Quality Assurance of Cross -border Higher Education … Survey-APQN analyses.pdf · Preliminary Analyses of Survey 1. Introduction Cross-border higher education ... Fiji France India

Quality Assurance of Cross

Preliminary Analyses of Survey

1. Introduction

Cross-border higher education (CBHE) is among the key issues that QA bodies need to

address today. Regulatory regimes, specific legislations and/or frameworks for QA of CBHE

have been increasingly developed in different countries and territories. Both the

and receiving countries are becoming increasingly alert in the area of the quality assurance

of CBHE. Various regional and international initiatives have focussed on these areas in the

past decade or more.

In order to further enhance policy dialog

assurance of CBHE, and thus enhance mutual understanding of different approaches to

CBHE and different methods in quality assurance, and protect students against low

standard provision, the Quality Assurance

Project was initiated on 1 October 2013.

The QACHE project is funded by the

coordinated by the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education

(ENQA). The partnership of the QACHE project involves the two main host regions of

European cross-border education (

four significant European provider countries, and

Europe (Australia).

2. Objectives of the survey

The objective of this survey is to collect information from quality assurance agencies and

authorities across the 22 states of the Arab region and the 53 states in Asia

field of cross-border higher education.

More specifically, the survey

- Assess the state of art

regions;

Quality Assurance of Cross-border Higher Education (QACHE) Project

Analyses of Survey of QA agencies members

- Dr. Jagannath Patil, APQN

border higher education (CBHE) is among the key issues that QA bodies need to


have been increasingly developed in different countries and territories. Both the



In order to further enhance policy dialogue in different regions and countries on quality



standard provision, the Quality Assurance of Cross-border Higher Education (QACHE)

Project was initiated on 1 October 2013.

The QACHE project is funded by the Erasmus Mundus programme of the European Union,


. The partnership of the QACHE project involves the two main host regions of

border education (APQN and ANQAHE), quality assurance agencies from

four significant European provider countries, and one of the main provider country outside

Objectives of the survey


authorities across the 22 states of the Arab region and the 53 states in Asia

education.

More specifically, the survey would address the following issues:

Assess the state of art of Cross-Border Higher Education (CBHE) across the target

Page 1 of 27

border Higher Education (QACHE) Project

of QA agencies members of APQN

Jagannath Patil, APQN President

border higher education (CBHE) is among the key issues that QA bodies need to


have been increasingly developed in different countries and territories. Both the sending



ue in different regions and countries on quality



border Higher Education (QACHE)

of the European Union,


. The partnership of the QACHE project involves the two main host regions of

), quality assurance agencies from

the main provider country outside


authorities across the 22 states of the Arab region and the 53 states in Asia-Pacific in the

Border Higher Education (CBHE) across the target

- Assess the state of art of Quality Assurance (QA) in CBHE in the target regions (legal

framework, criteria and procedures used, how they differ from those used for

traditional HE delivery forms);

- Assess the role of the national QA agencies in the QA of CBHE;

- Identify good practice in existing collaboration between agencies in the provider

and host countries and/or with the provider institutions;

- Identify the main obstacles and challenges in QA of imported CBHE and elaborate

ways of addressing these issues.

The main focus of interest of the survey is on imported CBHE into the target regions. In

addition, specific focus should be given, where relevant, to providing details on issues

related to CBHE by European providers.

3. Survey Analyses

The survey questionnaire containing 52

with working Group and was circulated to all full and intermediate members of APQN using

Surveymonkey.

Total 34 responses were received.

discarded as they were either test

responses were considered as valid and have been used for

The analyses is provided in following five sections.

I. CBHE profiles of respondent countries

II. Issues and challenges of quality and QA of CBHE

III. Regulatory and QA framework

IV. Collaboration with provider country QA agencies and/or HEIs and role of

international networks

V. Key messages emerging from initial analyses of survey

A list of countries/ territories

preliminary analyses need to be subjected to discussion and review before it is fine

and finalized.

Assess the state of art of Quality Assurance (QA) in CBHE in the target regions (legal


traditional HE delivery forms);

Assess the role of the national QA agencies in the QA of CBHE;

good practice in existing collaboration between agencies in the provider

d host countries and/or with the provider institutions;

the main obstacles and challenges in QA of imported CBHE and elaborate

ways of addressing these issues.



related to CBHE by European providers.

containing 52 questions in 4 parts was designed in consultation

was circulated to all full and intermediate members of APQN using

received. After careful scrutiny of responses,

discarded as they were either test attempts, dummy entries or completely blank. Total 19

responses were considered as valid and have been used for analyses.

The analyses is provided in following five sections.

CBHE profiles of respondent countries

es and challenges of quality and QA of CBHE

Regulatory and QA framework

Collaboration with provider country QA agencies and/or HEIs and role of


Key messages emerging from initial analyses of survey

A list of countries/ territories participated in survey is given as annexure 1 at the end.

preliminary analyses need to be subjected to discussion and review before it is fine

Page 2 of 27

Assess the state of art of Quality Assurance (QA) in CBHE in the target regions (legal


good practice in existing collaboration between agencies in the provider

the main obstacles and challenges in QA of imported CBHE and elaborate



questions in 4 parts was designed in consultation

was circulated to all full and intermediate members of APQN using

responses, 15 had to be

dummy entries or completely blank. Total 19

Collaboration with provider country QA agencies and/or HEIs and role of

participated in survey is given as annexure 1 at the end. This

preliminary analyses need to be subjected to discussion and review before it is fine-tuned

Section I – CBHE profiles of respondent countries

CBHE provision is currently

details can be seen is following

education

Description of form / type of mobility

Branch

Campus

Provider in country A establishes a satellite campus

in country B to deliver courses and programmes to

students in country B (may also include country A

students taking a semester/courses abroad).The

qualification awarded is from provider in country A.

Independent

Institution

Foreign provider A (a traditional university, a

commercial company or alliance/network)

establishes in country B a standalone HEI to offer

courses/programmes and awards.

Acquisition/

Merger

Foreign provider A purchases a part of or 100% of

local HEI in country B.

Study Centre/

Teaching site

Foreign provider A establishes study centers in

country B to support students taking their

courses/programmes. Study centers can be

independent or in collaboration with local providers

in country B.

Affiliation/

Networks

Different types of (public and private)/(traditional

and new) providers from various countries

collaborate through innovative types of partnerships

to establish networks/institution to deliver courses

and programmes in local and foreign countries

through distance or face

Virtual

University

Provider that delivers credit courses and degree

programme to student in different countries through

distance education modes and that generally does

not have face

Branch campus and Affiliation/ networks appear to be major form of provider

is followed by forms / categories

CBHE profiles of respondent countries

CBHE provision is currently available in 78.9 % respondent countries / territories

details can be seen is following Provider mobility table indicating categories of imported






qualification awarded is from provider in country A.



establishes in country B a standalone HEI to offer

courses/programmes and awards.

