no 13 mobility data for asia higher education · - asean, east asia and asia-pacific. (1) hub-spoke...

1

Table 1.Inbound mobile students to three Western countries

1986 1996 2006 2006/1986

US 349,610 453,787 584,814 1.673

France 126,762 170,574 247,510 1.953

UK 56,726 197,188 330,078 5.819

Total 533,098 821,549 1,162,402 2.180

Source: UNESCO Statistical Yearbook (1980-2000)UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2003-2008)

http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco/TableViewer/document.aspx?ReportId=IF_Language=eng

2

1986 1996 2006 2006/1986

China 6,174 41,211 162,695 37.461

Korea 1,309 2,143 22,260 17.005

Japan 14,960 53,511 130,124 8.698

Total 20,612 78,409 315,079 15.286

2



Table 2.Inbound mobile students to three Asian countries

3

Numbers of international students in Japan(by Regions)



4

Numbers of international students in Japan(Top 2 Countries)

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

100000

1978

197919

8019

82

198319

8419

86

198819

8919

91

199419

9520

00

200120

0220

03

200420

0520

06

2007

Korea

China



5

Numbers of international students in Japan (without top 2 countries)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1978

1979

1980

1982

1983

1984

1986

1988

1989

1991

1994

1995

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

India

Indonesia

Vietnam

Singapore

Thailand

Philippines

Brunei

Malaysia

Australia

New Zealand

United States

United Kingdom

France

Germany

Laos

Cambodia

Myanmar



6

Numbers of international students in Korea (by regions)



7

Chinese students in Korea



8

Japanese and Vietnamese students in Korea



9

Numbers of international students in Korea(without top 3 countries)



10

Numbers of international students in China (by regions)

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200620052004200320022001200019991998199719961995

Africa

Europe

America

Oceania

Aisa

Source: Chinese Statistical Yearbook of Education (1997-2007)

11

South Korean students in China

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

SouthKorea

Source: UNESCO Statistical Yearbook (1988-1994)Chinese Statistical Yearbook of Education(1997-2007)

12

Japanese students in China

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Japan


13

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Thailand

Thai students in China


14

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Vietnam


Vietnamese students in China

15

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Indonesia


Indonesian students in China

16

Numbers of international students in China (without top 5 countries)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

North Korea

Malyasia

Phillipenes

Myanmar

Singapore

Laos

Brunei

Cambodia

Hong Kong

Macau

Taiwan

Australia


17

Growing number of students move from Asia to Asia Inbound mobile students:* 1999 or circa ⇒ 2007 or circa

1. Background

Australia

China

Japan

Korea ASEAN

Source: UNESCO Statistical Yearbook & UNESCO Global Education Digest Note: Numbers in parenthesis indicate the percentage growth

New ZealandJapan

ASEAN

902↓(2,461%)

23,097

11,731↓ (390%)57,504

25,655↓(213%)80,231

4,975 ↓(376%) 23,700

1,387↓ (712%)11,262

5,296↓(77%)

9,354

174↓ (1330%)2,489

729↓(189%)2,109

2,476↓(45%)3,581

47,821↓(-8.4%)43,800

18

Accumulated numbers of transnational programs in Japan (by regions)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

USA

Europe

Aust+NZ

Asia

Source: Japanese Ministry of Educationhttp://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chukyo/chukyo4/gijiroku/06031717/014/008.pdf

19

Accumulated numbers of transnational programs in Korea (By regions)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Central and South

America

North America

Europe

Australia

Asia

Source: Korean Educational Development Institute (2007)

20

Inter-university agreements (Japan)

21

Professorial exchange based on Japanese inter-university agreements

22

Japanese university branch offices abroad by regions

Asia

N. America 22Europe 17Africa 8Oceania 3

23

Japanese university branch offices abroad by countries

National Universities

No. % AllUniversities

No. %

1 China 33 24 China 57 21

2 Thailand 17 12 USA 42 15

3 USA 12 9 Thailand 29 11

4 Indonesia 11 8 S. Korea 19 7

5 Vietnam 8 6 Indonesia 14 5

http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/19/09/07090416.htm

24

De facto of international higher education in Asia

• Growing presence of Asian countries as hosts of international students.

