UNIVERSITY autonomy is again back on the front burner. Ideas and Yayasan Sime Darby will be hosting next week the National Higher Education Conference 2017 on how to make our universities more autonomous. It is a defining moment for higher education in Malaysia to once again put forward the agenda on a national pedestal, if not internationally.

The last time this happened was in 2005 where the Ministry of Higher Education, which was just created then, set up a committee to look into the possibility of “transforming” higher education, chaired by the eminent educationist, Tan Sri Wan Zahid Noordin.

The committee in its final report, which was tabled in Parliament, suggested more than 130 recommendations with university autonomy at the heart of it all. Unfortunately, little has come out of it although there were more reports commissioned but all left the issue of autonomy in abeyance.

Hence the roundtable discussion serves as another milestone where issues related to university autonomy are being rearticulated after intensive research and consultative discussions culminating in the historic meeting of minds on May 23.

More so because the issue of university autonomy has been misunderstood, especially post-1974 following the Baling incident where university students became more vocal in asserting their social responsibility by speaking up for the marginalised. Right or wrong, they chose to exercise their ideas of what social responsibility means to them in the way many of their counterparts did across the globe. This was somewhat globally synergised by various local initiatives led by students supported by academics, by and large.

In Malaysia, such synergy took an unprecedented cohesiveness (akin to 1Malaysia) among several major student bodies beyond the usual divide. Unfortunately, it took a “dark” turn in the history of student activism when administrative and legalistic “intrusions” were swiftly applied. Campuses were raided, and several students were taken into “detention” allegedly to help with “investigations” as to the way the students discharged their social responsibilities, and engaging with the community that they belonged to.

In a nutshell, university autonomy as it was understood and practised then was intensely scrutinised. It would be fair to say that this left a marked impact in shifting what and how knowledge is to be delivered, generated and disseminated – be it in lecture halls or laboratories. Even more so in the field where public engagement with the community used to be openly conducted and encouraged. In short, the administration and management of the university were “transformed” to be more akin towards a bureaucracy delegated to academics who “think” and “act” more like technocrats and less so as inherent (public) intellectuals – at least viewed from the pre-1974 perspectives where collegiality ruled.

Consequently, the scholastic environment was (and is) more subdued (colloquially, described as monyok) , more compliance (ampu) and more “head-nodding” (anggok) with curbs on debates and dissent which used to be the hallmarks of a vibrant and concerned university. No doubt the outcome was well aligned to the establishment’s notion of what a university ought to be – the feel and touch, reducing it closer to a glorified “high-school” as observed by those who had sampled the two sides of the divide. They were also quick to remind us of what Voltaire observed, namely: “It is dangerous to be right, when the government is wrong.” In no time this became the mantra of the day, where things are left entirely to the supposed wisdom (and fancies) of the powers that be, for more than 40 years now. This is despite the oft-repeated cliché acknowledging that “the days of the government knows best are over”. Except perhaps in matters related to university autonomy it seems!

Yet the reality is that universities are more robust than what we know. Universities tend to outlast even empires and civilisations that created them. Let alone any form of government. For example, the first university in the world built by a woman, Fatima al-Fihri, in Fez in 859 is still standing amid the many changes in the socio-political milieu of not just the nation, but the region too from the 9th century. Although it took several “beatings” from the establishment, the essence and values of what constitutes autonomy outlive the very powers that be. Likewise when the British Empire vanished last century, the universities continued to thrive.

Perhaps this is the lesson that we need to reflect upon as we drill down in the discourse during the roundtable. Especially so when the Ministry of Higher Education threw open the Pandora’s Box after the minister spoke about “reimagining higher education” during his annual address in February. What is obvious is that there can be little to (re)imagine sans autonomy in the broadest sense of the word. Hence the need for autonomy is essentially given.

To reinforce this, consider the following working definition of what a university is, crafted more than 10 years ago at a Higher Education Summit in Bangkok attended by more than 1,600 delegates, including some 245 leaders of universities, from more than 85 countries. The summit adopted the Bangkok Declaration on Higher Education (July 23, 2006) which recognises the following:

“Universities must strive to be above politics and business interests and serve their societies and communities by providing a voice and space in which to cultivate rational, mutual and moderate dialogues that will shape intellectual, cultural and economic development on a shared basis.”

The declaration is clear that universities indeed shape the future much in tandem with the statements adopted earlier (in 1998) by the Unesco-based International Association of Universities in Paris.

The roundtable will present four discussion papers based on research and several consultations over the last 12 months. It covers various aspects that illuminate another high point to dignify our universities as autonomous and accountable institutions so as to enable them to truly “soar upwards” taking their rightful place in the reimagined world of higher education in the making.

Members of the academe and public are cordially invited to take part in the half-day session on May 23. Admission is free. Registration begins at 8.30am at Sime Darby Convention Centre.

Dzulkifli Abdul Razak is Honorary Professor at the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus. He was appointed as IDEAS’ Chair in Higher Education to lead this project to study how institutions of higher learning in Malaysia can improve with more autonomy and ensuring they are accountable. The study builds upon the National Higher Education Blueprint as well as the Wan Zahid Report of 2005.  He was awarded the Universitas21 2017 Gilbert Medal at the University of Nottingham on 4 May 2017, and he is the seventh recipient and the first from Asia to receive the medal. 

The post Reclaiming University autonomy appeared first in TheSunDaily on 17th May 2017.

The post Reclaiming university autonomy appeared first on Knowledge Without Borders.

On 24 May, I had the opportunity to participate in a highly interactive webinar session hosted by University World News in partnership with DrEducation, LLC. The successful webinar attracted 950 higher education professionals globally.

The aim of the webinar is to accomplish three things, which I felt the hosts did. They are to create an interactive online-based platform to welcome everyone from different parts of the world (and time zones). Most importantly, the webinar aims to bring experts to facilitate a discourse rather than conducting the traditional presentation style format type of debate on the topic.