Foreign provider A purchases a part of or 100% of

local HEI in country B.





in country B.






istance or face-to-face modes.



distance education modes and that generally does

not have face-to-face support services for student.

Branch campus and Affiliation/ networks appear to be major form of provider

categories like virtual university and independent

Page 3 of 27

available in 78.9 % respondent countries / territories. The

Provider mobility table indicating categories of imported

Exists

Does

not

exist

Not

sure





13 5 6



establishes in country B a standalone HEI to offer 8 8 2

Foreign provider A purchases a part of or 100% of 5 9 4





5 3 3






13 2 4



distance education modes and that generally does 9 6 3

Branch campus and Affiliation/ networks appear to be major form of provider mobility. It

university and independent institution.

Following Programme mobility table indicates

survey.


Franchise An arrangement whereby a provider in the source

country A authorizes a provider in another country B

to deliver their course/programme/service in

country B or other countries. The qualification is

awarded by a provider in country A. This is usually a

for-profit commercial arrangement.

Twinning A situation whereby a provider in source country A

collaborates with a provider located in country B to

develop an articulation system allowing students to

take course credits in country B and/or source

country A. Only one qualification is awarded by the

provider in the source country. This may or may not

be on a commercial basis.

Double/

Joint degree

An arrangement whereby providers in different

countries collaborate to offer a programme for which

a student receives a qualification from each provider

or a joint award from the collaborating providers.

Normally this is based on academic exchange.

Articulation Various types of articulation arrangements between

providers in different countries permit students to

gain credit for courses/programme

offered/delivered by collaborating providers.

Validation Validation arrangements between providers in

different countries which allow provider B in

receiving country to award qualification of provider

A in source country.

Virtual/

Distance

Arrangements where providers deliver

courses/programmes to students in different

countries through distance and online modes. May

include some face

through domestic study or support centers.

Articulation, twinning and double/joint degree are most popular types of program mobility

in respondent countries. The next preferred types are Franchise or virtual/distance

education arrangements.

gramme mobility table indicates categories of imported education


An arrangement whereby a provider in the source





rofit commercial arrangement.

A situation whereby a provider in source country A





rovider in the source country. This may or may not







Various types of articulation arrangements between




Validation arrangements between providers in







include some face-to-face support for students


double/joint degree are most popular types of program mobility


Page 4 of 27

categories of imported education as noted in

Exists

Does

not

exist

Not

sure






10 5 4






rovider in the source country. This may or may not

13 2 3





13 3 3



gain credit for courses/programme 14 3 2



receiving country to award qualification of provider 7 6 5




face support for students

12 4 3

double/joint degree are most popular types of program mobility


Type of CBHE Providers

The largest chunk of providers belong to category of Pri

university colleges, applied universities, etc. However all other types of providers also

seem to be operational, as survey indicates below.

Legend:

a = Public universities

b = Private not-for-profit universities

c = Private for profit universities

d = Public HEIs such as university colleges, applied universities, etc.

e = Private not-for-profit HEIs such as university colleges, applied universities, etc.

f = Private for profit HEIs such as university colleges, applied

The main providers of CBHE

Australia, UK and USA emerge as clear topers as main providers in Asia Pacific region.

China, India, Malaysia, etc. share second and third places with France, Germany and New

Zealand as per the responses to this survey.

13

11

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

a b

The largest chunk of providers belong to category of Private for profit HEIs such as


as survey indicates below.

profit universities

Private for profit universities

d = Public HEIs such as university colleges, applied universities, etc.

profit HEIs such as university colleges, applied universities, etc.

f = Private for profit HEIs such as university colleges, applied universities, etc.

oviders of CBHE

UK and USA emerge as clear topers as main providers in Asia Pacific region.

share second and third places with France, Germany and New

Zealand as per the responses to this survey.

10

1314

c d e f

Page 5 of 27

vate for profit HEIs such as


profit HEIs such as university colleges, applied universities, etc.

universities, etc.


share second and third places with France, Germany and New

15

Mobility of programmes and providers

UG programs are the ones to take major share of program and provider mobility as

compared to Graduate and Do

10 10 10

3

2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12A

ust

rali

a

Un

ite

d K

ing

do

m

Un

ite

d S

tate

s

Ch

ina

Ne

w Z

ea

lan

d

68.40%

10.50%

mes and providers


compared to Graduate and Doctoral programs as shown below.

2 2 2 2

1 1 1 1 1

Ne

w Z

ea

lan

d

Fij

i

Fra

nce

Ind

ia

Ma

lay

sia

Sa

ud

i A

rab

ia

Arm

en

ia

Bra

zil

Ge

rma

ny

Ko

rea

, S

ou

th

84.20%

Undergraduat

e

programmes

Graduate

programmes

Page 6 of 27


1 1

Sin

ga

po

re

TH

-T

ha

ila

nd

Undergraduat

programmes

programmes

The role of CBHE provision

In terms of the number of students, the role of CBHE provision in Asian countries seems to

be marginal as per this survey

The development of CBHE

The development of CBHE is how ever

47.4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Marginal

68.4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

It is growing It is stagnating

he role of CBHE provision


be marginal as per this survey.

lopment of CBHE

The development of CBHE is how ever considered to be growing in most countries

26.3% 26.3%

Significant Other

21.1%

0.0%

15.8%

It is stagnating It is regressing No opinion

Page 7 of 27


considered to be growing in most countries

15.8%

No opinion

The driver of the development of CBHE

Decreasing outbound student mobility (due to increasing cost of studying abroad,

access/visa restrictions, etc.) comes out to be the main reason for development of CBHE at

most places. Increased access to higher education and insufficiency of local HE

another reason for this growth as seen in chart below.

Legend:

A = Increased access to higher education and insufficiency of local HE provision

B = Insufficient or decreasing quality of local HE provision

C = Decreasing outbound student mobil

access/visa restrictions, etc.)

D = Facilitating regulatory framework (e.g. privatisation, CBHE regulation)

E = Other

Level of awareness and participation of higher education stakeholders in

implementing UNESCO-OECD guidelines

QA bodies and government agencies seem to have higher level of awareness and

participation in implementation of UNESCO OECD Guidelines. The low level of awareness

among stakeholders like student bodies, HEIs, Academic recognition and pr

bodies is a cause of concern as can be inferred from table below.

Response

Awareness

Government

Higher education institutions/providers

42.1%

10.5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

A

the development of CBHE



most places. Increased access to higher education and insufficiency of local HE

another reason for this growth as seen in chart below.


B = Insufficient or decreasing quality of local HE provision

C = Decreasing outbound student mobility (due to increasing cost of studying abroad,

access/visa restrictions, etc.)



OECD guidelines



among stakeholders like student bodies, HEIs, Academic recognition and pr

bodies is a cause of concern as can be inferred from table below.