• Growing number of students move from Asia to Asia• Possible Growing number of inter-university linkages and

transnational programs within Asia

“Asianization of Asia” is also confirmed in international higher education

Necessity to discuss Asian Regional Governance from the perspective of international higher education

24

25

Possible policy objectives for Asian regionalgovernance in higher educationInternational and Regional Peace & Mutual Understanding Based on the spirit of the UNESCO Constitution:

• “That since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed”

Considering Asian history of conflicts and wars, and political and cultural diversity of the region, this policy dimension is specially important.

Nurturing Global and Regional Identities Creation of a ‘People’s Europe’ and promotion of ‘European’ identity have been

recognized as main objectives of international student mobility within Europe in the process of European integration.

26

Possible policy objectives for Asian regional governance in higher education

Promoting Regional Competitiveness and Economic Development Increased recognition of “Brain Circulation”. International student mobility has been recognized as a human resource

development strategy for enhancing regional economic competitiveness in European integration.

Healthy Regional Education Market Formulation of Asian regional education market Necessity to build sound regional system to assure quality of

higher education and an efficient credit transfer system.

27

Searching for guiding principles of Asian regional framework of higher educationThe Kuala Lumpur Declaration First East Asian Summit (in 2005)

• Article 6 – We will enhance people-to-people exchange aimed at developing a "we" feeling.

• Article 7 – We will encourage the sharing of ideas through greater interaction between students, academicians, researchers, artists, media, and youths among countries in East Asia.

• Article 8 – We will conduct regular exchange of intellectuals, members of think tanks, religious personalities and scholars, which will benefit East Asia and the world through deeper knowledge and understanding so as to fight intolerance and improve understanding among cultures and civilizations.

28

Recent Moves• SEAMEO/RIHED International Conference Series on

Raising Awareness 2008 “Exploring the Ideas of Creating Higher EducationCommon Space in Southeast Asia”

• ASEAN + 3 Higher Education Policy Dialogue 2009“Intellectual Contribution to Enhancing Future Cooperation of Higher Education in East-Asian Community”

• CAMPUS Asia (Collective Action for the Mobility Program of University Students) was just started to be discussed among China, Korea and Japan in 2010

29

Prospecting Asian regional governance framework in higher education

1. Should it target (1) elite exchange through promoting linkages among elite institutions or (2) popular exchange through promoting system-wide harmonization? - Given factorsLarge diversity within a country and across countries→ more feasible to start with elite exchangeOn the other hand,System-wide harmonization can sustainably promote student mobility.→“Asian Bologna Process” rather than “Asian ERASMUS”?

“Melting Pot” Integration vs. “Mosaic” Integration – Higher Education “ASEAN Way”?

30


2. What countries should be in this framework? Does Northeast Asia (Korea, China and Japan) need another framework? How do they cooperate with ASEAN? How about Australia and NZ?- ASEAN, East Asia and Asia-Pacific.

(1) Hub-spoke system or opposite-hub-spoke system- ASEAN can lead harmonization of higher education in East Asia.- Northeast Asian Cooperation is rapidly progressing.(2) More functional to include Australia and NZ(3) Multi-layered regional governance frameworks should be

established.

31


3. Theoretical Implications of Regionalization(1) Fast developing Asian higher education may not be explained

by “Dependency Model” or “Neocolonial Model” any more.(2) Regionalization of higher education in Asia can be considered

as a counter-force against “Core” control on “Periphery” universities?

(3) Applicability of “Flying Geese Model” for Asian highereducation

JICA Research InstituteResearch Project (2009-2011) on

“Political and Economic Implications of Cross-Border Higher Education in the Context of Asian Regional Integration”

32

33

Research Core Team by JICA-RI

JICA-RI TeamLeader: Kuroda & Yuki

Advisor/Member: Yoshida & KodaRA: Kang & Hong

Consultant Team for Survey and Follow-up:ASIASEED (from Japan)

SEAMEO/ RIHED

Consultant team in

MalaysiaFor Part I &II

Consultants in Indonesia, Vietnam, Cambodia for Part I

3434

Overall Structure of Research ProjectOverview

Objective: To assess socio-economic implications & challenges of cross-border higher education in East Asia

PART 1: Overview of Cross-border Higher Education in Asia

Current status, expected outcomes,Changes towards regionalization of Asia?