Dr Rahul Choudaha, principal researcher and CEO of DrEducation convened a panel of global experts and moderated the discussion on TNE growth together with DrEducation cofounder Di Hu. The TNE panel comprised of the following:

• Dr Nigel Healey, PhD, Pro-Vice-Chancellor (International) and Head of College, Nottingham Trent University
• Dr Jason E. Lane, PhD, Vice Provost for Academic Planning and Strategic Leadership and Senior Associate Vice Chancellor, State University of New York
• Dr Elizabeth J. Stroble, PhD, President, Webster University
• Dr Stéphan Vincent-Lancrin, PhD, Deputy Head of Division and Senior Analyst, OECD

Talks were organised in a few themes, referred from the panel’s most recent works related to TNE. The examples are tied to the main research question for the webinar, “Transnational Education – Growth at the expense of quality”.

Here in a nutshell, is the 60-minute webinar session summary. A recorded version is made available to registered participants. Interested readers are welcomed to contact the organisers directly for the password to access the recorded version of the webinar.

Preliminary questions on growth and quality in transnational education (TNE)

For the purpose of the debate, TNE is defined according to the current ‘working definition’ of UNESCO’s Code of Good Practice in the Provision of TNE (2001) as where the learner is located in a country different from the one where the awarding institution is based in all types of higher education programmes. The webinar looks into whether TNE growth will occur at the expense of quality because there are different types of global engagement in TNE – from validation to international branch campus. Each model of global engagement is differentiated by resources required to achieve quality control in the growth process.

Therefore, to kick-start the session, Choudaha posed the following questions to the panel, to engage their viewpoints.

• What are your challenges in balancing growth and quality (within the sector/your institution)?
• Do you see a tension related to growth and quality equation in TNE?
• The country perspective of tension between quality and growth, does it exist?
• How do you think of the equation of growth and quality is shaping up (today)?

Views from the experts on the preliminary questions

Dr Stéphan Vincent-Lancrin asserts that TNE definitely raises new questions on academic quality. Due to the cross-border nature of the TNE programme, transparency of information in terms of the delivered programme, work provision is definitely required. Most OECD countries will follow the guidelines aimed at TNE governments, and other accreditation organisation types to ensure sustainability of quality in accreditation and awarding of degrees. New Zealand and South Korea definitely stood out for complying with the OECD requirements. Clear information dissemination from institution to the country level to students is essential for the institutions to achieve a comprehensive quality assurance system in the TNE model the country adopts.

Dr Nigel Healey, on the other hand, focuses on the reputational risks in the TNE models. Since there are so many different forms of TNE models out there – distance learning, IBC, franchise, validation, the varying forms definitely highlight one of the biggest challenges in sustaining TNE quality assurance. With reference from a risk-based typology from one of his recent work, there will definitely be reputational risks with TNE franchising and validation. Being a member of a British government funded research team on TNE in the UK, he shared valuable insights with the participants from his institution’s perspective and experience in TNE.

Dr Elizabeth Stroble views that quality is necessary if one wants to achieve growth. It is a dynamic arrangement where you cannot achieve one without the other. Therefore, establishing credibility and providing value propositions is important to prove that the institution credibility in what was said and communicated to the audience. Cases in point are the ability to adapt to local surroundings that the Webster University adopted when they launched the both Ghana and Austrian campuses respectively. In order to make Webster U a stronger institution, the institution does not call them branch campuses but think of them as additional centres in a different location.

Shifting regulations on quality assurance in TNE

Choudaha asked the panel of experts to respond to the corresponding shift in regulations from governments on higher education, where he shared examples of the changing regulations in countries like UAE and China.  In the UAE, the education ministry warns students of unaccredited online foreign degree, where only a 100+ approved university degrees will only be recognised. Meanwhile in China, there is a strengthening of quality assurance systems of Sino-foreign cooperation in running joint programs and institute through improving the management of penalties and mechanism. Changes like these could also cause the exit of institutions running TNE programmes in the said countries.  From the scenarios, it is clear that the role of regulations can differ in both host and sending country. This can create a list of challenges for all parties, especially for the students and other stakeholders.

Vincent-Lancrin stressed that a shared responsibility is a key to defining what the requirements are and setting of guidelines between host and sending countries. Governments have to work together to develop and define the regulations and ensure that growth and quality provision is balanced. Clear criteria setting is crucial because too many added or unsystematic procedures on accreditation can hinder growth of institutions. From an institutional perspective, Dr Jason Lane shared that there’s no straightforward ability to respond, because once you leave your home country, a lot of regulations can change. A lot of examples on the closure of branch campuses, due to the changes occurring. What’s notable is more governments are making serious academic decisions based on findings of rankings in to decide in the perception of quality of institutions within the host country.

Healey reminded the participants that the discourse of TNE higher education is often conducted in the language of business. In addition, it is easy to forget that higher education is also a highly regulated and politicised sector because national governments have very legitimate higher education policy interests, especially on subjects taught. In the UK, QAA works very hard in liaising with foreign ministries in other countries to ensure policy guidelines are implemented seamlessly as it is very easy to be caught off guard on the changes that happen.

The future of TNE

On the future of TNE, Choudaha state that there are multiple views to it where education will be unbundled and degrees will be disaggregated into smaller credential units, with the possibility that the credentialing entity may be different from the institution that offers the course. Healey predicted that a big game change in the future of TNE is students will start their course overseas before moving to the UK.  Stroble further predicted that the future direction in TNE will be a mixture of joint degrees and online education, and based on Webster University’s experience, it is interesting to note that people who are doing online courses are the ones that are located close to the campus. “Seeing you on the ground builds confidence and trust on the value of the online course”, she said.

Lane said it is hard to predict how TNE will grow and evolve especially as branch campuses may spin off into something new. He agreed that stackable credits for acquiring skills as opposed to credit hour content, and institutions will definitely look into digital badging with the emergence of MOOCs as alternative providers in offering education. Students will still value a hybrid education (online and physical presence) as we move forward. This is also agreed by fellow panels on the webinar.

Useful links:

Webinar on Transnational Education: Recording of the Online Discussion with Global Experts (24 May 2016)

Ensuring Quality in Cross-Border Higher Education Implementing the UNESCO/OECD Guideline (2015)

Towards a risk-based typology for transnational education (2015)

Regulating Cross-border Higher Education: A case study of the United States (2013)

Know your international student – global or glocal? (2013)

Code of Good Practice in the Provision of Transnational Education (2001)

Yeong Woon Chin is currently the Research & Executive Administrator for Knowledge Without Borders Networkand a Ph.D. candidate in the Faculty of Arts & Social Sciences at The University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus.