Non

Existing Low Average

0 4

Higher education institutions/providers 0 6

10.5%

52.6%

26.3%21.1%

B C D

Page 8 of 27



most places. Increased access to higher education and insufficiency of local HE provision is


ity (due to increasing cost of studying abroad,





among stakeholders like student bodies, HEIs, Academic recognition and professional

Average High

5 9

6 5

21.1%

E

Response

Student bodies

Quality assurance and accreditation bodies

Academic recognition bodies

Professional bodies

Participation in implementation

Government

Higher education institutions/providers

Student bodies

Quality assurance and accreditation bodies

Academic recognition bodies

Professional bodies

Comparability of qualifications is

Asian countries.

A large section of respondents [ 68%] have

procedures and requirements of higher education delivered by foreign providers and/or

leading to a foreign qualification.

Section II- Issues and challenges of quality and QA of CBHE

Overall perception of imported CBHE

Just about a quarter of respondents feel that overall perception of imported CBHE is of

higher quality as compared to local provision

quality. The figure below gives more details.

10.5%10.5%10.5%10.5%

36.8%36.8%36.8%36.8%

Non

Existing Low Average

3 9

Quality assurance and accreditation bodies 1 2

Academic recognition bodies 3 6

2 5

Participation in implementation

4 3

Higher education institutions/providers 1 7

7 6

Quality assurance and accreditation bodies 2 3

Academic recognition bodies 5 6

3 7

qualifications is noted as a major concern for QA of CBHE in most

A large section of respondents [ 68%] have legal and other issues related to the recognition



Issues and challenges of quality and QA of CBHE

verall perception of imported CBHE compared to local HE provision


higher quality as compared to local provision while another quarter says it is of same

The figure below gives more details.

26.3%26.3%26.3%26.3%

26.3%26.3%26.3%26.3%

It is of higher

qualityIt is about the

same qualityIt is of lower

quality

Page 9 of 27

Average High

2 3

4 10

3 4

6 4

4 8

4 5

1 3

7 7

2 3

3 4

noted as a major concern for QA of CBHE in most [68%]

legal and other issues related to the recognition


compared to local HE provision


while another quarter says it is of same

It is of higher

It is about the

same qualityIt is of lower

Overall perception of imported CBHE from European providers compared to local HE

provision

About 36% respondents feel that overall perception of imported CBHE by

providers is of higher quality as compared to local provision while about 26% says it is of

same quality.

Influence of CBHE

Majority of the respondents

system of HE in your country, in terms of academic standards, HE access, etc

Key challenges of CBHE

Quality assurance processes (conflict of standards between local/provider QA systems,

absence/lack of coordination between the 2 systems, etc.) is pointed out as key challen

CBHE. Another two significant challenges are ‘Consumer protection issues

“diploma mills” and Balance of responsibility between provider and receiver countries

and/or between the different actors within your country (institution, go

agency, etc.) More details are projected in graph below.

26.3%

36.8%




Majority of the respondents [68%] agree that CBHE has a positive influence on the national

country, in terms of academic standards, HE access, etc


absence/lack of coordination between the 2 systems, etc.) is pointed out as key challen

Another two significant challenges are ‘Consumer protection issues


and/or between the different actors within your country (institution, go

More details are projected in graph below.

36.8%

26.3%

It is of higher

quality

It is about the

same quality

No opinion

Page 10 of 27


About 36% respondents feel that overall perception of imported CBHE by European


CBHE has a positive influence on the national

country, in terms of academic standards, HE access, etc.


absence/lack of coordination between the 2 systems, etc.) is pointed out as key challenge to

Another two significant challenges are ‘Consumer protection issues – proliferation of


and/or between the different actors within your country (institution, government, QA

It is of higher

quality

It is about the

same quality

No opinion

Legend:

A = Risk to the reputation of the institutions (profit driven)

B = Difficult recognition of qualifications

C = Balance of responsibility between provider and receiver

different actors within your country (institution, government, QA agency, etc.)

D = Quality assurance processes (conflict of standards between local/provider QA systems,

absence/lack of coordination between the 2 systems, etc.)

E = Consumer protection issues

F = Attracts criticisms of ‘cultural imperialism’

G = Marketisation / Commercialisation of HEIs

Views are divided equally on issue of whether

all countries/regions.

The strategies to deal with challenges as suggested in survey are given below.

• To appropriately satisfy the different needs of the receiver and sender through

contract and frequent communication.

• Close cooperation between QA and

• Need to provide advisory services to individuals in choosing study destination.

Redesign the recognition procedure to address the challenge

recognition procedure is developed

• Closer cooperation and

21.1%

31.6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

A B

A = Risk to the reputation of the institutions (profit driven)

B = Difficult recognition of qualifications

C = Balance of responsibility between provider and receiver countries and/or between the



absence/lack of coordination between the 2 systems, etc.)

E = Consumer protection issues – proliferation of “diploma mills”

F = Attracts criticisms of ‘cultural imperialism’

G = Marketisation / Commercialisation of HEIs

Views are divided equally on issue of whether the challenges the same for provision from

es to deal with challenges as suggested in survey are given below.

To appropriately satisfy the different needs of the receiver and sender through

contract and frequent communication.

Close cooperation between QA and National Information centers.

Need to provide advisory services to individuals in choosing study destination.

Redesign the recognition procedure to address the challenge

recognition procedure is developed in-house without any technical experti

Closer cooperation and recognitions among evaluation agencies

57.9%

68.4%

63.2%

10.5%

C D E

Page 11 of 27

countries and/or between the



the challenges the same for provision from

es to deal with challenges as suggested in survey are given below.

To appropriately satisfy the different needs of the receiver and sender through

National Information centers.

Need to provide advisory services to individuals in choosing study destination.

Redesign the recognition procedure to address the challenge- the current

without any technical expertise.

among evaluation agencies

10.5%

21.1%

F G

• QAAs to make known the providers they are quality assuring so it'll be easy to

identify which QAA to approach. Improved networking of QAAs Sharing of

information on CBHE Mutual trust between

• Capacity building for local QA agencies' personnel. Local QA standards aligned with

"international standards".

• Need for national regulatory framework for CBHE. Need for mandatory

accreditation of CBHE as per UNESCO

A little more than half respondents say that

own national context) from which students and other stakeholders can find out whether a

cross-border provision (programme or institution) is recognized, lic

assured by your national authorities.

Legal and other challenges related to the recognition procedures and requirements

of CBHE in respondent countries are listed below.

