits (AACs)

• A proposed credit “zone” by Dr. Taiji Hotta, Hiroshima University.

• One AAC credit point ≒38-48 hours of student workload, (including 13-16

hours of teaching (academic) hours)

*Student workload is the total amount of hours students spend for study (lectures, but also homework, lab, writing term papers, etc.)

• AACs will allow many Asian higher education institutions to transfer most of their credits on a one–to-one basis among themselves.

• “Conversion Table for the Credit Transfer Systems/Scheme” with Asian and other regions is proposed as part of “ASEAN Plus Three Guidelines on Transcripts and Supplemental Documents for Academic Record of Exchange Students (see Appendix 4: Conversion Table for the Credit Transfer Systems/Scheme).

10

Common Issues in CLMV Countries• Student Mobility: A large gap among 24 universities in 6 GMS countries, and

implying a larger gap with middle- and high-income ASEAN countries. Especially, severe lack of experience of student exchange, in Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar.

• IRO: A large number of universities do not have a central office for international affairs, and not adequately staffed.

• Financial Issues: No financial independence to run any student mobility programs and rare scholarships for students

• Credit Transfer: Though credit systems exist, difficult to accept foreign credits due to strict and fixed course work without enough elective courses.

11

Source: Compiled from Yasushi Hirosato, “Final Report on International Cooperation and

Networking,” G0166-LAO(SF): Strengthening Higher Education Project (SHEP) in Lao PDR,

Manila: Asian Development Bank, 16 September 2016, and Taiji Hotta, “The Harmonization

Process of Asian Higher Education: The Issues and Challenges of Regionally Aligned Student

Mobility,” Presented at 14th International Workshop on Higher Education Reform, Hiroshima

University, 27 September 2017.

Tendencies and Issues on Mutual Trust (see: Appendixes 6-1 and 6-2: Conditions to Trust Partner

Universities)1. Many universities in GMS countries seek:

(1) internationalization and good quality of university education;

(2) good study and living environment;

(3) university support for international students;

(4) financial assistance;

(5) external reputation; and

(6) good records of research activities from their partner universities.

2. However, a large gap among those responded institutions, when

being asked their own cases. In 15 of 24 indicators, more than 50% of

participating institutions did not satisfy those conditions at their own

campuses.

12

Based on “Voices from 24 Participating Universities of ACTFA Project-Workshops in 2016”, from Taiji Hotta, “The Harmonization Process of Asian Higher Education: The Issues and Challenges of Regionally Aligned Student Mobility,” Presented at 14th International Workshop on Higher Education Reform, Hiroshima University, 27 September 2017.

Tendencies and Issues on Information Package(see Appendixes 6-3 and 6-4: Needed Information for Student

Mobility)1. Sharing more similar tendencies among 24 universities,

compared to the indicators of “Mutual Trust.”

2. Serious lack of transparency in terms of needed information. However, only 8 indicators were not provided by more than 50% of 24 universities (comparing to 15 indicators in “Mutual Trust”).

3. Particularly, not enough information about quality assurance of education and student support environment for exchange students.

13

Based on “Voices from 24 Participating Universities of ACTFA Project-Workshops in 2016,” from Taiji Hotta,“The Harmonization Process of Asian Higher Education: The Issues and Challenges of Regionally Aligned Student Mobility,” Presented at 14th International Workshop on Higher Education Reform, Hiroshima University, 27 September 2017.

Conclusion and Future Challenges (1) 1. “Regionally aligned” student mobility ⇒ helps to make progress in SDG Targets: 4.3, 4.4, 4.b (and 4.7?)

2. Common indicators (if any/if required) for regionally aligned student mobility (at system and institutional levels) must be those that can be collected and utilized by governments and higher education institutions (especially, their IROs) in CLMV. ⇒ Still big gap remains.

3. In terms of “regionally aligned” student mobility, wouldthe adoption of the ASEAN Plus Three Guidelines on Transcripts and Supplemental Documents for Academic Record of Exchange Students be an indicator (“yes” or “no” answer?) ⇒ in the long future.