The post Transnational education – growth at the expense of quality? A @uniworldnews webinar, 24 May 2016 appeared first on Knowledge Without Borders.

Many factors help shape the landscape of international education every year. The factors can create an impact at all levels of the international higher education industry. Prominent international higher education websites and a key figure, Times Higher Education, THE PIE News and Hans de Wit made their predictions on the trends that will have an impact to the international higher education industry in 2016.

Brexit, employability rankings and gender equality movement in HE are the few key predictions made by bloggers and social media followers in the Times Higher Education post. THE PIE News sees 2016 will be about finding innovative ways to focus on providing better international student support, especially in enhancing their student experience and learning outcomes while at the university. Professor de Wit views that the few dominant developments in 2015 such as lower tuition fees or tuition-free higher education, other forms of internationalisation and global instability, terrorism and the refugee crisis will have a strong impact in the year 2016 as well.

The blog posts on

1. What does 2016 have in store for higher education appeared first on Times Higher Education on January 6, 2016.
2. What will shape international education in 2016 appeared first on THE PIE News on January 8, 2016.
3. Looking forward to 2016 appeared first on UniversityWorldNews on January 8, 2016.

Yeong Woon Chin is currently the Research & Executive Administrator for Knowledge Without Borders Network and a Ph.D. candidate in the Faculty of Arts & Social Sciences at The University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus.

The post Predictions for the 2016 international education industry appeared first on Knowledge Without Borders.

I had the opportunity to attend an interesting seminar, organised by Jeffrey Cheah Institute on SouthEast Asia at Sunway University College recently. Titled “Strengthening the Higher Education Sector in Malaysia”, the seminar focused on bringing new issues and perspectives into Malaysian education system by drawing experience and lessons from three countries, with speakers from Australia, Philippines and from Malaysia.

I had looked forward to this seminar because it is a chance for me to be able to visit other local Malaysian higher education institutions, and also to expand my knowledge on the state of Malaysian education system, given how it has gone flip-flopping over the years at the school level. Despite the obstacles it faced, the education system in Malaysia then and now has always been a federal matter, regardless whether it is at the school or tertiary level.

Moderated by Prof Woo Wing Thye, it was a lively seminar where it focuses on three key themes that can influence a country’s education system. They are:

• How important it is to have a good skills development from home,
• The impact of natural disaster on a nation’s education and
• How implementation and good governance is vital to ensure that Malaysia successfully transformed itself into a major education hub of the region.

Professor Martin Hayden mentioned in his talk there are emerging skills problems for the workforce in Asian countries because there are skill gaps, shortages and mismatches in education systems that do not provide for a nation’s needs. A report by Asian Development Bank (2015) shows that developing Asia has done well at increasing access to education. However, it lacks the focus on providing quality education to ensure that its workforce has matching skills to transform the region into economic prosperity. He emphasized the importance of having good skills training from young, at both home and school level to create a good foundation for students as they progressed in each level of studies.

The next speaker, Dr Lorraine Symaco spoke about the importance of implementing a successful education which is corruption and disaster free for a country’s development. Using her home country, Phillippines as a case study example, she showed the audience pictures of children at home (and within the region) having to go through hardships and dangerous mode of travel to attend school. She shared with us on the realities of the education system in Phillippines, where it is affected, governed and implemented by controllable and uncontrollable forces such as the continuous natural disasters, corruption, education in conflict areas, and limited access to education.

Dr Symaco reminded the audience (majority Malaysians) that we should be thankful for the situation that we are experiencing despite the negative information that is widely spreading on social media and other media channel. According to her, compared to children back at home, we Malaysians are luckier because we need to rework our education system and managing it effectively through any new policy implementation. We must also be constantly asking ourselves “What type of education we want for our children?” and not fight about unnecessary matters that will affect education policy.

The third and last speaker, Professor Ghauth Jasmon lectured about realizing the idea of Malaysia as a successful regional education hub. The topic drew a polite chuckle from the audience (who are also majority Malaysian parents as well) given how disputed the topic on Malaysian education has been on the Malaysian media. He focused his points towards the impact of budget cuts in higher education by 15% from the recently announced Malaysia 2016 budget. He drew the attention on how the cuts will affect the 10 shifts introduced in the Malaysian Education Blueprint (HE) 2015-2025. Historically, the country’s national budget allocation for higher education has been on the declined rate for the past six years (since 2010). The decline according to him should not be affecting Malaysia HEIs drastically if all universities senior management (specifically the public universities) have a clear institutional strategy and entrepreneurship direction.

Change and innovation have been happening in Malaysian education system since its independence in 1957. What is clear that consistent policy changes are required at the foundation (school) level and gradually building it until the tertiary level. The main problem with overall Malaysian education system is there is too much interference from politics. At the school level, schools will be divided along racial lines. This will continue until the tertiary level where access to education will continue to be unequal in many areas because scholarship, access to good ranking institutions are all government-run and abused by the decision makers through their ‘nation-building programmes’.

To ensure the success of a better Malaysian education system, the government needs to put aside their differences while working towards achieving the goal of improving the quality of education. Politics needs to be taken out of every decision making and not waste too much time debating on what benefits one ethnic group over the other. Listening to the three speakers sharing their knowledge, experience and suggestion for best practices made me realised that a well-structured national policy can be done. It is a matter whether we want to be creative and realistic in increasing equality to education through strategic implementation and strengthening them at the national level. After all, the ultimate goal is still to ensure that the Malaysian youths are equipped with skills that enable them to compete at the global level and be well-rounded global citizens.

Useful links:

http://www.adb.org/publications/key-indicators-asia-and-pacific-2015

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/09578239810238456#_i5

https://hornbillunleashed.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/45687/

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/education-system-in-need-of-drastic-radical-change-says-ku-li

http://m.malaysiakini.com/news/317029

https://www.studymalaysia.com/education/higher-education-in-malaysia/the-malaysian-higher-education-system-an-overview

http://www.academia.edu/8549539/Educational_Development_and_Reformation_in_the_Malaysian_Education_System_Challenges_in_the_New_Millennium

Yeong Woon Chin is currently the Research & Executive Administrator for Knowledge Without Borders Network and a Ph.D. candidate in the Faculty of Arts & Social Sciences at The University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus.