• The CBHE might have to go to the Parliament for their approval

• Need to follow National Standard for Accreditation

• The Ministry of Education's regulations on delivery of CBHE has to be observed by

any foreign CBHE providers in Thailand. That is why not many CBHE providers are

successful in operating in Thailand

• Each HE system has its own QA procedures while the approval/licensing for CBHE

in Vietnam is mainly based on documental evidence, we do not have not resources

to inspect the legal issues in reality

• Access to information on overseas providers through their QAAs wi

quality assurance status of these providers. Common understanding of QA

• Struggling with finding information resources relating to the education system in

foreign countries

• Comparability of qualifications. Lack of international binding guidel

recognition of qualifications

QAAs to make known the providers they are quality assuring so it'll be easy to


information on CBHE Mutual trust between QAAs

Capacity building for local QA agencies' personnel. Local QA standards aligned with

"international standards".

Need for national regulatory framework for CBHE. Need for mandatory

accreditation of CBHE as per UNESCO- OECD guidelines in receiving coun

A little more than half respondents say that there is some public source of information (in


border provision (programme or institution) is recognized, licensed and/or quality

assured by your national authorities.

egal and other challenges related to the recognition procedures and requirements

respondent countries are listed below.

The CBHE might have to go to the Parliament for their approval

Need to follow National Standard for Accreditation

The Ministry of Education's regulations on delivery of CBHE has to be observed by


successful in operating in Thailand

system has its own QA procedures while the approval/licensing for CBHE


to inspect the legal issues in reality

Access to information on overseas providers through their QAAs wi


Struggling with finding information resources relating to the education system in

Comparability of qualifications. Lack of international binding guidel

recognition of qualifications

Page 12 of 27

QAAs to make known the providers they are quality assuring so it'll be easy to


Capacity building for local QA agencies' personnel. Local QA standards aligned with

Need for national regulatory framework for CBHE. Need for mandatory

OECD guidelines in receiving country.

there is some public source of information (in


ensed and/or quality

egal and other challenges related to the recognition procedures and requirements

The CBHE might have to go to the Parliament for their approval

The Ministry of Education's regulations on delivery of CBHE has to be observed by


system has its own QA procedures while the approval/licensing for CBHE


Access to information on overseas providers through their QAAs with regards to


Struggling with finding information resources relating to the education system in

Comparability of qualifications. Lack of international binding guidelines for

Section III- Regulatory and QA Framework

Specific regulatory framework on QA of imported CBHE

About 57% respondents note that their

framework on QA of imported

Imported CBHE subject to compulsory QA procedures

In case of 58% respondents

5.3%5.3%5.3%5.3%

31.6%31.6%31.6%31.6%

23.5%23.5%23.5%23.5%

58.8%58.8%58.8%58.8%

17.6%17.6%17.6%17.6%

Regulatory and QA Framework

ramework on QA of imported CBHE

About 57% respondents note that their country or territory has a specific regulatory

framework on QA of imported CBHE

mported CBHE subject to compulsory QA procedures

In case of 58% respondents imported CBHE is subjected to compulsory QA procedures

5.3%5.3%5.3%5.3%

57.9%57.9%57.9%57.9%

Yes, for incoming provider mobility only

Yes, for both incoming provider and programme mobilityThere is no regulation of CBHE

23.5%23.5%23.5%23.5%No, none are subject (table in next question should be empty)

Yes, all are subject

Page 13 of 27

country or territory has a specific regulatory

imported CBHE is subjected to compulsory QA procedures

Yes, for incoming

incoming provider

Who is responsible for QA of imported CBHE?

Response in table below indicates that in most cases QA

countries are responsible for QA of imported CBHE

The importing institution itself (self

The local delivering institution (self

Government (host country)

Quality Assurance Agency (or equivalent)

Quality Assurance Agency –

Other

Agency involved in the QA of imported CBHE

62 % respondent Agencies are involved in the QA of imported

In most cases [82%] specific

countries or regions.

Data on CBHE categories

agencies.


Branch Campus Provider in country establishes a satellite

campus in country B to deliver courses and

programmes to students in country B (may also

include country A students taking a

semester/courses abroad).The qualification

awarded is from provider in country A.

Independent

Institution



establishes in country B a standalone HEI to

offer courses/programmes and awards.

Who is responsible for QA of imported CBHE?

Response in table below indicates that in most cases QA agencies of both host and provider

countries are responsible for QA of imported CBHE

Provider

mobility

The importing institution itself (self-regulation) 9

The local delivering institution (self-regulation) 9

Government (host country) 9

Quality Assurance Agency (or equivalent) – host country 10

provider country 11

6

lved in the QA of imported CBHE

Agencies are involved in the QA of imported CBHE.

specific arrangements are in place in relation to CBHE from specific

CBHE categories which are subject to QA procedures by


Provider in country establishes a satellite

campus in country B to deliver courses and

programmes to students in country B (may also

include country A students taking a

semester/courses abroad).The qualification

awarded is from provider in country A.



establishes in country B a standalone HEI to

offer courses/programmes and awards.

Page 14 of 27

agencies of both host and provider

Provider

Programme

mobility

10

9

8

9

10

6

in place in relation to CBHE from specific

subject to QA procedures by respondent

Subject

to QA

Not subject

to QA

8 4

8 4


Acquisition/

Merger Foreign provider A purchases a

of local HEI in country B.

Study Centre/

Teaching site




independent or in collaboration with local

providers in country B.

Affiliation/

Networks

Different types of (public and

private)/(traditional and new) providers from

various countries collaborate through

innovative types of partnerships to establish

networks/institution to deliver courses and

programmes in local and foreign countries

through d

Virtual

University


programme to students in different countries

through distance education modes and that

generally does not have face

services for students.

As is evident, CBHE categories like

Acquisition/ Merger are more likely to be subjected to QA

for categories like study centre/ affiliation or virtual

Details of CBHE categories subject


Franchise An arrangement whereby a provider in the source


to deliver their



for-profit commercial arrangement.


Foreign provider A purchases a part of or 100%

of local HEI in country B.




independent or in collaboration with local

iders in country B.

Different types of (public and

private)/(traditional and new) providers from

various countries collaborate through

innovative types of partnerships to establish

networks/institution to deliver courses and

programmes in local and foreign countries

through distance or face-to-face modes.


programme to students in different countries

through distance education modes and that

generally does not have face-to-face support

services for students.

CBHE categories like Branch Campus, Independent

more likely to be subjected to QA procedures.

for categories like study centre/ affiliation or virtual university.

categories subject to QA procedures by respondent Agencies







profit commercial arrangement.

Page 15 of 27

Subject

to QA

Not subject

to QA

8 3

6 5

5 6

6 5

Branch Campus, Independent Institution and

procedures. This is on lower side

respondent Agencies.

Exists Does not

exist

4 8


Twinning A situation whereby a provider in source country A


develop an articulation system allowing student to



provider in the source country. This may or may not


Double/

Joint degree






Articulation Various types of articulation arrangements between

providers in different countries permit student to



Validation Validation arrangements between providers in




Virtual/

Distance


courses/programmes to


include some face


CBHE categories like twinning,

procedures by respondent Agency in majority cases.

validation and virtual/distance education are subjected to QA by respondent

fewer cases.