Features of cross-border collaborative degree programs

PART 2: Case of MalaysiaEffects of cross-border

(collaborative degree) program in labor market

35

Structure of PART 1Overall question:

What are political and economic implications of internationalization of higher education in Asia?

PART 1-1Leading

universitiesin ASEAN plus 5

(about 300)

PART 1-2 Cross-border

collaborative degree programs in leading

universities (about 1000 programs)

(e.g. twinning)

PART 1-3Industry

organizations(15 orgs)

Three types of surveys:

Overview

Previous relevant studies

36

• Not much, but one: 2003, 2005, 2009 International Association of Universities (IAU) Global Survey Report – led by Prof. Jane Knight

• What is different from 2005 IAU Global Survey- Different recipients

IAU: 3,057 IAU member institutions in 95 countries with relatively low response rates of approximately 14%,

JICA: analytically selected 300 “leading” universities in 15 Asian countries with relatively high response rate of approximately 43%.

- JICA included additional dimensions to survey

Overview

Overview of the survey for 300 “leading” universities

37

Survey for 300 universities

38

• Slelection method • Survey Target

– Identify approximately 300 institutions that can be considered as "leading universities" in ASEAN and plus 5 countries, while ensuring representatives from ASEAN countries & avoiding over-representativeness from non-ASEAN.

• Selection Method – 1st step, we identify universities that appear in any list of 3

university rankings* and 8 international (or regional) university organizations‘ memberships* (*next slide)☆⇒ Applied for 8 ASEAN countries

– 2nd, identify universities that appear at least twice in the above lists ⇒ Applied for 2 ASEAN countries and China

– 3rd, identify universities that appear at least three times in the above lists ⇒ Applied for the rest of countries

– Lastly, added 22 universities suggested by the participants from the Bangkok Workshop.

39

• Selection method (continued)☆University rankings used

①Times Higher Education-QS World University Rankings 2008 (Complete Rankings) (400 ranked)

②Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Academic Ranking of World Universities 2008 (500 ranked)

③Ranking Web of World Universities 2008, by Webometrics (5000 ranked)

☆ International (or regional) organizations used①UMAP: University Mobility and Asian and the Pacific (324)②AUN: ASEAN University Network (21)③IAU: International Association of Universities (593)④IARU: International Alliance of Research Universities (10)⑤APRU: Association of Pacific Rim Universities (42)⑥AERU: Association of East Asian Research Universities (17)⑦ASAIHL: Association of Southeast Asian Institutions of Higher

Learning (165)⑧AUAP: Association of Universities of Asia and the Pacific (206)



1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8RWWU Shanghai THE-QS UMAP AUN IAU IARU APRU AERU ASAIHL AUAP Total

Brunei Darussalam 1 1 1 1 1Cambodia 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 5Indonesia 23 0 3 0 3 1 0 1 0 32 20 50

Laos 1 1Malaysia 20 0 5 20 3 7 0 1 0 15 4 28Myanmar 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 2Singapore 9 2 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 9Vietnam 8 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 6 12

Philippines 5 0 2 17 3 9 0 1 0 19 19 29Thailand 33 0 3 24 3 4 0 1 0 35 16 38

China 30 18 8 0 0 3 1 6 5 0 14 31Japan 29 21 19 14 0 21 1 6 6 2 0 29Korea 8 8 7 4 0 1 0 2 3 0 0 8

Australia 27 15 21 27 0 13 1 3 0 17 11 28New Zealand 7 5 6 4 0 1 0 1 0 5 0 7

Total 200 69 76 117 21 60 4 23 14 131 90 278

41

By participants

1st Step 2nd Step 3rd step(Sub total-by criteria)