14

Conclusion and Future Challenges (2) 4. Trial of utilizing the ASEAN Plus Three Guidelines on Transcripts and Supplemental Documents for Academic Record of Exchange Students (upon its formal adoption envisaged at the 4th ASEAN+3 Education Ministers Meeting in Fall 2018).

5. At the country level, Strengthening of IRO is one of the vital missions of the ACTFA project ⇒ could be supported at the country level by government budgets and/or by the ADB funded project in Laos, and the World Bank funded project in Cambodia.

6. At the sub-regional level, the ACTFA project will be further implemented under a SEAMEO RIHED’s proposed project –“Support for Capacity Building of the GMS-UC,” subject to an approval by ASEAN under the Japan-ASEAN Integration Fund (JAIF).

15

Appendixes

Appendix 1: GlossaryAppendix 2: Classification of Internationalization Functions in Higher EducationAppendix 3: Breakdown of Student Mobility Data (N=77)Appendix 4: Conversion Table for the Credit Transfer Systems/SchemeAppendix 5: GMS-UC Member Universities Appendix 6: “Voices from 24 Participating Universities of ACTFA Project-

Workshops in 2016”6-1: Theme 1 - Conditions to Trust Partner Universities (1)6-2: Theme 1 - Conditions to Trust Partner Universities (2)6-3: Theme 2 - Needed Information for Student Mobility (1)6-4: Theme 2 - Needed Information for Student Mobility (1)

16

17

Appendix 1: GlossaryAAC: Asian Academic CreditACD-ACTS: Asian Cooperation Dialogue-Asian Credit Transfer SystemACTFA: Academic Credit Transfer Framework for AsiaADB: Asian Development BankAIMS: ASEAN International Mobility for Students ASEAN: Association of South-East Asian NationsAUN: ASEAN University NetworkAUN-ACTS: AUN-ASEAN Credit Transfer SystemCATS: Credit for Accumulation and Transfer Scheme CLAR : Latin American Reference CreditCLMV: Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and VietnamECTS: European Credit Transfer System GMS: Greater Mekong Sub-regionGMS-UC: Greater Mekong Sub-regional University ConsortiumIRO: International Relations OfficePRC: People’s Republic of ChinaSEAMEO RIHED: Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization - Regional Center for Higher

Education and Development UCTS: UMAP Credit Transfer SchemeUMAP: University Mobility in Asia and Pacific

Appendix 2: Classification of Internationalization Functions in Higher Education

18

Among 10 categories and 34 sub-categories,

Source: J.H. Williams, et. al. Internationalization of Higher Education in the Asia-Pacific: Towards a Mapping of Indicators and Their Utilization (Working Paper), June 2017, p. 16.

Appendix 3: Breakdown of Student Mobility Data (N=77)

19

Source: J.H. Williams, et. al. Internationalization of Higher Education in the Asia-Pacific: Towards a Mapping of Indicators and Their Utilization (Working Paper), June 2017, p. 16.

Appendix 4: Conversion Table for the Credit Transfer

Systems/Scheme

20Source: ASEAN Plus Three Guidelines on Transcripts and Supplemental Documents

for Academic Record of Exchange Students - ANNEX 1 (Draft: 27 October 2017)

Appendix 5: GMS-UC Member Universities

21

Country Name of Universities

Cambodia Royal University of Phnom Penh, University of Battambang, Svay Rieng University, Chea Sim University

Lao PDR National University of Laos, Savannakhat University

Myanmar East Yangon University, Myeik University, Yenanchaung Degree College, YadanabonUniversity

Vietnam Water Resource University, University of Transport and Communication, Hue University, National University of Agriculture

Thailand Chiang Rai Rajabhat University, Suan Sunandha Rajabhat University, King Mongkut’s University of Technology, Thonburi, Thammasat University, KasetsertUniversity, Mae Fah Luang University