As the CBHE grows in the region it is noted

[56%] have significantly changed approach to QA

to do so.




develop an articulation system allowing student to



ovider in the source country. This may or may not








providers in different countries permit student to










include some face-to-face support for students


twinning, Double/joint degree or articulation are

procedures by respondent Agency in majority cases. Whereas categories

validation and virtual/distance education are subjected to QA by respondent

As the CBHE grows in the region it is noted that a good number of respondent

[56%] have significantly changed approach to QA-CBHE in the past three years or planning

Page 16 of 27

Exists Does not

exist

8 4

7 5

7 5

4 7

5 6

articulation are subject to QA

Whereas categories like Franchise,

validation and virtual/distance education are subjected to QA by respondent agencies in a

good number of respondent Agencies

CBHE in the past three years or planning

Many agencies [61%] systematically

procedures.

Model/frame of reference for

Local regulations, locally developed guidelines for CBHE and international guidelines like

OECD/UNESCO Guidelines 2005 or UNESCO & APQN Toolkit, Regulating the Quality of

Cross-border Education, 2007 are being used as

QA-CBHE procedures in most cases as seen in figure below.

Legend:

A = Local regulations

B = Locally developed guidelines for CBHE

C = OECD/UNESCO Guidelines for Quality Provision in Cross

2005

D = INQAAHE Guidelines of Good Practice in Quality Assurance, 2007

E = UNESCO & APQN Toolkit, Regulating the Quality of Cross

F = European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ESG),

2005

G = We do not use any specific guidelines for CBHE

H = Other

42.1%

36.8%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

A B

] systematically review their process and methodology for QA

reference for QA-CBHE procedures

ocally developed guidelines for CBHE and international guidelines like


border Education, 2007 are being used as model/frame of reference do you use for

CBHE procedures in most cases as seen in figure below.

B = Locally developed guidelines for CBHE

C = OECD/UNESCO Guidelines for Quality Provision in Cross-border Higher Education,

D = INQAAHE Guidelines of Good Practice in Quality Assurance, 2007

E = UNESCO & APQN Toolkit, Regulating the Quality of Cross-border Education, 2007


ot use any specific guidelines for CBHE

36.8% 36.8%

26.3%

10.5%

C E F G

Page 17 of 27

review their process and methodology for QA-CBHE

ocally developed guidelines for CBHE and international guidelines like


l/frame of reference do you use for

border Higher Education,

border Education, 2007


10.5%

H

Criteria and processes used by

provision

a. Criteria for decisions and formal

outcomes

b. Composition of the expert group

c. Publication of reports

d. Appeals or complaints procedure

e. Follow-up activities

Using both the agency’s “home” and foreign country’s EQA framework seems to be most

popular approach in assessing imported CBHE provision. This is applicable across areas

like-

a. Criteria for decisions and formal outcomes

b. Composition of the expert group

c. Publication of reports


e. Follow-up activities

Criteria and procedures used in assessing imported CBHE

HE provision.

Over 62 % indicate that criteria and procedures used in

differ from those used for QA of local HE provision

31.3%31.3%31.3%31.3%

62.5%62.5%62.5%62.5%

Criteria and processes used by respondent Agencies in assessing imported CBHE

The

foreign

country’s

criteria

Both the agency’s

“home” and foreign

country’s EQA

framework

Criteria for decisions and formal 1 7

Composition of the expert group 0 7

0 7

Appeals or complaints procedure 1 5

1 6

oth the agency’s “home” and foreign country’s EQA framework seems to be most


a. Criteria for decisions and formal outcomes

expert group


riteria and procedures used in assessing imported CBHE and those for QA of local

criteria and procedures used in assessing imported CBHE do not

differ from those used for QA of local HE provision

31.3%31.3%31.3%31.3%

6.3%6.3%6.3%6.3%

Yes, for all programmes/institutions

Page 18 of 27

in assessing imported CBHE

Both the agency’s

“home” and foreign

country’s EQA

Specific rules

for cross-

border

reviews

Other

2 4

0 5

1 5

1 5

0 5

oth the agency’s “home” and foreign country’s EQA framework seems to be most


and those for QA of local

assessing imported CBHE do not

programmes/instituti

Majority [87%] of respondents agree that QA

consideration country needs (e.g. knowledge and technology transfer, infrastructure

development, localisation of research, capacity building, etc.)

Students and alumni/recent graduates involved in the QA of imported CBHE

Students

Alumni/recent graduates

Other stakeholders are involved in the QA of imported CBHE

Management and QA staff of the partnership, programme team, and others like internship

partners, external examiners, external advisors, etc.

In most of the agencies [68%]

with external QA-CBHE.

The scopes of QA-CBHE

The scope of QA of CBHE largely includes portability of qualifications and Student

protection issues.

47.4%47.4%47.4%47.4%

73.7%73.7%73.7%73.7%

0%0%0%0%

10%10%10%10%

20%20%20%20%

30%30%30%30%

40%40%40%40%

50%50%50%50%

60%60%60%60%

70%70%70%70%

80%80%80%80%

Transparen

Transparen

Transparen

Transparen

cy of the

cy of the

cy of the

cy of the

relationship

relationship

relationship

relationship

between

between

between

between …… ……

Portability

Portability

Portability

Portability

Majority [87%] of respondents agree that QA criteria and procedures take into


development, localisation of research, capacity building, etc.)

tudents and alumni/recent graduates involved in the QA of imported CBHE

Yes No

11 3

9 3

Other stakeholders are involved in the QA of imported CBHE


partners, external examiners, external advisors, etc.

In most of the agencies [68%] members of QA review panels are trained to be familiarized


73.7%73.7%73.7%73.7%63.2%63.2%63.2%63.2%

36.8%36.8%36.8%36.8%

Portability

Portability

Portability

Portability

of

of

of of

qualificatio

qualificatio

qualificatio

qualificatio

ns

ns

nsns

Student &

Student &

Student &

Student &

learner

learner

learner

learner

protection

protection

protection

protection

Localisatio

Localisatio

Localisatio

Localisatio

n of

n of

n of

n of

teaching &

teaching &

teaching &

teaching &

learning

learning

learning

learning

Page 19 of 27

criteria and procedures take into


tudents and alumni/recent graduates involved in the QA of imported CBHE.

Other stakeholders are involved in the QA of imported CBHE include employers,


members of QA review panels are trained to be familiarized


5.3%5.3%5.3%5.3%

Other

Other

Other

Other

A large majority [93%] agrees that

CBHE provision in line with national policy objectives

Capacity building

The plans of respondent Agenc

the quality of CBHE include following:

• Train more assessors for imported CBHE.