The post Some thoughts on “Strengthening the Higher Education Sector in Malaysia”, a JCI (SEA) event appeared first on Knowledge Without Borders.

Recently I had the opportunity to participate in a webinar on achieving international student enrollment goals given by Dr Rahul Choudaha, the CKO of WES (Chief Knowledge Officer of World Education Services). Organized by IEAA Australia, the 1 hour 20 minutes session saw participants from Australia, Singapore, NZ, HK and Malaysia. I found it both educational and enjoyable because I am able to listen to Dr Rahul Choudaha speaking live from New York itself. The wonders of technology and the Internet.

This essay reflects on how to prepare for a webinar and the session content and takeaways.

The days before…

All resources provided to me on how to record a webinar has been helpful, but sadly, non-useful. Luckily, the organizer forwarded the recorded session clip and presentation materials to participants after the event. The materials were forwarded two hours immediately after the event ended. I hope all organizers will do the same in other webinars too!

Eventually, our university IS office suggested a recording platform called Echo360. Echo360 is a live lecture capturing system that records audio, visuals (slides) and optional videos in a digital format. Launched in 2014 across UNMC, Echo360 is an audio / video recording software that can capture lecture for students who are not able to join classes. I also discovered it to be a very useful computerized video recording tool as well, if you choose not to publish certain recordings that have been recorded because a backup is saved in the computer drive that you are logged in.

For my case, it is helpful to capture a live webinar event. I believe with proper editing, processing and archiving, I am able to share events that I have participated to all users on the Echo360 platform. Colleagues can view my published videos online as long as they have an Echo360 account, with technical support by Fazlin from IS office. At the time of writing, my recorded session video is not published yet because of some technical glitches.

The session contents…

Rahul started the session by reminding participants on what understanding recruitment trends mean for universities, especially recruiters who today are facing a complex, competitive and changing landscape of global student mobility.

According to Rahul, developing a sustainable recruitment strategy is the key to achieving international student enrollment goals. Prior to shaping an international enrollment strategy, institutions should be asking themselves the following two questions (with short explanation included):

• How can they maximize resources to achieve international student enrollment goals?

Quick fix strategy – Are institutions being reactive towards anecdotal information of market trends, being disjointed in the delivery of student experiences or solely just focusing on the student numbers?

Sustainable strategy – Are institutions being proactive in gathering primary research evidence, provide integrated campus services and experience so that students have a seamless student lifecycle and continuously preparing to recruit quality students?

• How do institutions develop an informed enrollment strategy?

Who are the key segments? What type of students are there who is interested in the university?

Where are the prioritizing markets? Where are they located within China or India market? What type of students or schools that the recruiter is looking for?

How do we reach the relevant channels? How will the university communicate to the specific market?

When it comes to understanding student mobility trends, there is a dynamic change on the student mobility trends. In 2009, students generally will prefer to study in the UK and Australia because of the 911 attack in the US and the 2008 global financial crisis. The two global events that happened definitely have affected student decision making to study abroad. During the same period, there is also a rise in student mobility from source countries like China and India heading to the UK, US and Australia because there are significant demographic changes and economic growth within these countries. Rahul emphasized that recruiters should see changes as an opportunity because they are often overlooked in university enrollment strategies. Other contributing factors include economic driver and institutions quality of the destination country, the China effect (at US universities), diaspora (existing community) effect at destination country and student experience.

According to a 2012 statistics (UNESCO and World Bank), source and destination countries of globally mobile students to Australia, UK, and the US are primarily from Asia. China ranks at #1 in three destinations, followed by Malaysia and India. He emphasized that with the huge gap in numbers (see slide #18 for the statistics table) between source country #1 and #2 shows that universities need to look beyond China and not depending on it as a primary source of students. Institutions need to be prepared to adopt a proactive approach to cultivating the next sets of market and segments when it comes to international student recruitment. To answer to the question on the next set of growth markets in higher education, a 2013/14 research by WES indicates that it would be Brazil, Vietnam, Indonesia and Nigeria.

When it comes to understanding student segments and adapting recruitment strategies, Rahul stressed that doing research in the markets is important for all universities. This will help institutions to prepare and understand who their students are. By asking the right questions and conducting proper segmenting of the information that institutions have will help them to focus on the highest value opportunities rather than reactively acting based on data obtained. According to Rahul further, studies have shown that there are clear differences among potential students. Using a two by two-segmentation framework, Rahul, and his research team identified four types of student categories, the strugglers (immigration), highfliers (prestige), strivers (advancement) and explorers (experience).

The takeaway from this session and in the words of Rahul, “A lot of variables / changes will be beyond the control of a university. Preparing for future markets is important. Identify your own set of emerging market is a key thing today. What will be your definition and criteria of an emerging market? No students can be boxed into each category alone. Institutions will have to be proactively gathering information of students needs to know what the relevant segments for their institutions are. Communication messages can then be mapped based on the needs of each student segment.”

On reflection, the common theme that bound all participants was our interest and passion for international education and student life cycle in higher education. From maximizing existing resources and asking the right questions on how to achieve sustainable international student enrollment goals, I find it encouraging that all participants from this webinar shared a common interest on this topic. I hope to continue to ‘celebrate student enrollment in higher ed’ with like-minded education practitioners and academics in times to come.

Webinar materials:

Slides

Recording (password: ieaa)

Yeong Woon Chin is currently the Research & Executive Administrator for Knowledge Without Borders Network and a Ph.D. candidate in the Faculty of Arts & Social Sciences at The University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus.

The post Global Student mobility: Insights and implications for your recruitment strategy – a webinar by Dr Rahul Choudaha appeared first on Knowledge Without Borders.

Overseas branch campus are not becoming weaker or becoming less common, says Professor Christine Ennew, Provost and CEO of the University of Nottingham’s Malaysia Campus.

The post Branch campus death knell ‘over-exaggerated’, says offshore provost appeared first on Times Higher Education on 30^th July 2015.

The post Branch campus death knell ‘over-exaggerated’, says offshore provost appeared first on Knowledge Without Borders.

