quality assurance of cross -border higher education … survey-apqn analyses.pdf · preliminary...
TRANSCRIPT
Quality Assurance of Cross
Preliminary Analyses of Survey
1. Introduction
Cross-border higher education (CBHE) is among the key issues that QA bodies need to
address today. Regulatory regimes, specific legislations and/or frameworks for QA of CBHE
have been increasingly developed in different countries and territories. Both the
and receiving countries are becoming increasingly alert in the area of the quality assurance
of CBHE. Various regional and international initiatives have focussed on these areas in the
past decade or more.
In order to further enhance policy dialog
assurance of CBHE, and thus enhance mutual understanding of different approaches to
CBHE and different methods in quality assurance, and protect students against low
standard provision, the Quality Assurance
Project was initiated on 1 October 2013.
The QACHE project is funded by the
coordinated by the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education
(ENQA). The partnership of the QACHE project involves the two main host regions of
European cross-border education (
four significant European provider countries, and
Europe (Australia).
2. Objectives of the survey
The objective of this survey is to collect information from quality assurance agencies and
authorities across the 22 states of the Arab region and the 53 states in Asia
field of cross-border higher education.
More specifically, the survey
- Assess the state of art
regions;
Quality Assurance of Cross-border Higher Education (QACHE) Project
Analyses of Survey of QA agencies members
- Dr. Jagannath Patil, APQN
border higher education (CBHE) is among the key issues that QA bodies need to
address today. Regulatory regimes, specific legislations and/or frameworks for QA of CBHE
have been increasingly developed in different countries and territories. Both the
and receiving countries are becoming increasingly alert in the area of the quality assurance
of CBHE. Various regional and international initiatives have focussed on these areas in the
In order to further enhance policy dialogue in different regions and countries on quality
assurance of CBHE, and thus enhance mutual understanding of different approaches to
CBHE and different methods in quality assurance, and protect students against low
standard provision, the Quality Assurance of Cross-border Higher Education (QACHE)
Project was initiated on 1 October 2013.
The QACHE project is funded by the Erasmus Mundus programme of the European Union,
coordinated by the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education
. The partnership of the QACHE project involves the two main host regions of
border education (APQN and ANQAHE), quality assurance agencies from
four significant European provider countries, and one of the main provider country outside
Objectives of the survey
The objective of this survey is to collect information from quality assurance agencies and
authorities across the 22 states of the Arab region and the 53 states in Asia
education.
More specifically, the survey would address the following issues:
Assess the state of art of Cross-Border Higher Education (CBHE) across the target
Page 1 of 27
border Higher Education (QACHE) Project
of QA agencies members of APQN
Jagannath Patil, APQN President
border higher education (CBHE) is among the key issues that QA bodies need to
address today. Regulatory regimes, specific legislations and/or frameworks for QA of CBHE
have been increasingly developed in different countries and territories. Both the sending
and receiving countries are becoming increasingly alert in the area of the quality assurance
of CBHE. Various regional and international initiatives have focussed on these areas in the
ue in different regions and countries on quality
assurance of CBHE, and thus enhance mutual understanding of different approaches to
CBHE and different methods in quality assurance, and protect students against low
border Higher Education (QACHE)
of the European Union,
coordinated by the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education
. The partnership of the QACHE project involves the two main host regions of
), quality assurance agencies from
the main provider country outside
The objective of this survey is to collect information from quality assurance agencies and
authorities across the 22 states of the Arab region and the 53 states in Asia-Pacific in the
Border Higher Education (CBHE) across the target
- Assess the state of art of Quality Assurance (QA) in CBHE in the target regions (legal
framework, criteria and procedures used, how they differ from those used for
traditional HE delivery forms);
- Assess the role of the national QA agencies in the QA of CBHE;
- Identify good practice in existing collaboration between agencies in the provider
and host countries and/or with the provider institutions;
- Identify the main obstacles and challenges in QA of imported CBHE and elaborate
ways of addressing these issues.
The main focus of interest of the survey is on imported CBHE into the target regions. In
addition, specific focus should be given, where relevant, to providing details on issues
related to CBHE by European providers.
3. Survey Analyses
The survey questionnaire containing 52
with working Group and was circulated to all full and intermediate members of APQN using
Surveymonkey.
Total 34 responses were received.
discarded as they were either test
responses were considered as valid and have been used for
The analyses is provided in following five sections.
I. CBHE profiles of respondent countries
II. Issues and challenges of quality and QA of CBHE
III. Regulatory and QA framework
IV. Collaboration with provider country QA agencies and/or HEIs and role of
international networks
V. Key messages emerging from initial analyses of survey
A list of countries/ territories
preliminary analyses need to be subjected to discussion and review before it is fine
and finalized.
Assess the state of art of Quality Assurance (QA) in CBHE in the target regions (legal
framework, criteria and procedures used, how they differ from those used for
traditional HE delivery forms);
Assess the role of the national QA agencies in the QA of CBHE;
good practice in existing collaboration between agencies in the provider
d host countries and/or with the provider institutions;
the main obstacles and challenges in QA of imported CBHE and elaborate
ways of addressing these issues.
The main focus of interest of the survey is on imported CBHE into the target regions. In
addition, specific focus should be given, where relevant, to providing details on issues
related to CBHE by European providers.
containing 52 questions in 4 parts was designed in consultation
was circulated to all full and intermediate members of APQN using
received. After careful scrutiny of responses,
discarded as they were either test attempts, dummy entries or completely blank. Total 19
responses were considered as valid and have been used for analyses.
The analyses is provided in following five sections.
CBHE profiles of respondent countries
es and challenges of quality and QA of CBHE
Regulatory and QA framework
Collaboration with provider country QA agencies and/or HEIs and role of
international networks
Key messages emerging from initial analyses of survey
A list of countries/ territories participated in survey is given as annexure 1 at the end.
preliminary analyses need to be subjected to discussion and review before it is fine
Page 2 of 27
Assess the state of art of Quality Assurance (QA) in CBHE in the target regions (legal
framework, criteria and procedures used, how they differ from those used for
good practice in existing collaboration between agencies in the provider
the main obstacles and challenges in QA of imported CBHE and elaborate
The main focus of interest of the survey is on imported CBHE into the target regions. In
addition, specific focus should be given, where relevant, to providing details on issues
questions in 4 parts was designed in consultation
was circulated to all full and intermediate members of APQN using
responses, 15 had to be
dummy entries or completely blank. Total 19
Collaboration with provider country QA agencies and/or HEIs and role of
participated in survey is given as annexure 1 at the end. This
preliminary analyses need to be subjected to discussion and review before it is fine-tuned
Section I – CBHE profiles of respondent countries
CBHE provision is currently
details can be seen is following
education
Description of form / type of mobility
Branch
Campus
Provider in country A establishes a satellite campus
in country B to deliver courses and programmes to
students in country B (may also include country A
students taking a semester/courses abroad).The
qualification awarded is from provider in country A.