Added by participants Sum

ASEAN Brunei Darussalam 1 1 1 0 1Cambodia 5 1 5 1 6Indonesia 50 17 50 11 61Laos 1 0 1 0 1Malaysia 28 18 28 0 28Myanmar 2 1 2 2 4Singapore 9 2 9 0 9Vietnam 12 3 12 2 14Philippines 89 29 29 3 32Thailand 83 38 38 2 40(Sub total-ASEAN ) 280 110 175 21 196China 349 31 11 31 0 31Japan 286 78 29 29 0 29Korea 96 24 8 8 1 9Australia 47 38 28 28 0 28New Zealand 13 7 7 7 0 7(Sub total-Plus 5 ) 791 178 83 103 1 104

Total 1071 288 83 278 22 300

By criteria


Workshop in Bangkok, Thailand (June 30, 2009)

42

• Collaborated with SEAMEO-RIHED• Discussed the research project to receive inputs and

endorsements.• Attended by policy makers and researchers from

ASEAN+3+1 countries


Response rate as of April 22, 2010Survey for 300 universities

Country Freq. Responserate (%)

Number ofUniversities

Brunai Darussalam 0 0% 1Cambodia 5 83.3% 6Indonesia 30 49.2% 61Laos 0 0.0% 1Malaysia 16 57.1% 28Myanmar 1 25.0% 4Philippines 8 25.0% 32Singapore 0 0% 9Thailand 9 22.5% 40Vietnam 14 100.0% 14China 19 61.3% 31Japan 17 58.6% 29Korea 4 44.4% 9Australia 7 25.0% 28New Zealand 0 0% 7Total 130 43.3% 300＊

* May be less due to the effective answer rate by questions

44

Structure of research questions & dimensions of survey

• Outline of research questions- Q1: Significance of cross-border activities- Q2: Significance of expected outcomes- Q3: Regional preferences- Q4: Overarching questions• Dimensions of survey- D1: Cross-border activities- D2: Expected outcomes- D3: Regional partnerships


Research questions 1:Activeness of cross-border activities

45

• To what extent is “internationalization” considered significant and/or active among leading Asian universities?

• How does this perception and/or activeness vary across types of “cross border activities” (ex. outgoing mobility of students, cross-border research collaborations, collaborative degree programs), countries, fields of study (ex. engineering, business), and/or any other characteristics of universities?

• Is the overall internationalization (and/or specific type of cross-border activities) getting more significant and/or active as compared to the past and/or is it considered more significant for the future?


46

QTinitiative

s

University

Environment

• Decision makers• Operators• Beneficiaries

• Mission• Strategies• Specialties

• International setting• National context• Regional inclusion

Students

Faculty

Institution

• Outgoing mobility opportunities • Acceptance of foreign students

• Outgoing mobility opportunities • Recruitment of full-time foreign faculty members• Cross-border research collaboration

• Cross-border institutional agreement• Cross-border collaborative degree programs (e.g. Double degree, twinning)• Use of ICT for cross-border distance education

Past (10yrs ago) Present (2009) Future (10yrs later)

Dimension 1: Cross-border activitiesSurvey for 300 universities

Students

Faculty

Institution

• Outgoing mobility opportunities • Acceptance of foreign students

• Outgoing mobility opportunities • Recruitment of full-time foreign faculty members• Cross-border research collaboration

• Cross-border institutional agreement• Cross-border collaborative degree programs (e.g. Double degree, twinning)• Use of ICT for cross-border distance education

Research questions 2:Significance of expected outcomes

47

• What are expected outcomes of “internationalization” for leading universities?

• How do the expected outcomes vary across types of cross-border activities (ex. outgoing mobility of students, cross-border research collaborations), countries, and/or any other characteristics of universities?

• And what types of cross-border activities are perceived appropriate for some expected outcomes or particular regions? What kinds of expected outcomes of each cross-border activity have become more significant and will likely to be?