In early April, Malaysia announced its Higher Education Blueprint 2015-2025 – a bold statement of how the country’s higher education sector would be transformed over the coming decade. It builds on and complements the Education Blueprint launched in 2013 which in turn had been designed to transform the schooling system. The focus of the Education Blueprint was improving teacher quality, reducing administrative burdens, broadening access, and reforming curriculum and assessment in order to propel Malaysia to a position in the top one-third of countries global in PISA and TIMS by 2025. Together these two documents signal a desire for major and transformative change in education. And both are clearly needed.

Malaysia has invested heavily in its education sector. Currently the Federal Government devotes in excess of 20% of its expenditure to education at all levels – a higher proportion than that observed in many high income countries. In higher education, specifically, the latest “Universitas21 Ranking of National Higher Education Systems” places Malaysia 12^th in the world in terms of the resources committed to higher education and in the top 3 in the world if the level of economic development is taken into account.

But all of the evidence would suggest that this investment is not generating the return that Government and society might have expected. A recently announced study by the OECD[1] provides a global ranking of the performance of school systems around the world, drawing on the OECD’s own PISA tests, the US-based TIMSS assessment and Latin America’s TERCE system. The test scores reported for Malaysian secondary school students were disappointing and the country ranked 52^nd out of 76 countries in the analysis. In contrast, Asian neighbours, Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan occupied the top 5 places in the league table.

The picture at tertiary level is more mixed. Malaysian Universities have not performed well in global rankings and currently there is only one Malaysian University in the QS World top 200 (although there are 6 in the Asian top 200). No Malaysian University makes it to the top 200 into either the Shanghai Jiaotong Ranking or the THE Rankings (although the two leading Malaysian Universities declined to participate in the latter).

Of course, the limitations of these global ranking exercises are well known and by other metrics, Malaysian higher education has made significant progress. Access to higher education has improved significantly with substantial growth in enrolment, particularly at Masters level. The Blueprint reports a 70% increase in higher education enrolments over the past 10 years to the current level of 1.2m. And the quantity and quality of research has grown with a 3-fold increase in publications 2005-12 and a 4-fold increase in citations (2005-12). Some 70% of these publications come from the 5 “research universities” and reflect the outcomes of a highly selective approach to research support.

While there is much to celebrate in terms of higher education performance indicators, a number of significant concerns remain. Graduate employability is highly variable across institutions but the average figure 6 months after graduation is around the somewhat disappointing level of 75% and employers regularly comment on the lack of critical thinking among graduates, poor communication skills and weaknesses in terms of softer skills. A 2013 survey by Grant Thornton reported that 62% of employers in Malaysia were concerned about their ability to recruit staff with the right skills and 48% believed that a major constraint on growth was access to talent.[2]  The apparent failures of higher education to deliver a workforce that meets the country’s needs is of particular significance given the ambitious plans for growth outlined in the 11^th Malaysia Plan.

In 1991 Malaysia launched its vision to become a high income developed nation by 2020 as part of the 6^th Malaysia Plan. The recently launched 11^th Malaysia Plan outlines what is necessary to finally realise this vision. It targets 5-6% annual growth in the economy based on domestic and external demand; it promises a 7.9% rise in gross national income per capita and substantial expansion in private investment. These targets are widely seen as challenging and bold. Their delivery will depend upon a major shift in the economy with reduced dependence on the simple increase in either labour or capital productivity.  Growth in GDP will be underpinned by a significant increase in multi-factor productivity which relects the impact on output of a combined set of inputs rather than individual inouts in isolation. The increase in multi-factor productivity is expected to contribute 40% of the planned growth in GDP[3].  Although Malaysia’s economic growth has been strong and consistent with the overall target for 2020, labour productivity on its own has been disappointing and stands at a little over half of that observed in South Korea. Key to the success of the 11^th Malaysia Plan is a need for people-centric growth. For higher education this means switching the emphasis from quantity of provision to quality of provision from the simple acquisition of knowledge to the development of a broader range of personal transferable skills (what are often described as higher order thinking skills or HOTS).

Alongside the concern that HE is not delivering the workforce that the economy needs, a further concern that influences current debates is the overall system performance and return on investment. As previously mentioned, the U21 Ranking of National Higher Educations highlights the significant investment that has gone into HE, but it also foregrounds the country’s relatively low ranking in terms of outputs (dominantly research outputs but also measures of enrolment). In the latest U21 rankings published in May 2015, Malaysia ranks 12^th of it expenditure on higher education but only 44^th for its outputs (all unadjusted for level of growth). In the growth adjusted figures to picture remains similar with Malaysia ranking 3^rd for its financial investment but only 34^th for its outputs.

At the risk of plagiarising the infamous speech by Tony Blair in 1997, if Malaysia is to realise the growth in productivity that is necessary for the country to sustainably be a high income nation, its priorities must be “Education, Education, Education”. Is the Higher Education Blueprint up to the challenge?

The Higher Education Blueprint is a substantial document – running to well over 100 pages in its large format published version. The product of extensive consultation (the Blueprint lists over 10,000 participants in consultations), it was launched on April 7^th in a high profile event attended by some 1500 people in central Kuala Lumpur.

In numbers, the Blueprint proclaims its intention to build on 5 system-wide aspirations and 6 student specific aspirations which are to be delivered through 10 shifts in policy and practice which will in turn, be implemented over 3 waves of activity.

Structurally there is a strong and compelling logic to the Blueprint. The system-wide aspirations outlined in the primary and secondary-focused Education Blueprint (2013-2025) all come with clearly specified targets. These feed through into system wide aspirations for the higher education sector and the primary targets are shown below.

As well as system level aspirations, the Higher Education Blueprint identifies 6 “Student Aspirations” – what student can expect to receive from higher education. These emphasise the notion of balance – between Akhlak (ethics and morality) and Ilmu (skills and knowledge), suggesting a switch from a pure talent creation remit to something rather broader and reflective of a citizenship as well as a human capital agenda.

Delivery of both student and system aspirations relies on 10 shifts that are at the heart of the Blueprint and these comprise both target outcomes and Malaysia-specific and policy-driven enablers.

An implementation roadmap identifies three waves of activity to realize the proposed shifts.

So far, so good. And indeed, across the sector, many of the proposed changes have been welcomed, but invariably the question of implementation comes up in conversation. Indeed, even at the launch, the Prime Minister, paraphrased Tony Blair to stress to the audience that “it’s all about the execution, execution, execution”[4].