Independent
Institution
Foreign provider A (a traditional university, a
commercial company or alliance/network)
establishes in country B a standalone HEI to offer
courses/programmes and awards.
Acquisition/
Merger
Foreign provider A purchases a part of or 100% of
local HEI in country B.
Study Centre/
Teaching site
Foreign provider A establishes study centers in
country B to support students taking their
courses/programmes. Study centers can be
independent or in collaboration with local providers
in country B.
Affiliation/
Networks
Different types of (public and private)/(traditional
and new) providers from various countries
collaborate through innovative types of partnerships
to establish networks/institution to deliver courses
and programmes in local and foreign countries
through distance or face
Virtual
University
Provider that delivers credit courses and degree
programme to student in different countries through
distance education modes and that generally does
not have face
Branch campus and Affiliation/ networks appear to be major form of provider
is followed by forms / categories
CBHE profiles of respondent countries
CBHE provision is currently available in 78.9 % respondent countries / territories
details can be seen is following Provider mobility table indicating categories of imported
Description of form / type of mobility
Provider in country A establishes a satellite campus
in country B to deliver courses and programmes to
students in country B (may also include country A
students taking a semester/courses abroad).The
qualification awarded is from provider in country A.
Foreign provider A (a traditional university, a
commercial company or alliance/network)
establishes in country B a standalone HEI to offer
courses/programmes and awards.
Foreign provider A purchases a part of or 100% of
local HEI in country B.
Foreign provider A establishes study centers in
country B to support students taking their
courses/programmes. Study centers can be
independent or in collaboration with local providers
in country B.
Different types of (public and private)/(traditional
and new) providers from various countries
collaborate through innovative types of partnerships
to establish networks/institution to deliver courses
and programmes in local and foreign countries
istance or face-to-face modes.
Provider that delivers credit courses and degree
programme to student in different countries through
distance education modes and that generally does
not have face-to-face support services for student.
Branch campus and Affiliation/ networks appear to be major form of provider
categories like virtual university and independent
Page 3 of 27
available in 78.9 % respondent countries / territories. The
Provider mobility table indicating categories of imported
Exists
Does
not
exist
Not
sure
Provider in country A establishes a satellite campus
in country B to deliver courses and programmes to
students in country B (may also include country A
students taking a semester/courses abroad).The
13 5 6
Foreign provider A (a traditional university, a
commercial company or alliance/network)
establishes in country B a standalone HEI to offer 8 8 2
Foreign provider A purchases a part of or 100% of 5 9 4
Foreign provider A establishes study centers in
country B to support students taking their
courses/programmes. Study centers can be
independent or in collaboration with local providers
5 3 3
Different types of (public and private)/(traditional
and new) providers from various countries
collaborate through innovative types of partnerships
to establish networks/institution to deliver courses
and programmes in local and foreign countries
13 2 4
Provider that delivers credit courses and degree
programme to student in different countries through
distance education modes and that generally does 9 6 3
Branch campus and Affiliation/ networks appear to be major form of provider mobility. It
university and independent institution.
Following Programme mobility table indicates
survey.
Description of form / type of mobility
Franchise An arrangement whereby a provider in the source
country A authorizes a provider in another country B
to deliver their course/programme/service in
country B or other countries. The qualification is
awarded by a provider in country A. This is usually a
for-profit commercial arrangement.
Twinning A situation whereby a provider in source country A
collaborates with a provider located in country B to
develop an articulation system allowing students to
take course credits in country B and/or source
country A. Only one qualification is awarded by the
provider in the source country. This may or may not
be on a commercial basis.
Double/
Joint degree
An arrangement whereby providers in different
countries collaborate to offer a programme for which
a student receives a qualification from each provider
or a joint award from the collaborating providers.
Normally this is based on academic exchange.
Articulation Various types of articulation arrangements between
providers in different countries permit students to
gain credit for courses/programme
offered/delivered by collaborating providers.
Validation Validation arrangements between providers in
different countries which allow provider B in
receiving country to award qualification of provider
A in source country.
Virtual/
Distance
Arrangements where providers deliver
courses/programmes to students in different
countries through distance and online modes. May
include some face
through domestic study or support centers.
Articulation, twinning and double/joint degree are most popular types of program mobility
in respondent countries. The next preferred types are Franchise or virtual/distance
education arrangements.
gramme mobility table indicates categories of imported education
Description of form / type of mobility
An arrangement whereby a provider in the source
country A authorizes a provider in another country B
to deliver their course/programme/service in
country B or other countries. The qualification is
awarded by a provider in country A. This is usually a
rofit commercial arrangement.
A situation whereby a provider in source country A
collaborates with a provider located in country B to
develop an articulation system allowing students to
take course credits in country B and/or source
country A. Only one qualification is awarded by the
rovider in the source country. This may or may not
be on a commercial basis.
An arrangement whereby providers in different
countries collaborate to offer a programme for which
a student receives a qualification from each provider
or a joint award from the collaborating providers.
Normally this is based on academic exchange.
Various types of articulation arrangements between
providers in different countries permit students to
gain credit for courses/programme
offered/delivered by collaborating providers.
Validation arrangements between providers in
different countries which allow provider B in
receiving country to award qualification of provider
A in source country.
Arrangements where providers deliver
courses/programmes to students in different
countries through distance and online modes. May
include some face-to-face support for students
through domestic study or support centers.
double/joint degree are most popular types of program mobility
in respondent countries. The next preferred types are Franchise or virtual/distance
Page 4 of 27
categories of imported education as noted in
Exists
Does
not
exist
Not
sure
An arrangement whereby a provider in the source
country A authorizes a provider in another country B
to deliver their course/programme/service in
country B or other countries. The qualification is
awarded by a provider in country A. This is usually a
10 5 4
A situation whereby a provider in source country A
collaborates with a provider located in country B to
develop an articulation system allowing students to
take course credits in country B and/or source
country A. Only one qualification is awarded by the
rovider in the source country. This may or may not
13 2 3
An arrangement whereby providers in different
countries collaborate to offer a programme for which
a student receives a qualification from each provider
or a joint award from the collaborating providers.
13 3 3
Various types of articulation arrangements between
providers in different countries permit students to
gain credit for courses/programme 14 3 2
Validation arrangements between providers in
different countries which allow provider B in
receiving country to award qualification of provider 7 6 5
Arrangements where providers deliver
courses/programmes to students in different
countries through distance and online modes. May
face support for students
12 4 3
double/joint degree are most popular types of program mobility
in respondent countries. The next preferred types are Franchise or virtual/distance
Type of CBHE Providers
The largest chunk of providers belong to category of Pri
university colleges, applied universities, etc. However all other types of providers also
seem to be operational, as survey indicates below.