48

Academic

To promote intercultural/ international awareness

and understanding

To achieve research excellence

To improve quality of education

Political

To promote global citizenship

To promote regional collaboration and identity of Asia

To promote national culture and values

To improve international visibility and reputation

of your university

Economic

To meet the demand of global economy

To meet the demand of Asian regional economy

To meet the demand of your national economy

To generate revenue for your own institution


natio

nal

institu

tional

Region

alGlobal

Dimension 2: Expected outcomesSurvey for 300 universities

Research questions 3:Regional preferences

49

• How do the regional preferences vary across types of cross-border activities (ex. outgoing mobility of students, cross-border research collaborations), counties, and/or any other characteristics of universities?

• And what types of cross-border activities are perceived appropriate by Asian leading universities with some particular regions?

• With which region(s), is “internationalization” considered significant and/or active among leading universities in Asia, and how is this regional preference differ as compared with the past and will likely to be in the future?


Dimension 3: Regional partnerships

50


50

Northeast Asia

Southeast Asia

Oceania and Pacific

South and West AsiaArab States

Sub Sahara Africa

Central and Eastern EuropeNorth AmericaCentral Asia

Latin America and Caribbean

Western Europe

Research questions 4:Overarching questions

51

• Is internationalization of higher education in Asia directing towards regionalization or globalization?

• Is regionalization of higher education in Asia a stepping stone of globalization of higher education?

• What is Asia in the context of internationalization of higher education in Asia?


52

Summary of the preliminary findings from the survey for 300

“leading” universities

Activeness of cross-border activities: All countries

53Highly active: 4, Fairy active: 3, Moderately active: 2, Slightly active: 1, Not active: 0

Preliminary findings

Conventionalactivities

Innovativeactivities

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

International/ cross‐border institutional agreement

Outgoing mobility opportunities for faculty members

Acceptance of foreign students

Outgoing mobility opportunities for

students

Cross‐border research

collaboration

Recruitment of full‐time foreign faculty

members

Cross‐border collaborative

degree programs (e.g. double

degree, twinning)

Use of ICT for cross‐border

distance education

Active level of cross‐border activities for all countries

Past

Present

Future

54

Activeness of cross-border activities: Northeast Asia

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4





collaboration

Outgoing mobility opportunities for

students

Recruitment of full‐time foreign faculty members



degree, twinning)

Use of ICT for cross‐border

distance education

Active level of cross‐border activities for Northeast Asia

Past

Present

Future

Highly active: 4, Fairy active: 3, Moderately active: 2, Slightly active: 1, Not active: 0


55

Activeness of cross-border activities: ASEAN


0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4



Outgoing mobility

opportunities for students


collaboration


Recruitment of full‐time foreign faculty members



degree, twinning)

Use of ICT for cross‐border distance education

Active level of cross‐border activities for ASEAN

Past

Present

Future


Significance of expected outcomes for overall cross-border activities: All countries



Academic/educational Political Economic

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4



To promote intercultural/ international awareness and understanding

To promote global

citizenship

To promote regional

collaboration and identity in

Asia

To promote natioanl culture and values

To improve international visibility and reputation of your university

To meet the demand of

global economy

To meet the demand of

Asian regional economy

To meet the demand of your

national economy


Important level of expected outcomes of overall cross‐border activities for all countries

Past

Present

Future

57

Significance of expected outcomes for overall cross-border activities (Past): ASEAN & Northeast Asia

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Academic expected outcome

Political expected outcome

Economic expected outcome

Important level of expected outcomes of overall cross‐border activites for ASEAN and Northeast Asia (Past)

ASEAN

Northeast Asia

Highly significant: 4, Fairy significant: 3, Moderately significant: 2, Slightly significant: 1, Not significant: 0

*** : Pr(|T| > |t|) < 0.1 **: Pr(|T| > |t|) <0.05 *: Pr(|T| > |t|) <0.1

** **


58

Significance of expected outcomes for overall cross-border activities (Present): ASEAN & Northeast Asia

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4




Important level of expected outcomes of overall cross‐border activites for ASEAN and Northeast Asia (Present)