• We need expertise to help us development of QA

National Information Centre

• Enhance the collaboration with QA agencies abroad to learn and share experiences

and QA procedures Study more on QA

about QA-CBHE

• looking into the feasibility of mutual recognition / joint visit with EQAA of home

country

• Cooperation and collaboration with HEIs and QA agencies in receiving countries

would be important in the context of QA

• Develop a national guideline of good practices on QA

Section IV- collaboration with provider country QA agencies and/or HEIs


A good number of agencies [58%]

QA agencies and/or HEIs for the purpose of QA of imported CBHE

Coverage of collaboration

Collaboration largely cover issues such as information sharing and Joint QA exercises.

Mutual recognition of QA decisions and capacity building are other issues covered by some

agencies. Details can be seen below.

A large majority [93%] agrees that current regulatory and quality assurance framework of

line with national policy objectives.

Agencies to further develop its QA-CBHE processes and improve

include following:

Train more assessors for imported CBHE.

We need expertise to help us development of QA-CBHE process. Need to establish

National Information Centre

Enhance the collaboration with QA agencies abroad to learn and share experiences

and QA procedures Study more on QA -CBHE processes Have more staff

looking into the feasibility of mutual recognition / joint visit with EQAA of home

Cooperation and collaboration with HEIs and QA agencies in receiving countries

would be important in the context of QA-CBHE.

al guideline of good practices on QA-CBHE

collaboration with provider country QA agencies and/or HEIs

A good number of agencies [58%] have some kind of collaboration with provider country

HEIs for the purpose of QA of imported CBHE.



Details can be seen below.

Page 20 of 27

current regulatory and quality assurance framework of

CBHE processes and improve

CBHE process. Need to establish

Enhance the collaboration with QA agencies abroad to learn and share experiences

CBHE processes Have more staff trained

looking into the feasibility of mutual recognition / joint visit with EQAA of home

Cooperation and collaboration with HEIs and QA agencies in receiving countries

collaboration with provider country QA agencies and/or HEIs and role of

have some kind of collaboration with provider country



The challenges in collaborating with QA agencies in the host country for the QA of

CBHE

The challenge as indicated by agencies are listed below.

• The information about the context of higher education and

the host country

• Many providers of imported CBHE

• Sharing and availability of information on CBHE. Agreeing on QA standards and

tools to be used

• Different standards, different culture.

• National sovereignty is a delicate area. Concerns for 'quality' are shared. Resources

(human, financial, etc) are not readily available.

• There is no specific regulation and QA mechanism for joint degree programs which

award one joint qualification upon completion

requirements established by

government is under discussion to change the examination standards and criteria to

allow universities to collaborate with overseas universities and awar

joint degree program issuing a document signing jointly). In response to this change,

QA system may need to be reviewed.

• Lack of dialogue. Lack of multilateral or bilateral arrangements. Conflicts of interest

as many a times each party is interested in protection of own stakeholders. Low

awareness and lack of enforcement of UNESCO

68.4%68.4%68.4%68.4%

52.6%52.6%52.6%52.6%

0%0%0%0%10%10%10%10%20%20%20%20%30%30%30%30%40%40%40%40%50%50%50%50%60%60%60%60%70%70%70%70%80%80%80%80%

Inform

ation

Inform

ation

Inform

ation

Inform

ation

sharing

sharing

sharing

sharing

he challenges in collaborating with QA agencies in the host country for the QA of

The challenge as indicated by agencies are listed below.

The information about the context of higher education and requirements of CBHE in

Many providers of imported CBHE are not aware of the Thai regulations.

Sharing and availability of information on CBHE. Agreeing on QA standards and

Different standards, different culture.

sovereignty is a delicate area. Concerns for 'quality' are shared. Resources

(human, financial, etc) are not readily available.

There is no specific regulation and QA mechanism for joint degree programs which

award one joint qualification upon completion of the collaborative program

requirements established by Japanese and foreign providers


allow universities to collaborate with overseas universities and awar


QA system may need to be reviewed.

Lack of dialogue. Lack of multilateral or bilateral arrangements. Conflicts of interest


awareness and lack of enforcement of UNESCO- OECD guidelines

52.6%52.6%52.6%52.6%42.1%42.1%42.1%42.1% 42.1%42.1%42.1%42.1%

15.8%15.8%15.8%15.8%

Joint QA

Joint QA

Joint QA

Joint QA

exercises

exercises

exercises

exercises

Mutual

Mutual

Mutual

Mutual

recognition/valid

recognition/valid

recognition/valid

recognition/valid

ation of QA

ation of QA

ation of QA

ation of QA

results

results

results

results

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

building in QA

building in QA

building in QA

building in QA-- --

CBHE

CBHE

CBHE

CBHE

Page 21 of 27

he challenges in collaborating with QA agencies in the host country for the QA of

requirements of CBHE in

not aware of the Thai regulations.

Sharing and availability of information on CBHE. Agreeing on QA standards and

sovereignty is a delicate area. Concerns for 'quality' are shared. Resources

There is no specific regulation and QA mechanism for joint degree programs which

of the collaborative program

Japanese and foreign providers. Currently the


allow universities to collaborate with overseas universities and award a degree (a


Lack of dialogue. Lack of multilateral or bilateral arrangements. Conflicts of interest


OECD guidelines

15.8%15.8%15.8%15.8%

Other

Other

Other

Other

The challenges in dealing

CBHE.

The main challenges as comes out from survey are given below.

• Language and information about the higher education and CBHE in the host country.

• The absence of national information centres may b

there is no difference among the providers in this respect.

• Different school system, credit transfer and evaluation standards and indicators.

• Lack of multilateral or bilateral arrangements. Conflicts of interest as many a tim

each party is interested in protection of own stakeholders.

• Different countries have different levels of quality assurance and regulation.

Some examples of good practice in QA for CBHE in relationship with QA

provider countries.

Respondents indicated some generic types of good practices but a very few concrete

examples of such practices are provided as can be noted from points below.

• One good practice could be

the information about the

education. If we know the agency responsible for sharing this information, we could

do well in the cross-border recognition of qualifications.

• UNESCO Cross-Border Higher Education provides good source of info

• In the project of 'CAMPUS Asia' Monitoring, NIAD

assurance agencies in China and Korea created the common framework for

monitoring upon the agreement by the three agencies. Each agency implemented

the first monitoring of

the framework. The three agencies closely communicated in the process of creation

of the framework by holding trilateral and bilateral meetings or information

sharing.

Benefits from sharing of ex

regional or international networks like A

Respondents have strongly supported the role of networks in sharing of experiences and

good practices on QA-CBHE. Some comments are quoted

he challenges in dealing with QA agencies in the provider country for the QA of

The main challenges as comes out from survey are given below.

Language and information about the higher education and CBHE in the host country.

The absence of national information centres may be one challenge here. However,

there is no difference among the providers in this respect.

Different school system, credit transfer and evaluation standards and indicators.

Lack of multilateral or bilateral arrangements. Conflicts of interest as many a tim

each party is interested in protection of own stakeholders.