Legend:
a = Public universities
b = Private not-for-profit universities
c = Private for profit universities
d = Public HEIs such as university colleges, applied universities, etc.
e = Private not-for-profit HEIs such as university colleges, applied universities, etc.
f = Private for profit HEIs such as university colleges, applied
The main providers of CBHE
Australia, UK and USA emerge as clear topers as main providers in Asia Pacific region.
China, India, Malaysia, etc. share second and third places with France, Germany and New
Zealand as per the responses to this survey.
13
11
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
a b
The largest chunk of providers belong to category of Private for profit HEIs such as
university colleges, applied universities, etc. However all other types of providers also
as survey indicates below.
profit universities
Private for profit universities
d = Public HEIs such as university colleges, applied universities, etc.
profit HEIs such as university colleges, applied universities, etc.
f = Private for profit HEIs such as university colleges, applied universities, etc.
oviders of CBHE
UK and USA emerge as clear topers as main providers in Asia Pacific region.
share second and third places with France, Germany and New
Zealand as per the responses to this survey.
10
1314
c d e f
Page 5 of 27
vate for profit HEIs such as
university colleges, applied universities, etc. However all other types of providers also
profit HEIs such as university colleges, applied universities, etc.
universities, etc.
UK and USA emerge as clear topers as main providers in Asia Pacific region.
share second and third places with France, Germany and New
15
Mobility of programmes and providers
UG programs are the ones to take major share of program and provider mobility as
compared to Graduate and Do
10 10 10
3
2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12A
ust
rali
a
Un
ite
d K
ing
do
m
Un
ite
d S
tate
s
Ch
ina
Ne
w Z
ea
lan
d
68.40%
10.50%
mes and providers
UG programs are the ones to take major share of program and provider mobility as
compared to Graduate and Doctoral programs as shown below.
2 2 2 2
1 1 1 1 1
Ne
w Z
ea
lan
d
Fij
i
Fra
nce
Ind
ia
Ma
lay
sia
Sa
ud
i A
rab
ia
Arm
en
ia
Bra
zil
Ge
rma
ny
Ko
rea
, S
ou
th
84.20%
Undergraduat
e
programmes
Graduate
programmes
Page 6 of 27
UG programs are the ones to take major share of program and provider mobility as
1 1
Sin
ga
po
re
TH
-T
ha
ila
nd
Undergraduat
programmes
programmes
The role of CBHE provision
In terms of the number of students, the role of CBHE provision in Asian countries seems to
be marginal as per this survey
The development of CBHE
The development of CBHE is how ever
47.4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Marginal
68.4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
It is growing It is stagnating
he role of CBHE provision
In terms of the number of students, the role of CBHE provision in Asian countries seems to
be marginal as per this survey.
lopment of CBHE
The development of CBHE is how ever considered to be growing in most countries
26.3% 26.3%
Significant Other
21.1%
0.0%
15.8%
It is stagnating It is regressing No opinion
Page 7 of 27
In terms of the number of students, the role of CBHE provision in Asian countries seems to
considered to be growing in most countries
15.8%
No opinion
The driver of the development of CBHE
Decreasing outbound student mobility (due to increasing cost of studying abroad,
access/visa restrictions, etc.) comes out to be the main reason for development of CBHE at
most places. Increased access to higher education and insufficiency of local HE
another reason for this growth as seen in chart below.
Legend:
A = Increased access to higher education and insufficiency of local HE provision
B = Insufficient or decreasing quality of local HE provision
C = Decreasing outbound student mobil
access/visa restrictions, etc.)
D = Facilitating regulatory framework (e.g. privatisation, CBHE regulation)
E = Other
Level of awareness and participation of higher education stakeholders in
implementing UNESCO-OECD guidelines
QA bodies and government agencies seem to have higher level of awareness and
participation in implementation of UNESCO OECD Guidelines. The low level of awareness
among stakeholders like student bodies, HEIs, Academic recognition and pr
bodies is a cause of concern as can be inferred from table below.
Response
Awareness
Government
Higher education institutions/providers
42.1%
10.5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
A
the development of CBHE
Decreasing outbound student mobility (due to increasing cost of studying abroad,
access/visa restrictions, etc.) comes out to be the main reason for development of CBHE at
most places. Increased access to higher education and insufficiency of local HE
another reason for this growth as seen in chart below.
A = Increased access to higher education and insufficiency of local HE provision
B = Insufficient or decreasing quality of local HE provision
C = Decreasing outbound student mobility (due to increasing cost of studying abroad,
access/visa restrictions, etc.)
D = Facilitating regulatory framework (e.g. privatisation, CBHE regulation)
Level of awareness and participation of higher education stakeholders in
OECD guidelines
QA bodies and government agencies seem to have higher level of awareness and
participation in implementation of UNESCO OECD Guidelines. The low level of awareness
among stakeholders like student bodies, HEIs, Academic recognition and pr
bodies is a cause of concern as can be inferred from table below.
Non
Existing Low Average
0 4
Higher education institutions/providers 0 6
10.5%
52.6%
26.3%21.1%
B C D
Page 8 of 27
Decreasing outbound student mobility (due to increasing cost of studying abroad,
access/visa restrictions, etc.) comes out to be the main reason for development of CBHE at
most places. Increased access to higher education and insufficiency of local HE provision is
A = Increased access to higher education and insufficiency of local HE provision
ity (due to increasing cost of studying abroad,
D = Facilitating regulatory framework (e.g. privatisation, CBHE regulation)
Level of awareness and participation of higher education stakeholders in
QA bodies and government agencies seem to have higher level of awareness and
participation in implementation of UNESCO OECD Guidelines. The low level of awareness
among stakeholders like student bodies, HEIs, Academic recognition and professional
Average High
5 9
6 5
21.1%
E
Response
Student bodies
Quality assurance and accreditation bodies
Academic recognition bodies
Professional bodies
Participation in implementation
Government
Higher education institutions/providers
Student bodies
Quality assurance and accreditation bodies
Academic recognition bodies
Professional bodies
Comparability of qualifications is
Asian countries.
A large section of respondents [ 68%] have
procedures and requirements of higher education delivered by foreign providers and/or
leading to a foreign qualification.
Section II- Issues and challenges of quality and QA of CBHE
Overall perception of imported CBHE
Just about a quarter of respondents feel that overall perception of imported CBHE is of
higher quality as compared to local provision
quality. The figure below gives more details.