ASEAN

Northeast Asia


*** : Pr(|T| > |t|) < 0.1 **: Pr(|T| > |t|) <0.05 *: Pr(|T| > |t|) <0.1

** *


59

Significance of expected outcomes for overall cross-border activities (Future): ASEAN & Northeast Asia

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4




Important level of expected outcomes of overall cross‐border activites for ASEAN and Northeast Asia (Future)

ASEAN

Northeast Asia

***Highly significant: 4, Fairy significant: 3, Moderately significant: 2, Slightly significant: 1, Not significant: 0

*** : Pr(|T| > |t|) < 0.1 **: Pr(|T| > |t|) <0.05 *: Pr(|T| > |t|) <0.1


60

Significance of expected outcomes for overall cross-border activities: All countries

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Global Regional National Institutional

Important level of expected outcomes of overall cross‐border activities for all countries

Past

Present

Future



61

Activeness of regional partnerships for overall cross-border activities: ASEAN

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Southeast Asia

Northeast Asia

Western Europe

North America

Oceania and Pacific

South and West Asia

Central and Eastern Europe

Central Asia Arab States Sub-Sahara Africa

Latin America and Caribbean

Overall cross-border activities (ASEAN)

Past

Present

Future



62

Activeness of regional partnerships for overall cross-border activities: Northeast Asia

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

North America

Southeast Asia

Northeast Asia

Western Europe

Oceania and Pacific

South and West Asia

Central and Eastern Europe

Central AsiaArab States Latin America

and Caribbean

Sub-Sahara Africa

Overall cross-border activities (Northeast Asia)

Past

Present

Future



Activeness of regional partnerships for “Outgoing mobility opportunities for students”:ASEAN & Northeast Asia



0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

North America

Western Europe

Northeast Asia

Oceania and Pacific

Southeast Asia

Outgoing mobility opportunities for students (Northeast

Asia) PresentFuture

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Southeast Asia

Northeast Asia

Western Europe

Oceania and Pacific

North America

Outgoing mobility opportunities for students PresentFuture

Activeness of regional partnerships for “Cross-border research collaboration”: ASEAN & Northeast Asia



0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

North America

Northeast Asia

Western Europe

Southeast Asia

Oceania and Pacific

Cross-border research collaboration (Northeast Asia)PresentFuture

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Southeast Asia

Northeast Asia

Western Europe

Oceania and Pacific

North America

Cross-border research collaboration (ASEAN)PresentFuture

Activeness of regional partnerships for “Cross-border institutional agreement”: ASEAN & Northeast Asia



0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

North America

Northeast Asia

Western Europe

Southeast Asia

Oceania and Pacific

Cross-border institutional agreements (Northeast Asia)PresentFuture

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Southeast Asia

Northeast Asia

Western Europe

North America

Oceania and Pacific

Cross-border institutional agreements (ASEAN)

PresentFuture

Activeness of regional partnerships for “Acceptance of foreign students”: ASEAN & Northeast Asia



0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Southeast Asia

Northeast Asia

Western Europe

Oceania and Pacific

South and West Asia

Acceptance of foreign students (ASEAN)

PresentFuture

*

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Northeast Asia

Southeast Asia

North America

Western Europe

South and West Asia

Acceptance of foreign students (Northeast Asia)PresentFuture

*

Activeness of regional partnerships for “Cross-border collaborative degree program”: ASEAN & Northeast Asia



0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Western EuropeSoutheast Asia Oceania and

Pacific

Northeast AsiaNorth America

Cross-border collaborative degree programs (ASEAN)PresentFuture

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

North America Southeast

Asia

Western

Europe

Northeast

Asia

Oceania and

Pacific

Cross-border collaborative degree programs (Northeast

Asia) PresentFuture

68

• Summary1. Cross-border activities:1) Innovative cross-border activities are less active than conventional cross-

border activities, but innovative cross-border activities are expected to grow significantly in the future.

2) The active levels of all cross-border activities are lower for ASEAN than Northeast Asia in the past and present period. But as the growth rate of the active levels increased rapidly in ASEAN, in the future, the active level for Northeast Asia and ASEAN are not much different.