Different countries have different levels of quality assurance and regulation.

ome examples of good practice in QA for CBHE in relationship with QA

s indicated some generic types of good practices but a very few concrete


One good practice could be knowing which agency or body is responsible to share

the information about the recognized universities or institutions of higher


border recognition of qualifications.

Border Higher Education provides good source of info

In the project of 'CAMPUS Asia' Monitoring, NIAD-UE and the partner quality



the first monitoring of the 'CAMPUS Asia' pilot programs in 2013



from sharing of experiences and good practices on QA

regional or international networks like APQN, ANQAHE, INQAAHE, etc.


CBHE. Some comments are quoted below as it is to illustrate this.

Page 22 of 27

with QA agencies in the provider country for the QA of

Language and information about the higher education and CBHE in the host country.

e one challenge here. However,

Different school system, credit transfer and evaluation standards and indicators.

Lack of multilateral or bilateral arrangements. Conflicts of interest as many a times

Different countries have different levels of quality assurance and regulation.

ome examples of good practice in QA for CBHE in relationship with QA agencies in

s indicated some generic types of good practices but a very few concrete


knowing which agency or body is responsible to share

universities or institutions of higher


Border Higher Education provides good source of information.

UE and the partner quality



the 'CAMPUS Asia' pilot programs in 2013-2014 in line with



periences and good practices on QA-CBHE through

PQN, ANQAHE, INQAAHE, etc.


below as it is to illustrate this.

• Through APQN, we have sent staff for the conference, workshop and the exchange

program, and also signed the MoU with several counter

lots of information and inspiration about the QA

• Yes, of course. Learning new perspective, new framework, new criteria... We need

regional or international networks like APQN, ANQAHE, INQAAHE very much!

• Yes, we have been the member of APQN since 2009. We attended some workshops

and training course related to QA

information from APQN.

• Yes, information gathered and lessons learnt through meetings, conference,

workshops and discussions (online) organized by APQN and INQAAHE have

contributed to the review and strengthening of our policies and procedures on QA of

CBHE

• Yes, the implementation of local QA of CBHE has been benchmarked against the

good practices (e.g. A

regional and international networks.

• Yes. Such forums are much valued for shared understanding of QA terminology and

processes. We also try to learn from each other about dealing with issues in QA of

CBHE

Section V - A few Key messages emerging from

CBHE Profile

CBHE provision is currently available in most of the respondent countries /

it is growing. In terms of the number of students, the role of CBHE pro

countries seems to be marginal.

major form of provider mobility.

and independent institution.

popular types of program mobility in respondent countries.

Australia, UK and USA emerge as clear topers as main

programs are the ones to take major share of program and provider mobility a

to Graduate and Doctoral programs.

increasing cost of studying abroad, access/visa restrictions, etc.) comes out to be the main

reason for development of CBHE at most places.

Through APQN, we have sent staff for the conference, workshop and the exchange

program, and also signed the MoU with several counter-parts, which has provide

lots of information and inspiration about the QA-CBHE.

course. Learning new perspective, new framework, new criteria... We need


Yes, we have been the member of APQN since 2009. We attended some workshops

and training course related to QA -CBHE. We have also benefitted from reading

information from APQN.

Yes, information gathered and lessons learnt through meetings, conference,

kshops and discussions (online) organized by APQN and INQAAHE have


Yes, the implementation of local QA of CBHE has been benchmarked against the

good practices (e.g. APQN Toolkit, INQAAHE GGP) and shared experiences of

regional and international networks.

Yes. Such forums are much valued for shared understanding of QA terminology and


A few Key messages emerging from initial analyses of

CBHE provision is currently available in most of the respondent countries /

In terms of the number of students, the role of CBHE pro

countries seems to be marginal. Branch campus and Affiliation/ networks appear to be

mobility. It is followed by forms /categories like virtual

institution. Articulation, twinning and double/joint degree are most

popular types of program mobility in respondent countries.


programs are the ones to take major share of program and provider mobility a

to Graduate and Doctoral programs. Decreasing outbound student mobility (due to


reason for development of CBHE at most places.

Page 23 of 27

Through APQN, we have sent staff for the conference, workshop and the exchange

parts, which has provide

course. Learning new perspective, new framework, new criteria... We need


Yes, we have been the member of APQN since 2009. We attended some workshops

CBHE. We have also benefitted from reading

Yes, information gathered and lessons learnt through meetings, conference,

kshops and discussions (online) organized by APQN and INQAAHE have


Yes, the implementation of local QA of CBHE has been benchmarked against the

PQN Toolkit, INQAAHE GGP) and shared experiences of

Yes. Such forums are much valued for shared understanding of QA terminology and


survey-

CBHE provision is currently available in most of the respondent countries / territories and

In terms of the number of students, the role of CBHE provision in Asian

Branch campus and Affiliation/ networks appear to be

like virtual university

double/joint degree are most

Asia Pacific region. UG

programs are the ones to take major share of program and provider mobility as compared

Decreasing outbound student mobility (due to


Level of awareness and pa

UNESCO-OECD guidelines is low among various stakeholders.

qualifications is noted as a major concern for QA of CBHE in most [68%] Asian countries

large section of respondents






quality. About 36% respondents feel that overall perception of imported CBHE by

European providers is of higher quality as compared to local provision while about 26%

says it is of same quality.

Majority of the respondents [68%] agree that

system of HE in your country, in terms of academic standards, HE acces

assurance processes (conflict of standards between local/provider QA systems,


CBHE.

There is increased need for some public source of information

from which students and other stakeholders can find out whether a cross

(programme or institution) is recognized, licensed and/or quality assured by your national

authorities.


About 57% respondents note that their

framework on QA of imported CBHE

subjected to compulsory QA procedures

Campus, Independent Institution and Acquisition/ Merger are more likely to be subjected

to QA procedures. This is on lower side for categories like study centre/ affiliation or

virtual university.

CBHE categories like twinning, Double/joint degree or articulation ar

procedures by respondent Agency in majority cases. Whereas categories like Franchise,

Level of awareness and participation of higher education stakeholders in implementing

OECD guidelines is low among various stakeholders.

qualifications is noted as a major concern for QA of CBHE in most [68%] Asian countries

large section of respondents [ 68%] have legal and other issues related to the recognition




of respondents feel that overall perception of imported CBHE is of



of higher quality as compared to local provision while about 26%

Majority of the respondents [68%] agree that CBHE has a positive influence on the national

system of HE in your country, in terms of academic standards, HE acces



There is increased need for some public source of information (in own national context)

from which students and other stakeholders can find out whether a cross



About 57% respondents note that their country or territory has a specific regulatory

framework on QA of imported CBHE. In case of 58% respondents

subjected to compulsory QA procedures. As is evident, CBHE categories like

ependent Institution and Acquisition/ Merger are more likely to be subjected


CBHE categories like twinning, Double/joint degree or articulation ar


Page 24 of 27

rticipation of higher education stakeholders in implementing

OECD guidelines is low among various stakeholders. Comparability of

qualifications is noted as a major concern for QA of CBHE in most [68%] Asian countries. A

legal and other issues related to the recognition


of respondents feel that overall perception of imported CBHE is of



of higher quality as compared to local provision while about 26%

CBHE has a positive influence on the national

system of HE in your country, in terms of academic standards, HE access, etc. Quality



(in own national context)

from which students and other stakeholders can find out whether a cross-border provision


country or territory has a specific regulatory

In case of 58% respondents imported CBHE is

As is evident, CBHE categories like Branch

ependent Institution and Acquisition/ Merger are more likely to be subjected


CBHE categories like twinning, Double/joint degree or articulation are subject to QA



fewer cases.