PRC Kunming University of Science and Technology, Yunnan University, Guangxi Normal University, Guangxi University for Nationalities

Appendix 6-1: Theme 1 - Conditions to Trust Partner

Universities (1)

22

Rank Conditions to trust partner universitiesRanking of

importance [％]*

“No” at home

university [％]**

1 Decent educational environment (class sides, use of teaching aids, etc.) 92% 45%

2 Campus wide use of credit and grading systems 83% 40%

3**Active student services for international students（IRO, orientations for international students,

welcome wagon, etc.)79% **58%

4 **Comprehensive university with international programs in English 75% **56%

5 Clear learning outcomes with good quality education 67% 38%

6 **Good correspondence with IROs (swift and responsible replies) 63% **60%

6 Clear process and requirements for application 63% 33%

8 **Effective and systematic internal evaluation of education and management 58% **79%

9 Similarity of course work and contents of each subject 54% 23%

10 Provision of scholarships 50% 42%

11 **Other financial support (provision of free dormitory & tuition waivers, etc.) 46% **73%

11 **External reputation in international markets or by one’s own government 46% **55%

* Each Percentage indicates a ratio of a total number of universities which mentioned “important” divided by a total number of participating universities. ** “No at home university” includes universities which answered “No” or “Partially no” to each question.

Appendix 6-2 :Theme 1 - Conditions to Trust Partner

Universities (2)

23

Rank Conditions to trust partner universitiesRanking of

importance [％]*

“No” at home

university [％]**

11 **Acceptable teacher’s qualifications 46% **73%

14 **Use of student’s evaluation to university education 42% **70%

15 Availability of extracurricular activities and recreational facilities 38% 22%

15 Similar academic calendar 38% 44%

15 **Decent educational facilities (library, laboratory, computer rooms, etc.) 38% **67%

18 **Living conditions (location, security, room conditions, etc.） 33% **50%

19 Interests of future joint research 29% 43%

19 **Decent research facilities 29% **71%

21 Conclusion of MOU17 for student exchanges 25% 33%

21 **A compatible and transferable campus wide grading policy 25% **67%

21 **Good contents of curriculum for students’ future careers 25% **50%

21 **Active faculty and staff developments (on the job training) 25% **100%

Appendix 6-3: Theme 2 - Needed Information for Student

Mobility (1)

24

Rank Needed information from partner universitiesRanking of

importance [％]*

“No” at home

university [％]**

1 Academic calendar and schedule for application 92% 23%

1 **List of course work and credits 92% **55%

3 Extracurricular activities, recreational and cultural events 88% 33%

3 Cost (tuition, program fees, living expenses, etc.) 88% 38%

3 Academic grading policy 88% 33%

6 **Activities of student support (IRO’s and mentor’s support ) 79% **58%

7 Application procedures and schedule 75% 28%

8 Requirements and qualifications for the application 71% 29%

8 Contact information (mail address, phone number, and e-mail) 71% 18%

8 General introduction about a partner university 71% 12%

11 Availability and condition of scholarship 67% 44%

12 **Introduction of international program(s) and number of international students 63% **67%

25

Rank Needed information from partner universitiesRanking of

importance [％]*

“No” at home

university [％]**

13 Strong field of research 58% 21%

13 **Availability of medical clinic and health insurance 58% **64%

15 **Profiles of teaching staff members 54% **54%

15 Contents of special subjects and local language education for international students 54% 23%

15 Detailed information about campus life 54% 31%

18 The exchange program to which they will send their students. 50% 33%

18 **Student exchanges (# of partners and student mobility, etc.) 50% **50%

18 Current activities of campus-wide student exchanges 50% 33%

21 **Access information on campus and from outside 46% **55%

22Facilities for class instruction and self-study (classroom, library, laboratory, computer

rooms, etc.)42% 20%

22 **Profile of graduates (their employments and graduate studies) 42% **90%

22 Current situation of quality assurance at partner universities 42% 40%

Appendix 6-4: Theme 2 - Needed Information for Student

Mobility (2)