Morshidi Sirat (former Director General at the Ministry of Education) and CD Wan have expressed similar concerns[5].in their recent commentary on the Blueprint. They point to the relative brevity of the Roadmap and the absence of a detailed action plan. The latter is slated to be provided by the Putrajaya Higher Education Delivery Task Force giving rise to additional concerns that the outcome will be more rather than less complexity and bureaucracy within the system.

More fundamentally they argue that the Blueprint lacks an underlying philosophy; the “soul” of this ambitious document has not been clearly articulated, they say, and, as a consequence, they argue that there has been no overarching debate about its foundational principles. They suggest an underlying neo-liberal agenda, but a qualified one given the emphasis on balance (akhlak and ilmu) and the changed use of language – from “human capital” in the earlier strategic plan to “talent” in the Blueprint.

The neo-liberal critique has been amplified in discussion at a recent forum hosted by the Strategic Information and Research Development Centre[6]. A range of speakers from the public and private sectors in Malaysia highlighted expressed concern about the under-pinning market-driven agenda and the absence of any debate about the “public good” characteristics of higher education. And of course there was reference to the issue of academic freedom and government interference in the academic discourse, especially in public universities.

How serious are these criticisms? The charge of neo-liberalism is nothing new – either in Malaysia or indeed many other HE systems. At one level, the commitment to maintain the level of spending per student in public institutions suggests that there is significant commitment to the “public good” dimensions of higher education. And, of course, the current high standing of Malaysia’s HE system in terms of resource inputs is, in part, a product of the development of a significant private HE sector. Indeed the internationalization of Malaysian higher education owes much to the efforts of the private sector and while there continue to be many challenges relating to its management and regulation, its contribution to the sector is substantial, providing over 45% of HE enrollments. But the real concerns of those voicing the neo-liberal critique are perhaps more focused on the use of market mechanisms and market based agendas – encouraging competition, students as consumers, and HE in the service of business and industry. And these are all in evidence in the Blueprint. The pragmatist in me would suggest that these elements are not fundamental problems in themselves. Market mechanisms can and do have a role to play and the real challenge is perhaps not their presence or absence but how they are managed and regulated.

This brings us back to the implementation critique and it is here that the challenges are arguably greatest. Morshidi Sirat and CD Wan have already drawn these to our attention. And quite rightly so. The vision that underpins the Blueprint is one of transformational change. Its realization will require more than just changes in policy; it will require a more fundamental cultural and attitudinal change within the system – a willingness to let go of traditionally models of working, a withdrawal from relatively hierarchical command and control mechanisms, a move to more collaborative working with the academy and a more trust and risk-based approach to the relationship between the Ministry and those involved in delivery. The bold vision outlined in the Blueprint should be welcomed but policy makers will need to be even bolder if it is to be implemented successfully. The content of the Blueprint itself is testament to a recognition of the need for change if Malaysian HE is to perform on an Asian and on a world stage. Public statements and private discussions confirm that sector leaders are convinced of the need for reform. But delivery will require large-scale organizational change across a complex sector and herein lies the challenge.

[1] Sean Coughlan, Asia tops biggest global school rankings, 13 May 2015, available at http://www.bbc.com/news/business-32608772  

[2] See for example  http://news.asiaone.com/news/malaysia/najib-puts-focus-raising-productivity#sthash.z9oLOIWb.dpuf.

[3] See http://news.asiaone.com/news/malaysia/najib-puts-focus-raising-productivity#sthash.z9oLOIWb.dpuf

[4] See http://malaysiandigest.com/news/548939-najib-launches-malaysia-education-blueprint-higher-education.html

[5] Morshidi Sirat and CD Wan (2015) “Success of blueprint depends on buy-in and politics” University World News, 05 June, Issue No:370 http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=2015060214590283

[6] See http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2015/06/27/varsities-that-only-turn-out-worker-bees/

Christine Ennew is Professor of Marketing at the Nottingham University Business School, UK, Pro Vice-Chancellor and Provost of the University of Nottingham, Malaysia Campus. She sits on the OBHE Advisory Board. Previously, she was Director of the Division of Business and Management in Malaysia and Director of the Christel de Haan Tourism and Travel Research Institute – follow her on Twitter @ChrisEnnew

The post Malaysia’s Higher Education Blueprint 2015-2025 – the implementation challenge appeared first on OBHE on 23rd July 2015.

The post Malaysia’s Higher Education Blueprint 2015-2025 – the implementation challenge appeared first on Knowledge Without Borders.

One of the biggest innovations in international higher education in the past 15 years or so has been the growth in international branch campuses. That is not to suggest that branch campuses are new – on the contrary, there is quite a history of universities (mostly private) establishing a presence beyond their home countries. But what has changed is the scale of such activity and the diversity of models. Not all students are able to travel abroad for higher education and indeed, worldwide, the proportion of students who are internationally mobile is less than 5% of the total.

What this means is that despite the growth in the number of international students, most people will continue to access higher education in their home country. The development of transnational education (TNE) and branch campuses provides an opportunity for a more international experience for students who do not want to travel abroad. Increasingly, commentators describe this group as the “glocal” students; they are part of the emerging middle class, they have an international outlook, bold ambitions and a willingness to invest significantly in their education. And their numbers are growing within Asia in particular.

The growth in branch campuses broadens the choices and the opportunities available to these glocal students. They can access a different style of education and a different type of experience from that which is typical of their home country, but without the costs associated with travelling and living in a different country. And the branch campuses themselves come in increasingly diverse forms; trying to count them depends first on how you define them.

Perhaps the most traditional format is the one in which a university from one country establishes a base in another country where it teaches and awards degrees (and so it is the degree awarding powers that provide quality assurance). This is the format that is familiar in Malaysia, with Nottingham and Monash as perhaps the best examples. Both award degrees from their home countries and offer qualifications, which are equivalent to those offered at their home campus. They are also typically regulated in their host country so students have the reassurance that their degrees have been subject to two forms of regulatory oversight.

But there are other interesting variations on this model; an increasingly common format is associated with private providers such as Manipal and Amity who establish campuses internationally under a common brand, but with local degree awarding powers (here only the quality assurance comes from the host country but supplemented by the institutional brand).