2. Expected outcomes:1) Although the level of significance is not much different among the expected

outcomes, in general the level of significance for academic and political expected outcome is slightly higher than economic expected outcomes.

2) In the past and present, Northeast Asia places significantly more importance on academic and political expected outcomes in comparison with ASEAN.

3) In the future, ASEAN is expected to place significantly more importance on economic expected outcomes in comparison with Northeast Asia.

4) In the past, national expected outcome is regarded more important than the others, but in the present and future, global, regional, and institutional expected outcomes are regarded and are expected to be regarded more important than national expected outcome.


69

• Summary (continued)3.1 Regional partners (for overall cross-border activities) : ASEAN: Southeast & Northeast Asia are the most active partners followed by

North America and Western Europe.Northeast Asia: Southeast Asia & North America are the most active partners,

while Northeast Asia and Western Europe are almost equally active partners.

3.2 Regional partners (for each cross-border activity) :1) ASEAN: ASEAN is the most active regional partner for the

different types of cross-border activities, except for “cross-border collaborative degree programs,” which has Western Europe as the most active regional partner.Northeast Asia: North America is the most active regional partner for thedifferent types of cross-border activities, except for “Acceptance of foreign students,” which has Northeast Asia as the most active regional partnerfollowed by Southeast Asia.


70

• Summary (continued)3.2 Regional partners (for each cross-border activity) :2) ASEAN: the top 5 active regional partners are the same for the

different types of cross-border activities, except for “acceptance of foreign student,” which includes South and West Asia instead ofNorth America. Northeast Asia: the top 5 active regional partners are the same forthe different types of cross-border activities, except for “Acceptanceof foreign students,” which has South and West Asia instead ofOceania and Pacific as one of the top 5 active regional partners.

3) The active levels of all cross-border activities are lower for ASEAN than Northeast Asia in the past and present period. But as the growth rate of the active levels increased rapidly in ASEAN, in the future, the active level for Northeast Asia and ASEAN are not much different from each other.


Overview of the survey for 1,000 cross-border collaborative

degree programs (Part 1-2)

71

Definition of cross-border collaborative degree programs:

72

• Higher education degree programs, which are institutionally produced/organized with cross-border university partnership by at least 2 institutions in 2 countries or more; or higher education programs organized by foreign provider.– Main examples: double/joint, twinning, and sandwich

• Not include, for example, conventional student exchange programs based on international university agreements

Survey for 1,000 programs

73

• Identification method – 1st step: Identify all “cross-border degree programs” in

300 leading universities, mainly through: • MOE site, if available • Key country publication, if available • Website of each university’s international office or

equivalent • Key word search in website of each university (key

words such as double/joint, twinning, and sandwich), possibly in English as well as each country language

• Key word in Google site (with country, university, and program type’s name)

– 2nd step: Grouping the programs with the similar criteria (e.g. Partner university, major, degree type)


74

1st step

Number of"cross-bordercollaborative

degreeprograms"

Number ofprograms after

grouping

Leadinguniversity withat least one

program

Total leadinguniversity

1 Brunei Darussalam 7 7 1 12 Cambodia 4 4 2 63 Indonesia 135 82 24 614 Laos 16 15 1 15 Malaysia 51 33 15 286 Myanmar 1 1 1 47 Philippines 13 4 3 328 Singapore 81 73 7 99 Thailand 72 44 14 4010 Vietnam 149 122 11 14

(Sub total of ASEAN) 529 385 79 19611 China 166 159 27 3112 Japan 92 72 16 2913 Koea 69 68 8 914 Australia 163 135 16 2815 New Zealand 4 4 2 7

(Sub total of plus 5) 494 438 69 104Total 1023 823 148 300

2nd stepSurvey for 1,000 programs

Research questions

75

• Status: What is general status of “cross-border collaborative degree programs” in Asia? What kinds of “cross-border collaborative degree programs” exist, and how can we develop universal definition of specific forms (ex. twinning, double degree, and joint degree programs)?

• Expected outcomes: What expected outcomes do “cross-border collaborative degree programs” have? Are these expected outcomes of the programs different depending on their forms, partner regions, or field of study?