10.5%10.5%10.5%10.5%
36.8%36.8%36.8%36.8%
Non
Existing Low Average
3 9
Quality assurance and accreditation bodies 1 2
Academic recognition bodies 3 6
2 5
Participation in implementation
4 3
Higher education institutions/providers 1 7
7 6
Quality assurance and accreditation bodies 2 3
Academic recognition bodies 5 6
3 7
qualifications is noted as a major concern for QA of CBHE in most
A large section of respondents [ 68%] have legal and other issues related to the recognition
procedures and requirements of higher education delivered by foreign providers and/or
leading to a foreign qualification.
Issues and challenges of quality and QA of CBHE
verall perception of imported CBHE compared to local HE provision
Just about a quarter of respondents feel that overall perception of imported CBHE is of
higher quality as compared to local provision while another quarter says it is of same
The figure below gives more details.
26.3%26.3%26.3%26.3%
26.3%26.3%26.3%26.3%
It is of higher
qualityIt is about the
same qualityIt is of lower
quality
Page 9 of 27
Average High
2 3
4 10
3 4
6 4
4 8
4 5
1 3
7 7
2 3
3 4
noted as a major concern for QA of CBHE in most [68%]
legal and other issues related to the recognition
procedures and requirements of higher education delivered by foreign providers and/or
compared to local HE provision
Just about a quarter of respondents feel that overall perception of imported CBHE is of
while another quarter says it is of same
It is of higher
It is about the
same qualityIt is of lower
Overall perception of imported CBHE from European providers compared to local HE
provision
About 36% respondents feel that overall perception of imported CBHE by
providers is of higher quality as compared to local provision while about 26% says it is of
same quality.
Influence of CBHE
Majority of the respondents
system of HE in your country, in terms of academic standards, HE access, etc
Key challenges of CBHE
Quality assurance processes (conflict of standards between local/provider QA systems,
absence/lack of coordination between the 2 systems, etc.) is pointed out as key challen
CBHE. Another two significant challenges are ‘Consumer protection issues
“diploma mills” and Balance of responsibility between provider and receiver countries
and/or between the different actors within your country (institution, go
agency, etc.) More details are projected in graph below.
26.3%
36.8%
Overall perception of imported CBHE from European providers compared to local HE
About 36% respondents feel that overall perception of imported CBHE by
providers is of higher quality as compared to local provision while about 26% says it is of
Majority of the respondents [68%] agree that CBHE has a positive influence on the national
country, in terms of academic standards, HE access, etc
Quality assurance processes (conflict of standards between local/provider QA systems,
absence/lack of coordination between the 2 systems, etc.) is pointed out as key challen
Another two significant challenges are ‘Consumer protection issues
“diploma mills” and Balance of responsibility between provider and receiver countries
and/or between the different actors within your country (institution, go
More details are projected in graph below.
36.8%
26.3%
It is of higher
quality
It is about the
same quality
No opinion
Page 10 of 27
Overall perception of imported CBHE from European providers compared to local HE
About 36% respondents feel that overall perception of imported CBHE by European
providers is of higher quality as compared to local provision while about 26% says it is of
CBHE has a positive influence on the national
country, in terms of academic standards, HE access, etc.
Quality assurance processes (conflict of standards between local/provider QA systems,
absence/lack of coordination between the 2 systems, etc.) is pointed out as key challenge to
Another two significant challenges are ‘Consumer protection issues – proliferation of
“diploma mills” and Balance of responsibility between provider and receiver countries
and/or between the different actors within your country (institution, government, QA
It is of higher
quality
It is about the
same quality
No opinion
Legend:
A = Risk to the reputation of the institutions (profit driven)
B = Difficult recognition of qualifications
C = Balance of responsibility between provider and receiver
different actors within your country (institution, government, QA agency, etc.)
D = Quality assurance processes (conflict of standards between local/provider QA systems,
absence/lack of coordination between the 2 systems, etc.)
E = Consumer protection issues
F = Attracts criticisms of ‘cultural imperialism’
G = Marketisation / Commercialisation of HEIs
Views are divided equally on issue of whether
all countries/regions.
The strategies to deal with challenges as suggested in survey are given below.
• To appropriately satisfy the different needs of the receiver and sender through
contract and frequent communication.
• Close cooperation between QA and
• Need to provide advisory services to individuals in choosing study destination.
Redesign the recognition procedure to address the challenge
recognition procedure is developed
• Closer cooperation and
21.1%
31.6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
A B
A = Risk to the reputation of the institutions (profit driven)
B = Difficult recognition of qualifications
C = Balance of responsibility between provider and receiver countries and/or between the
different actors within your country (institution, government, QA agency, etc.)
D = Quality assurance processes (conflict of standards between local/provider QA systems,
absence/lack of coordination between the 2 systems, etc.)
E = Consumer protection issues – proliferation of “diploma mills”
F = Attracts criticisms of ‘cultural imperialism’
G = Marketisation / Commercialisation of HEIs
Views are divided equally on issue of whether the challenges the same for provision from
es to deal with challenges as suggested in survey are given below.
To appropriately satisfy the different needs of the receiver and sender through
contract and frequent communication.
Close cooperation between QA and National Information centers.
Need to provide advisory services to individuals in choosing study destination.
Redesign the recognition procedure to address the challenge
recognition procedure is developed in-house without any technical experti
Closer cooperation and recognitions among evaluation agencies
57.9%
68.4%
63.2%
10.5%
C D E
Page 11 of 27
countries and/or between the
different actors within your country (institution, government, QA agency, etc.)
D = Quality assurance processes (conflict of standards between local/provider QA systems,
the challenges the same for provision from
es to deal with challenges as suggested in survey are given below.
To appropriately satisfy the different needs of the receiver and sender through
National Information centers.
Need to provide advisory services to individuals in choosing study destination.
Redesign the recognition procedure to address the challenge- the current
without any technical expertise.
among evaluation agencies
10.5%
21.1%
F G
• QAAs to make known the providers they are quality assuring so it'll be easy to
identify which QAA to approach. Improved networking of QAAs Sharing of
information on CBHE Mutual trust between
• Capacity building for local QA agencies' personnel. Local QA standards aligned with
"international standards".
• Need for national regulatory framework for CBHE. Need for mandatory
accreditation of CBHE as per UNESCO
A little more than half respondents say that
own national context) from which students and other stakeholders can find out whether a
cross-border provision (programme or institution) is recognized, lic
assured by your national authorities.
Legal and other challenges related to the recognition procedures and requirements
of CBHE in respondent countries are listed below.
• The CBHE might have to go to the Parliament for their approval
• Need to follow National Standard for Accreditation
• The Ministry of Education's regulations on delivery of CBHE has to be observed by
any foreign CBHE providers in Thailand. That is why not many CBHE providers are
successful in operating in Thailand
• Each HE system has its own QA procedures while the approval/licensing for CBHE
in Vietnam is mainly based on documental evidence, we do not have not resources
to inspect the legal issues in reality
• Access to information on overseas providers through their QAAs wi
quality assurance status of these providers. Common understanding of QA
• Struggling with finding information resources relating to the education system in
foreign countries
• Comparability of qualifications. Lack of international binding guidel
recognition of qualifications
QAAs to make known the providers they are quality assuring so it'll be easy to
identify which QAA to approach. Improved networking of QAAs Sharing of
information on CBHE Mutual trust between QAAs
Capacity building for local QA agencies' personnel. Local QA standards aligned with
"international standards".