Local regulations, Locally developed guidelines f


Cross-border Education, 2007 are being used as

QA-CBHE procedures in most cases.

Using both the agency’s “home” and foreign country’s EQA framework seems to be most

popular approach in assessing imported CBHE provision.

and procedures used in assessing imported CBHE do not differ from those used for QA of

local HE provision. Majority [87%] of respondents agree that QA

take into consideration country needs (e.g. knowledge and technology transfer,

infrastructure development, localisation of research, capacity building, etc.)


protection issues. Need for capacity building for development of QA

many respondent countries is stressed besides

Centres and collaborations.

Collaborations

A good number of agencies [58%]

QA agencies and/or HEIs for the purpose of QA of imported CBHE

cover issues such as information sharing and Joint QA ex

information sharing and issues like cultural / sovereignty concerns are some of

impediments in collaborations.

Language barriers m lack of NICs, absence of multilateral agreements, etc

key challenges noted for collaborations

the need for collaboration and networks in sharing of experiences and good practices on

QA-CBHE.

Limitations of survey and analyses

It needs to mentioned here that this survey and analyses have some limitations as

Any such survey might have.


Local regulations, Locally developed guidelines for CBHE and international guidelines like


border Education, 2007 are being used as model/frame of reference do you use for

CBHE procedures in most cases.

the agency’s “home” and foreign country’s EQA framework seems to be most

popular approach in assessing imported CBHE provision. Over 62% indicate that


Majority [87%] of respondents agree that QA criteria and procedures


infrastructure development, localisation of research, capacity building, etc.)

of CBHE largely includes portability of qualifications and Student

Need for capacity building for development of QA

many respondent countries is stressed besides need to establish National Information

A good number of agencies [58%] have some kind of collaboration with provider country

QA agencies and/or HEIs for the purpose of QA of imported CBHE.

cover issues such as information sharing and Joint QA exercises.


impediments in collaborations.

Language barriers m lack of NICs, absence of multilateral agreements, etc

key challenges noted for collaborations. Respondent agencies fully appreciate and support


Limitations of survey and analyses

ioned here that this survey and analyses have some limitations as

Any such survey might have. A few are given below.

Page 25 of 27


or CBHE and international guidelines like


model/frame of reference do you use for

the agency’s “home” and foreign country’s EQA framework seems to be most

Over 62% indicate that criteria


criteria and procedures


infrastructure development, localisation of research, capacity building, etc.).

of CBHE largely includes portability of qualifications and Student

Need for capacity building for development of QA-CBHE processes in

eed to establish National Information

have some kind of collaboration with provider country

. Collaboration largely

ercises. Lack of dialogue,


Language barriers m lack of NICs, absence of multilateral agreements, etc. are some of the

Respondent agencies fully appreciate and support


ioned here that this survey and analyses have some limitations as

• APQN has over 52 members which are QA bodies. About 19 responses used in this

analyses may not be a good sample to draw generalizations.

• Many of the responses are based on opinions and views

• Data given by respondents is not subjected to cross check

• Survey analyses is not supplemented by research and other secondary sources

Despite these and other limitations , it is hoped that survey poin

trends of QA of CBHE across Asia and pacific regions.

APQN has over 52 members which are QA bodies. About 19 responses used in this

analyses may not be a good sample to draw generalizations.

Many of the responses are based on opinions and views

Data given by respondents is not subjected to cross check

Survey analyses is not supplemented by research and other secondary sources

Despite these and other limitations , it is hoped that survey points to status and some key

trends of QA of CBHE across Asia and pacific regions.

*****

Page 26 of 27

APQN has over 52 members which are QA bodies. About 19 responses used in this

Survey analyses is not supplemented by research and other secondary sources

ts to status and some key

List of participating countries/ territories and agencies

1. Australia – NEAS

2. Australia – Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency

3. Bhutan – Quality Assurance and Accreditation Division

4. Cambodia – Accreditation Committee of Cambodia

5. China – China Academic Degree and Graduate Education Development Center

6. China – Shanghai Education Evaluation Institute

7. China – Yunnan Higher Education

8. Fiji – Secretariat of the Pacific Board for Educational Assessment (SPBEA)

9. Hong Kong – Hong Kong Council for Accreditation of Academic and Vocational

Qualifications

10. India – National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC)

11. Japan – Japan University Accreditation Association

12. Japan – National Institution for Academic Degrees and University Evaluation (NIAD

UE)

13. Malaysia – Malaysian Qualifications Agency

14. Maldives – Maldives Qualifications Authority

15. Republic of Korea – Korean Cou

16. Samoa – Samoa Qualifications Authority

17. Taiwan – Taiwan Assessment and Evaluation Association

18. Thailand – Office for National Education Standards and Quality Assessment (Public

Organization)

19. Vietnam – Vocational Training Accr

Training


Education Quality and Standards Agency

Quality Assurance and Accreditation Division

Accreditation Committee of Cambodia

China Academic Degree and Graduate Education Development Center

Shanghai Education Evaluation Institute

Yunnan Higher Education Evaluation Centre (YHEEC)

of the Pacific Board for Educational Assessment (SPBEA)

Hong Kong Council for Accreditation of Academic and Vocational

National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC)

Japan University Accreditation Association

Institution for Academic Degrees and University Evaluation (NIAD

Malaysian Qualifications Agency

Maldives Qualifications Authority

Korean Council for University Education

Samoa Qualifications Authority

Taiwan Assessment and Evaluation Association

Office for National Education Standards and Quality Assessment (Public

Vocational Training Accreditation Agency, Directorate of Vocational

Page 27 of 27


China Academic Degree and Graduate Education Development Center

of the Pacific Board for Educational Assessment (SPBEA)

Hong Kong Council for Accreditation of Academic and Vocational

National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC)

Institution for Academic Degrees and University Evaluation (NIAD-

Office for National Education Standards and Quality Assessment (Public

editation Agency, Directorate of Vocational

Annexure - 1

Documents

Quality Assurance of Cross -border Higher Education … Survey-APQN analyses.pdf · Preliminary Analyses of Survey 1. Introduction Cross-border higher education ... Fiji France India