And then we see the emergence of the nationally sponsored universities where a new institution is established carrying a country name – and the country name is the approach to providing assurance of quality. The most prominent example of this approach comes with the German University in Cairo and other branches of German Universities, which have been established in a range of countries around the world. Technically these are not branch campuses but they still aspire to offer an international experience to students in a diversity of countries.

The numbers of branch or international campuses have grown dramatically in the last 15 years and as a glocal outlook becomes more common, we should expect to see not only more of such campuses but also more interesting models for the provision of education. Such developments will offer greater choice to the students of the future. But those involved in managing such developments will need to give careful thought to how best to help students make good choices when faced with a diversity of options for their higher education.

More choices offer many benefits but decisions about education are complex and high risk, so students (and their parents) will need clear information about the options available and good advice about the quality (and the quality assurance) of the programmes they are considering.

Christine Ennew is Pro Vice-Chancellor and Provost of the University of Nottingham, Malaysia Campus – follow her on Twitter @ChrisEnnew

This post was first published in the Star on 16^th December 2014.

The post Get a global local education appeared first on Knowledge Without Borders.

This post is a longer version of an interview with KWBN’s Sean Matthews for the British Council’s ‘Up Close and Personal’ column in the Education Intelligence newsletter. The full interview can be accessed here.

EI: What is your favorite conference and why?

SM: I realize it’s a bit of a cliché, but I’d say either the last one, or, as it approaches, the next one. I’m lucky in that my academic and professional interests allow me to attend quite a variety of conferences!

I thought APAIE this year was very strong, with some really excellent panels across a range of topics – and Seoul is of course a really great place (I’m very partial to Korean BBQ). On the professional side, I learnt about things that I knew nothing about, as well as deepening my knowledge of things I should know about – Sonny Lim (Rice) led an excellent session on the HEFEI Declaration; I was really impressed by the very practical panel brought together by Gary Rhodes (Director, Centre for Global Education, UCLA) about managing and supporting student experience of mobility and exchange (with a wealth of great, free resources); and the British Council Education Intelligence presentation was certainly a highlight, above all because it was so strongly data-driven, sharing more from the wealth of statistics which are behind the recent ‘Megatrends’ report (I’m not just saying this because this piece is in Education Intelligence, honest!). I was on a couple of panels myself, both of which I also found really interesting – I did a little blog about one of them, a ‘Nottingham’ panel that was exploring the challenges and opportunities involved in collaboration in the Asia Pacific region.

APAIE, like AIEC and QS Apple, is such a good event because it has such a good range of news and information; practical and professional updates; some keynote thinking/’horizon scanning’ about trends and issues – as well as, always, the chance to catch up with colleagues across the region, and meet and network with new contacts – this year I was particularly pleased (at last!) to have the chance to talk with the British Council Education Intelligence team. Immediate outcome – Up Close and Personal!

Thinking about favourite events, though, I should also give a plug to a workshop about Global Citizenship that took place just before APAIE, which KWBN ran in association with the Universitas 21 network. It was completely different from APAIE – some 40 or 50 people working together for two days exploring the theme of ‘Global Citizenship’. I really enjoy the dynamism of events like that, where because of the intensity of the schedule and the concentration on a theme, you get to grips with an issue, and get to know a group of people. What was special about this group, in particular, was that it was drawn from across the university – including students, academics, professional services, careers people, and senior management. Having that mix was enormously productive, and surprising in what it revealed about the ways in which, in universities, we’re not always on the same page when we think we’re discussing the same things. I hope I can reveal that KWBN is in talks with Education Intelligence about maybe holding a Megatrends workshop in Kuala Lumpur…

But I’m also off to Gargnano, in the Italian Alps, for the 13th International D.H. Lawrence Congress, in June so that is already becoming my new ‘favourite conference’. Quite apart from regularly taking place in stunning venues (Lawrence did find himself in some awesome places), Lawrence events always remind me of why I wanted to be an academic in the first place. It’s a very special community of scholars, strong and supportive, and Lawrence’s work remains so vibrant and diverse and, frankly, relevant, that it is always a pleasure to tug myself back into that world. This year I’ll be talking about Lawrence’s relation to T.S. Eliot – they were contemporaries, had many mutual friends, read each other’s work (Eliot even published Lawrence in a magazine he edited), corresponded, but apparently never met… or did they?! You’ll have to come to the conference to find out!

EI: What is your current country of interest and why?

SM: I would have to say ‘Malaysia’, obviously primarily because that is where I’m working now, but also because it is such a fascinating, dynamic and complex place – both in its social and political situation, and more specifically in terms of the way it is really in so many ways a kind of laboratory or index for key trends in TNE amongst developing nations and in Asia Pacific – you really do feel, here, as if you’re involved in working out what the best ‘next steps’ for TNE might be. The University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus (UNMC) is still very young, but its establishment and development is actually continuous with Malaysia’s own repositioning and emergence as an international Higher Education hub, so it’s also the case that I view UNMC as a sort of test tube in which a variety of TNE experiments are taking place – this whole phase of TNE, I should add, can be seen as a sequence of experiments concerned with how best to respond to what British Council colleagues usefully categorized as the ‘Megatrends’ driving HE globally.

EI: What is your biggest challenge?

SM: Balance! I’ve been privileged to be involved in the building of a really interesting and energetic school – the School of Modern Languages and Cultures, which covers everything from media and communications, politics, some literary study, modern languages (Korean, Japanese, Mandarin, Spanish, French and German – and now some Bahasa Malaysia!), to translation and interpreting. Quite apart from developing the teaching, learning and research in these areas, colleagues in the school have been at the forefront of growing, in the broadest sense, ‘culture’ at UNMC – most recently in a huge production of The Mikado which took place at Kuala Lumpur Performing Arts Centre (KLPAC – a great theatre space), and involved some 130 students and staff! Along with the Knowledge Without Borders Network, and all the myriad things that come up on a day to day basis on an international campus, it’s easy to overlook important other things – family, food, sleep, and so on. So I often need to step back and get Mrs Matthews to remind me about keeping my priorities balanced.

EI: What keeps you up at night?