Need for national regulatory framework for CBHE. Need for mandatory
accreditation of CBHE as per UNESCO- OECD guidelines in receiving coun
A little more than half respondents say that there is some public source of information (in
own national context) from which students and other stakeholders can find out whether a
border provision (programme or institution) is recognized, licensed and/or quality
assured by your national authorities.
egal and other challenges related to the recognition procedures and requirements
respondent countries are listed below.
The CBHE might have to go to the Parliament for their approval
Need to follow National Standard for Accreditation
The Ministry of Education's regulations on delivery of CBHE has to be observed by
any foreign CBHE providers in Thailand. That is why not many CBHE providers are
successful in operating in Thailand
system has its own QA procedures while the approval/licensing for CBHE
in Vietnam is mainly based on documental evidence, we do not have not resources
to inspect the legal issues in reality
Access to information on overseas providers through their QAAs wi
quality assurance status of these providers. Common understanding of QA
Struggling with finding information resources relating to the education system in
Comparability of qualifications. Lack of international binding guidel
recognition of qualifications
Page 12 of 27
QAAs to make known the providers they are quality assuring so it'll be easy to
identify which QAA to approach. Improved networking of QAAs Sharing of
Capacity building for local QA agencies' personnel. Local QA standards aligned with
Need for national regulatory framework for CBHE. Need for mandatory
OECD guidelines in receiving country.
there is some public source of information (in
own national context) from which students and other stakeholders can find out whether a
ensed and/or quality
egal and other challenges related to the recognition procedures and requirements
The CBHE might have to go to the Parliament for their approval
The Ministry of Education's regulations on delivery of CBHE has to be observed by
any foreign CBHE providers in Thailand. That is why not many CBHE providers are
system has its own QA procedures while the approval/licensing for CBHE
in Vietnam is mainly based on documental evidence, we do not have not resources
Access to information on overseas providers through their QAAs with regards to
quality assurance status of these providers. Common understanding of QA
Struggling with finding information resources relating to the education system in
Comparability of qualifications. Lack of international binding guidelines for
Section III- Regulatory and QA Framework
Specific regulatory framework on QA of imported CBHE
About 57% respondents note that their
framework on QA of imported
Imported CBHE subject to compulsory QA procedures
In case of 58% respondents
5.3%5.3%5.3%5.3%
31.6%31.6%31.6%31.6%
23.5%23.5%23.5%23.5%
58.8%58.8%58.8%58.8%
17.6%17.6%17.6%17.6%
Regulatory and QA Framework
ramework on QA of imported CBHE
About 57% respondents note that their country or territory has a specific regulatory
framework on QA of imported CBHE
mported CBHE subject to compulsory QA procedures
In case of 58% respondents imported CBHE is subjected to compulsory QA procedures
5.3%5.3%5.3%5.3%
57.9%57.9%57.9%57.9%
Yes, for incoming provider mobility only
Yes, for both incoming provider and programme mobilityThere is no regulation of CBHE
23.5%23.5%23.5%23.5%No, none are subject (table in next question should be empty)
Yes, all are subject
Page 13 of 27
country or territory has a specific regulatory
imported CBHE is subjected to compulsory QA procedures
Yes, for incoming
incoming provider
Who is responsible for QA of imported CBHE?
Response in table below indicates that in most cases QA
countries are responsible for QA of imported CBHE
The importing institution itself (self
The local delivering institution (self
Government (host country)
Quality Assurance Agency (or equivalent)
Quality Assurance Agency –
Other
Agency involved in the QA of imported CBHE
62 % respondent Agencies are involved in the QA of imported
In most cases [82%] specific
countries or regions.
Data on CBHE categories
agencies.
Description of form / type of mobility
Branch Campus Provider in country establishes a satellite
campus in country B to deliver courses and
programmes to students in country B (may also
include country A students taking a
semester/courses abroad).The qualification
awarded is from provider in country A.
Independent
Institution
Foreign provider A (a traditional university, a
commercial company or alliance/network)
establishes in country B a standalone HEI to
offer courses/programmes and awards.
Who is responsible for QA of imported CBHE?
Response in table below indicates that in most cases QA agencies of both host and provider
countries are responsible for QA of imported CBHE
Provider
mobility
The importing institution itself (self-regulation) 9
The local delivering institution (self-regulation) 9
Government (host country) 9
Quality Assurance Agency (or equivalent) – host country 10
provider country 11
6
lved in the QA of imported CBHE
Agencies are involved in the QA of imported CBHE.
specific arrangements are in place in relation to CBHE from specific
CBHE categories which are subject to QA procedures by
Description of form / type of mobility
Provider in country establishes a satellite
campus in country B to deliver courses and
programmes to students in country B (may also
include country A students taking a
semester/courses abroad).The qualification
awarded is from provider in country A.
Foreign provider A (a traditional university, a
commercial company or alliance/network)
establishes in country B a standalone HEI to
offer courses/programmes and awards.
Page 14 of 27
agencies of both host and provider
Provider
Programme
mobility
10
9
8
9
10
6
in place in relation to CBHE from specific
subject to QA procedures by respondent
Subject
to QA
Not subject
to QA
8 4
8 4
Description of form / type of mobility
Acquisition/
Merger Foreign provider A purchases a
of local HEI in country B.
Study Centre/
Teaching site
Foreign provider A establishes study centers in
country B to support students taking their
courses/programmes. Study centers can be
independent or in collaboration with local
providers in country B.
Affiliation/
Networks
Different types of (public and
private)/(traditional and new) providers from
various countries collaborate through
innovative types of partnerships to establish
networks/institution to deliver courses and
programmes in local and foreign countries
through d
Virtual
University
Provider that delivers credit courses and degree
programme to students in different countries
through distance education modes and that
generally does not have face
services for students.
As is evident, CBHE categories like
Acquisition/ Merger are more likely to be subjected to QA
for categories like study centre/ affiliation or virtual
Details of CBHE categories subject
Description of form / type of mobility
Franchise An arrangement whereby a provider in the source
country A authorizes a provider in another country B
to deliver their
country B or other countries. The qualification is
awarded by a provider in country A. This is usually a
for-profit commercial arrangement.
Description of form / type of mobility
Foreign provider A purchases a part of or 100%
of local HEI in country B.
Foreign provider A establishes study centers in
country B to support students taking their
courses/programmes. Study centers can be
independent or in collaboration with local
iders in country B.