• Regional preference: Is there any change over the years regarding partner region for cross border collaborative degree programs in Asia?

• Risks: What kinds of perceived benefits and costs/risks are involved in promoting “cross-border collaborative degree programs”?


Dimension 1: About the program

76

1. Partner institutions2. Countries of the institutions3. Starting year of this "cross-border degree program"4. Type of degree5. Degree Provider6. Field of study7. Length of study in each institution8. Number of graduates9. Number of enrolled students per year10.Nationality of students11.Curriculum Provider12.Professors13.Financial subsidy14.Tuition and scholarship


Dimension 2: Expected outcomes

77

• Same as the survey for 300 universities


Past (10yrs ago) Present (2009) Future (10yrs later)77

Academic

To promote intercultural/ international awareness

and understanding



Political

To promote global citizenship

To promote regional collaboration and identity of Asia

To promote national culture and values

To improve international visibility and reputation

of your university

Economic

To meet the demand of global economy

To meet the demand of Asian regional economy

To meet the demand of your national economy


natio

nal

institu

tional

Region

alGlobal

Dimension 3: Costs and risks

78

Academic

Administrative

Social

• Difficulty of assuring quality• Irrelevance of education content• Lack of accreditation

• Unstable financial situation• Miscommunication with partner univ.• Difficulty of credit transfer recognition• Differences in academic calendars• Difficulty of recruiting students• Difficulty of resolving language issues

• Inequity of access• Brain drain• Homogenization of curriculum• Overuse of English for teaching• Loss of cultural or national identity



So far: number of responses as of April 22, 2010


Country Totalnumber ofresponses

Number of programswith Japanese

university as "partneruniversity"

Number of programsin engineering

Brunei Darussalam 0 0 0Cambodia 4 0 2Indonesia 32 13 9Laos 0 0 0Malaysia 2 0 0Myanmar 0 0 0Philippines 0 0 0Singapore 2 0 1Thailand 3 0 0Vietnam 76 3 19(Sub total of ASEAN) 119 16 31China 85 5 15Japan 26 N.A. 10Koea 1 0 1Australia 10 0 0New Zealand 0 0 0Total 241 21 57

References• Altbach, Philip G. and Selvaratnam Viswanathan. 1989. From Dependence to Autonomy, The• Development of Asian Universities. Kluwer Academic Publishers.• Altbach, Philip G. and Umakoshi Toru. 2004. Asian Universities, Historical Perspectives and• Contemporary Challenges. The Johns Hopkins University Press. • Carnoy, Martin. 1995. International Encyclopedia of Education. Pergamon. • Challenger Concept. 2008. Education Guide Malaysia. Challenger Concept. • Clark, Robin E., Guy R. Neave, and Burton R. Clark. 1992. The Encyclopedia of Higher

Education.• Pergamon.• Huang, Futao. 2006. Transnational Higher Education in Asia and the Pacific Region. Research

Institute for Higher Education Hiroshima University. • Husen, Torsten, and T. Neville Postalethwiate. 1994. The International Encyclopedia of Education.• Pergamon. • International Association of Universities. 1997. World List of Universities and Other Institutions of• Higher Education. Palgrave Macmillan.• Knight, Jane. 2005. “Cross-Border Education: Not Just Students on the Move.” Journal of

International• Higher Education, no. 41 (Fall 2005),

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/Number41/p2_Knight.htm (accessed September 14, 2009).

• Knight, Jane. 2006. 2005 IAU Global Survey Report: Internationalization of Higher Education: New Directions, New Challenges. International Association Universities,

• Knight, Jane. 2008. Higher Education in Turmoil. Sense Publishers. Rotterdam, Challenger Concept.

• 2004. Education Guide Malaysia. Challenger Concept, • OECD, and IBRD/World Bank. 2007. Cross-border Tertiary Education, A way Towards Capacity• Development. OECD and IBRD/World Bank.

Thank you very much!

81

no 13 mobility data for asia higher education · - asean, east asia and asia-pacific. (1) hub-spoke...

Documents