SM: Sometimes it’s Janni (Age 5) or Danni (Age 3), but most often it’s reading. There’s generally very little quiet time through the day, because of all the tasks and endless interruptions. Especially when it comes to fiction, you need to concentrate properly and have a decent commitment of time in order properly to immerse in the text and its working. So my bed starts to look like it’s walled in with books, and sometimes I do wish I could pull up a drawbridge and stay there a bit longer!

EI: What’s your guilty pleasure?

SM: Ha! There are a number of things I’m not at liberty to reveal (though I could mention a – to me – improbably affection for a Bon Jovi tribute band that plays regularly in KL!), but probably the one most of my friends and colleagues find most difficult to understand is my attachment to the Royal Commonwealth Society (Malaysian Branch)! I’ll be happy to show any visitors to Malaysia around the RCS so you can judge for yourselves. We’ve actually even used the clubhouse for a few academic events, because it’s in a good location, has a lovely terrace and garden, and a very friendly, relaxed ambience, very unlike some of the institutional or hotel venues where events most often take place.

Sean Matthews joined the School of English at the University of Nottingham, UK, in 2005, as the Director of the D. H. Lawrence Research Centre, having previously worked at the University of East Anglia (Norwich, UK), the University of Aberystwyth (Wales), UCLA (Los Angeles), and Kyushu University (Japan). He has worked closely with the British Council for many years, including sitting on the Arts Advisory Panel, chairing the ‘Oxford Conference’ on Language and Literature on three occasions, and both touring with writers and lecturing on contemporary fiction, particularly in Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary. In 2010, Sean was seconded to the University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus as Head of School of Modern Languages and Cultures. In 2011/12, he was awarded the University’s prestigious  Dearing Fellowship to coordinate, promote and develop work in internationalization/TNE, the primary  outcome of which is the Knowledge Without Borders Network, which aims to bring together colleagues from across Nottingham’s three campuses, and beyond, to explore issues in TNE.

The post Up Close and Personal! appeared first on Knowledge Without Borders.

‘Global Citizenship’ is a term we come across more and more in relation to university missions or graduate attributes and outcomes, but one which most of us would struggle to define in anything but the broadest terms. If pushed, we would probably describe a Global Citizen as someone with particular qualities of ethical awareness, perhaps a commitment to sustainable environmental practices or support for those less privileged than ourselves, intercultural sensitivity and a critical awareness of current affairs, maybe a more than usual sense of obligation to making the world a better place. Were we asked what role universities might take in the fostering of these qualities, we’d most likely struggle still more, and I suspect many of us would point to extracurricular or co-curricular outreach projects rather than anything at the core of our assessed and accredited teaching and. And if we were pressed to articulate how Global Citizenship impacts on student employability and careers, or what perspectives of recruiters from industry, government or the NGO sector could have on the matter, very few of us would have anything to say at all. For fifty or so delegates from across U21 network, the U21 Global Citizenship Workshop at the University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus in Kuala Lumpur, which took place 13-14 March 2014, changed all that.

It was a unique event, for several reasons, and an extremely successful – and provocative – one. For a start, there was a special alchemy in the unusual combination of participants. Undergraduates and postgraduates mixed with colleagues from professional services concerned with careers and employability, student experience or exchange and mobility, along with academics from a variety of disciplines, very senior management (two Provosts, several PVCs, a former Vice Chancellor), and, for the second day, a high level panel representing international employers and recruiters. The format was highly discursive and interactive, and many delegates remarked on the energy and openness of discussions – particularly the students, who felt that this was all too rare an opportunity to sit as equals with such a broad array of institutional stakeholders. A key takeaway from the event, and a message for U21 partners and event organizers, was the feeling that strong student representation radically and very positively enhanced the event, and should be built into future event formats. Not as a mere formality, but on the basis of real trust, engagement and collaboration.

In terms of content, we explored an impressive array of projects from network partners which demonstrated the ways in which, on the ground, U21 enables us to realize projects which would not otherwise be possible. Two examples: on the first day, a keynote presentation from Derek Chambers Chair of U21 United Nations Millenium Development Goals Health Sciences Group, demonstrated how, for some disciplines, there is a powerful and effective overlap within the curriculum of all the primary elements we had associated with Global Citizenship. On the second day, colleagues from a multi-institution UK survey presented data relating to employability and careers which explored the impact of internationalization on students’ career options and employability, but also the distance still to travel in understanding and articulating the issues in this area.

The impact of the distinctive group dynamic was above all apparent at the lively roundtable discussion around Global Citizenship and Employability which began the second day. Following presentations from our invited guests (including the Malaysian government’s advisor on employment, PwC Malaysia’s Executive Director of Human Capital, and the Australian Government’s Education Counsellor), presentations which went some way to outlining the qualities, skills and capabilities top employers seek in graduate recruits, one student delegate expressed her frustration, her difficulty in relating her achievements and aspirations to the generic language of the panel. ‘Am I agile?’ she wondered. ‘Am I self-aware, resilient and active?’ More to the point, was the very aspiration to ‘Global Citizenship’ in fact something too onerous an aspiration for an ‘ordinary’ student? Those generalized attributes that we associate with the term which were mentioned earlier were, in fact, attributes that top employers expect of all graduates. U21 universities are probably all confident that these are capabilities we nurture in our students – but one overwhelming question was, nonetheless, how we might do more to foster better awareness in those students of their attainment of these aptitudes. The disconnect between our institutional language, the language of employers, and the discourse of our students, can be glaring. In this respect, one further significant takeaway from the event was that we might do well to move beyond the very term, Global Citizenship to a less portentous, more pragmatic, language. Whether the U21 partners can rally around ‘Metacognitive Capability’, which was one breakout group’s suggestion, will have to be explored at a subsequent event… What is certain is that the dynamism and drive of the Kuala Lumpur attendees, which were also evidenced in the wealth of proposals for follow-up activities captured in the ‘wrap-up board’ (see image – far too many outcomes to enumerate here), indicates that the U21 network, in and of itself, provides a unique and valuable platform for the exploration of these issues – both in the event itself, and in the research and activities that will follow.

This post first appeared in the Universitas 21 newsletter, Discover, March 2014

The post Beyond Global Citizenship: Reflections on the U21/KWBN Global Citizenship Workshop appeared first on Knowledge Without Borders.