Different types of (public and
private)/(traditional and new) providers from
various countries collaborate through
innovative types of partnerships to establish
networks/institution to deliver courses and
programmes in local and foreign countries
through distance or face-to-face modes.
Provider that delivers credit courses and degree
programme to students in different countries
through distance education modes and that
generally does not have face-to-face support
services for students.
CBHE categories like Branch Campus, Independent
more likely to be subjected to QA procedures.
for categories like study centre/ affiliation or virtual university.
categories subject to QA procedures by respondent Agencies
Description of form / type of mobility
An arrangement whereby a provider in the source
country A authorizes a provider in another country B
to deliver their course/programme/service in
country B or other countries. The qualification is
awarded by a provider in country A. This is usually a
profit commercial arrangement.
Page 15 of 27
Subject
to QA
Not subject
to QA
8 3
6 5
5 6
6 5
Branch Campus, Independent Institution and
procedures. This is on lower side
respondent Agencies.
Exists Does not
exist
4 8
Description of form / type of mobility
Twinning A situation whereby a provider in source country A
collaborates with a provider located in country B to
develop an articulation system allowing student to
take course credits in country B and/or source
country A. Only one qualification is awarded by the
provider in the source country. This may or may not
be on a commercial basis.
Double/
Joint degree
An arrangement whereby providers in different
countries collaborate to offer a programme for which
a student receives a qualification from each provider
or a joint award from the collaborating providers.
Normally this is based on academic exchange.
Articulation Various types of articulation arrangements between
providers in different countries permit student to
gain credit for courses/programme
offered/delivered by collaborating providers.
Validation Validation arrangements between providers in
different countries which allow provider B in
receiving country to award qualification of provider
A in source country.
Virtual/
Distance
Arrangements where providers deliver
courses/programmes to
countries through distance and online modes. May
include some face
through domestic study or support centers.
CBHE categories like twinning,
procedures by respondent Agency in majority cases.
validation and virtual/distance education are subjected to QA by respondent
fewer cases.
As the CBHE grows in the region it is noted
[56%] have significantly changed approach to QA
to do so.
Description of form / type of mobility
A situation whereby a provider in source country A
collaborates with a provider located in country B to
develop an articulation system allowing student to
take course credits in country B and/or source
country A. Only one qualification is awarded by the
ovider in the source country. This may or may not
be on a commercial basis.
An arrangement whereby providers in different
countries collaborate to offer a programme for which
a student receives a qualification from each provider
or a joint award from the collaborating providers.
Normally this is based on academic exchange.
Various types of articulation arrangements between
providers in different countries permit student to
gain credit for courses/programme
offered/delivered by collaborating providers.
Validation arrangements between providers in
different countries which allow provider B in
receiving country to award qualification of provider
A in source country.
Arrangements where providers deliver
courses/programmes to students in different
countries through distance and online modes. May
include some face-to-face support for students
through domestic study or support centers.
twinning, Double/joint degree or articulation are
procedures by respondent Agency in majority cases. Whereas categories
validation and virtual/distance education are subjected to QA by respondent
As the CBHE grows in the region it is noted that a good number of respondent
[56%] have significantly changed approach to QA-CBHE in the past three years or planning
Page 16 of 27
Exists Does not
exist
8 4
7 5
7 5
4 7
5 6
articulation are subject to QA
Whereas categories like Franchise,
validation and virtual/distance education are subjected to QA by respondent agencies in a
good number of respondent Agencies
CBHE in the past three years or planning
Many agencies [61%] systematically
procedures.
Model/frame of reference for
Local regulations, locally developed guidelines for CBHE and international guidelines like
OECD/UNESCO Guidelines 2005 or UNESCO & APQN Toolkit, Regulating the Quality of
Cross-border Education, 2007 are being used as
QA-CBHE procedures in most cases as seen in figure below.
Legend:
A = Local regulations
B = Locally developed guidelines for CBHE
C = OECD/UNESCO Guidelines for Quality Provision in Cross
2005
D = INQAAHE Guidelines of Good Practice in Quality Assurance, 2007
E = UNESCO & APQN Toolkit, Regulating the Quality of Cross
F = European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ESG),
2005
G = We do not use any specific guidelines for CBHE
H = Other
42.1%
36.8%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
A B
] systematically review their process and methodology for QA
reference for QA-CBHE procedures
ocally developed guidelines for CBHE and international guidelines like
OECD/UNESCO Guidelines 2005 or UNESCO & APQN Toolkit, Regulating the Quality of
border Education, 2007 are being used as model/frame of reference do you use for
CBHE procedures in most cases as seen in figure below.
B = Locally developed guidelines for CBHE
C = OECD/UNESCO Guidelines for Quality Provision in Cross-border Higher Education,
D = INQAAHE Guidelines of Good Practice in Quality Assurance, 2007
E = UNESCO & APQN Toolkit, Regulating the Quality of Cross-border Education, 2007
F = European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ESG),
ot use any specific guidelines for CBHE
36.8% 36.8%
26.3%
10.5%
C E F G
Page 17 of 27
review their process and methodology for QA-CBHE
ocally developed guidelines for CBHE and international guidelines like
OECD/UNESCO Guidelines 2005 or UNESCO & APQN Toolkit, Regulating the Quality of
l/frame of reference do you use for
border Higher Education,
border Education, 2007
F = European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ESG),
10.5%
H
Criteria and processes used by
provision
a. Criteria for decisions and formal
outcomes
b. Composition of the expert group
c. Publication of reports
d. Appeals or complaints procedure
e. Follow-up activities
Using both the agency’s “home” and foreign country’s EQA framework seems to be most
popular approach in assessing imported CBHE provision. This is applicable across areas
like-
a. Criteria for decisions and formal outcomes
b. Composition of the expert group
c. Publication of reports
d. Appeals or complaints procedure
e. Follow-up activities
Criteria and procedures used in assessing imported CBHE
HE provision.
Over 62 % indicate that criteria and procedures used in
differ from those used for QA of local HE provision
31.3%31.3%31.3%31.3%
62.5%62.5%62.5%62.5%
Criteria and processes used by respondent Agencies in assessing imported CBHE
The
foreign
country’s
criteria
Both the agency’s
“home” and foreign
country’s EQA
framework
Criteria for decisions and formal 1 7
Composition of the expert group 0 7
0 7
Appeals or complaints procedure 1 5
1 6
oth the agency’s “home” and foreign country’s EQA framework seems to be most
popular approach in assessing imported CBHE provision. This is applicable across areas
a. Criteria for decisions and formal outcomes
expert group
d. Appeals or complaints procedure
riteria and procedures used in assessing imported CBHE and those for QA of local
criteria and procedures used in assessing imported CBHE do not
differ from those used for QA of local HE provision
31.3%31.3%31.3%31.3%
6.3%6.3%6.3%6.3%
Yes, for all programmes/institutions
Page 18 of 27
in assessing imported CBHE
Both the agency’s
“home” and foreign
country’s EQA
Specific rules
for cross-
border
reviews
Other
2 4
0 5
1 5
1 5
0 5
oth the agency’s “home” and foreign country’s EQA framework seems to be most
popular approach in assessing imported CBHE provision. This is applicable across areas
and those for QA of local
assessing imported CBHE do not
programmes/instituti
Majority [87%] of respondents agree that QA
consideration country needs (e.g. knowledge and technology transfer, infrastructure
development, localisation of research, capacity building, etc.)
Students and alumni/recent graduates involved in the QA of imported CBHE
Students
Alumni/recent graduates
Other stakeholders are involved in the QA of imported CBHE
Management and QA staff of the partnership, programme team, and others like internship
partners, external examiners, external advisors, etc.
In most of the agencies [68%]
with external QA-CBHE.
The scopes of QA-CBHE
The scope of QA of CBHE largely includes portability of qualifications and Student
protection issues.
47.4%47.4%47.4%47.4%
73.7%73.7%73.7%73.7%
0%0%0%0%
10%10%10%10%
20%20%20%20%
30%30%30%30%
40%40%40%40%
50%50%50%50%
60%60%60%60%
70%70%70%70%
80%80%80%80%
Transparen
Transparen
Transparen
Transparen
cy of the
cy of the
cy of the
cy of the
relationship
relationship
relationship
relationship
between
between
between
between …… ……
Portability
Portability
Portability
Portability
Majority [87%] of respondents agree that QA criteria and procedures take into
consideration country needs (e.g. knowledge and technology transfer, infrastructure
development, localisation of research, capacity building, etc.)
tudents and alumni/recent graduates involved in the QA of imported CBHE
Yes No
11 3
9 3
Other stakeholders are involved in the QA of imported CBHE
Management and QA staff of the partnership, programme team, and others like internship
partners, external examiners, external advisors, etc.
In most of the agencies [68%] members of QA review panels are trained to be familiarized
The scope of QA of CBHE largely includes portability of qualifications and Student
73.7%73.7%73.7%73.7%63.2%63.2%63.2%63.2%
36.8%36.8%36.8%36.8%
Portability
Portability
Portability
Portability
of
of
of of
qualificatio
qualificatio
qualificatio
qualificatio
ns
ns
nsns
Student &
Student &
Student &
Student &
learner
learner
learner
learner
protection
protection
protection
protection
Localisatio
Localisatio
Localisatio
Localisatio
n of
n of
n of
n of
teaching &
teaching &
teaching &
teaching &
learning
learning
learning
learning
Page 19 of 27
criteria and procedures take into
consideration country needs (e.g. knowledge and technology transfer, infrastructure
tudents and alumni/recent graduates involved in the QA of imported CBHE.
Other stakeholders are involved in the QA of imported CBHE include employers,
Management and QA staff of the partnership, programme team, and others like internship
members of QA review panels are trained to be familiarized
The scope of QA of CBHE largely includes portability of qualifications and Student
5.3%5.3%5.3%5.3%
Other
Other
Other
Other
A large majority [93%] agrees that
CBHE provision in line with national policy objectives
Capacity building
The plans of respondent Agenc
the quality of CBHE include following:
• Train more assessors for imported CBHE.
• We need expertise to help us development of QA
National Information Centre
• Enhance the collaboration with QA agencies abroad to learn and share experiences
and QA procedures Study more on QA
about QA-CBHE
• looking into the feasibility of mutual recognition / joint visit with EQAA of home
country
• Cooperation and collaboration with HEIs and QA agencies in receiving countries
would be important in the context of QA
• Develop a national guideline of good practices on QA
Section IV- collaboration with provider country QA agencies and/or HEIs
international networks
A good number of agencies [58%]
QA agencies and/or HEIs for the purpose of QA of imported CBHE
Coverage of collaboration
Collaboration largely cover issues such as information sharing and Joint QA exercises.
Mutual recognition of QA decisions and capacity building are other issues covered by some
agencies. Details can be seen below.
A large majority [93%] agrees that current regulatory and quality assurance framework of
line with national policy objectives.
Agencies to further develop its QA-CBHE processes and improve
include following:
Train more assessors for imported CBHE.
We need expertise to help us development of QA-CBHE process. Need to establish
National Information Centre
Enhance the collaboration with QA agencies abroad to learn and share experiences
and QA procedures Study more on QA -CBHE processes Have more staff
looking into the feasibility of mutual recognition / joint visit with EQAA of home
Cooperation and collaboration with HEIs and QA agencies in receiving countries
would be important in the context of QA-CBHE.
al guideline of good practices on QA-CBHE
collaboration with provider country QA agencies and/or HEIs
A good number of agencies [58%] have some kind of collaboration with provider country
HEIs for the purpose of QA of imported CBHE.
Collaboration largely cover issues such as information sharing and Joint QA exercises.
Mutual recognition of QA decisions and capacity building are other issues covered by some
Details can be seen below.
Page 20 of 27
current regulatory and quality assurance framework of
CBHE processes and improve
CBHE process. Need to establish
Enhance the collaboration with QA agencies abroad to learn and share experiences
CBHE processes Have more staff trained
looking into the feasibility of mutual recognition / joint visit with EQAA of home
Cooperation and collaboration with HEIs and QA agencies in receiving countries
collaboration with provider country QA agencies and/or HEIs and role of
have some kind of collaboration with provider country
Collaboration largely cover issues such as information sharing and Joint QA exercises.
Mutual recognition of QA decisions and capacity building are other issues covered by some
The challenges in collaborating with QA agencies in the host country for the QA of
CBHE
The challenge as indicated by agencies are listed below.
• The information about the context of higher education and
the host country
• Many providers of imported CBHE
• Sharing and availability of information on CBHE. Agreeing on QA standards and
tools to be used
• Different standards, different culture.
• National sovereignty is a delicate area. Concerns for 'quality' are shared. Resources
(human, financial, etc) are not readily available.
• There is no specific regulation and QA mechanism for joint degree programs which
award one joint qualification upon completion
requirements established by
government is under discussion to change the examination standards and criteria to
allow universities to collaborate with overseas universities and awar
joint degree program issuing a document signing jointly). In response to this change,
QA system may need to be reviewed.
• Lack of dialogue. Lack of multilateral or bilateral arrangements. Conflicts of interest
as many a times each party is interested in protection of own stakeholders. Low
awareness and lack of enforcement of UNESCO
68.4%68.4%68.4%68.4%
52.6%52.6%52.6%52.6%
0%0%0%0%10%10%10%10%20%20%20%20%30%30%30%30%40%40%40%40%50%50%50%50%60%60%60%60%70%70%70%70%80%80%80%80%
Inform
ation
Inform
ation
Inform
ation
Inform
ation
sharing
sharing
sharing
sharing
he challenges in collaborating with QA agencies in the host country for the QA of
The challenge as indicated by agencies are listed below.
The information about the context of higher education and requirements of CBHE in
Many providers of imported CBHE are not aware of the Thai regulations.
Sharing and availability of information on CBHE. Agreeing on QA standards and
Different standards, different culture.
sovereignty is a delicate area. Concerns for 'quality' are shared. Resources
(human, financial, etc) are not readily available.
There is no specific regulation and QA mechanism for joint degree programs which
award one joint qualification upon completion of the collaborative program
requirements established by Japanese and foreign providers
government is under discussion to change the examination standards and criteria to
allow universities to collaborate with overseas universities and awar
joint degree program issuing a document signing jointly). In response to this change,
QA system may need to be reviewed.
Lack of dialogue. Lack of multilateral or bilateral arrangements. Conflicts of interest
as many a times each party is interested in protection of own stakeholders. Low
awareness and lack of enforcement of UNESCO- OECD guidelines
52.6%52.6%52.6%52.6%42.1%42.1%42.1%42.1% 42.1%42.1%42.1%42.1%
15.8%15.8%15.8%15.8%
Joint QA
Joint QA
Joint QA
Joint QA
exercises
exercises
exercises
exercises
Mutual
Mutual
Mutual
Mutual
recognition/valid
recognition/valid
recognition/valid
recognition/valid
ation of QA
ation of QA
ation of QA
ation of QA
results
results
results
results
Capacity
Capacity
Capacity
Capacity
building in QA
building in QA
building in QA
building in QA-- --
CBHE
CBHE
CBHE
CBHE
Page 21 of 27
he challenges in collaborating with QA agencies in the host country for the QA of
requirements of CBHE in
not aware of the Thai regulations.
Sharing and availability of information on CBHE. Agreeing on QA standards and
sovereignty is a delicate area. Concerns for 'quality' are shared. Resources
There is no specific regulation and QA mechanism for joint degree programs which
of the collaborative program
Japanese and foreign providers. Currently the
government is under discussion to change the examination standards and criteria to
allow universities to collaborate with overseas universities and award a degree (a
joint degree program issuing a document signing jointly). In response to this change,
Lack of dialogue. Lack of multilateral or bilateral arrangements. Conflicts of interest
as many a times each party is interested in protection of own stakeholders. Low
OECD guidelines
15.8%15.8%15.8%15.8%
Other
Other
Other
Other
The challenges in dealing
CBHE.
The main challenges as comes out from survey are given below.
• Language and information about the higher education and CBHE in the host country.
• The absence of national information centres may b
there is no difference among the providers in this respect.
• Different school system, credit transfer and evaluation standards and indicators.
• Lack of multilateral or bilateral arrangements. Conflicts of interest as many a tim
each party is interested in protection of own stakeholders.
• Different countries have different levels of quality assurance and regulation.
Some examples of good practice in QA for CBHE in relationship with QA
provider countries.
Respondents indicated some generic types of good practices but a very few concrete
examples of such practices are provided as can be noted from points below.
• One good practice could be
the information about the
education. If we know the agency responsible for sharing this information, we could
do well in the cross-border recognition of qualifications.
• UNESCO Cross-Border Higher Education provides good source of info
• In the project of 'CAMPUS Asia' Monitoring, NIAD
assurance agencies in China and Korea created the common framework for
monitoring upon the agreement by the three agencies. Each agency implemented
the first monitoring of
the framework. The three agencies closely communicated in the process of creation
of the framework by holding trilateral and bilateral meetings or information
sharing.
Benefits from sharing of ex
regional or international networks like A
Respondents have strongly supported the role of networks in sharing of experiences and
good practices on QA-CBHE. Some comments are quoted
he challenges in dealing with QA agencies in the provider country for the QA of
The main challenges as comes out from survey are given below.
Language and information about the higher education and CBHE in the host country.
The absence of national information centres may be one challenge here. However,
there is no difference among the providers in this respect.
Different school system, credit transfer and evaluation standards and indicators.
Lack of multilateral or bilateral arrangements. Conflicts of interest as many a tim
each party is interested in protection of own stakeholders.
Different countries have different levels of quality assurance and regulation.
ome examples of good practice in QA for CBHE in relationship with QA
s indicated some generic types of good practices but a very few concrete
examples of such practices are provided as can be noted from points below.
One good practice could be knowing which agency or body is responsible to share
the information about the recognized universities or institutions of higher
education. If we know the agency responsible for sharing this information, we could
border recognition of qualifications.
Border Higher Education provides good source of info
In the project of 'CAMPUS Asia' Monitoring, NIAD-UE and the partner quality
assurance agencies in China and Korea created the common framework for
monitoring upon the agreement by the three agencies. Each agency implemented
the first monitoring of the 'CAMPUS Asia' pilot programs in 2013
the framework. The three agencies closely communicated in the process of creation
of the framework by holding trilateral and bilateral meetings or information
from sharing of experiences and good practices on QA
regional or international networks like APQN, ANQAHE, INQAAHE, etc.
Respondents have strongly supported the role of networks in sharing of experiences and
CBHE. Some comments are quoted below as it is to illustrate this.
Page 22 of 27
with QA agencies in the provider country for the QA of
Language and information about the higher education and CBHE in the host country.
e one challenge here. However,
Different school system, credit transfer and evaluation standards and indicators.
Lack of multilateral or bilateral arrangements. Conflicts of interest as many a times
Different countries have different levels of quality assurance and regulation.
ome examples of good practice in QA for CBHE in relationship with QA agencies in
s indicated some generic types of good practices but a very few concrete
examples of such practices are provided as can be noted from points below.
knowing which agency or body is responsible to share
universities or institutions of higher
education. If we know the agency responsible for sharing this information, we could
Border Higher Education provides good source of information.
UE and the partner quality
assurance agencies in China and Korea created the common framework for
monitoring upon the agreement by the three agencies. Each agency implemented
the 'CAMPUS Asia' pilot programs in 2013-2014 in line with
the framework. The three agencies closely communicated in the process of creation
of the framework by holding trilateral and bilateral meetings or information
periences and good practices on QA-CBHE through
PQN, ANQAHE, INQAAHE, etc.
Respondents have strongly supported the role of networks in sharing of experiences and
below as it is to illustrate this.
• Through APQN, we have sent staff for the conference, workshop and the exchange
program, and also signed the MoU with several counter
lots of information and inspiration about the QA
• Yes, of course. Learning new perspective, new framework, new criteria... We need
regional or international networks like APQN, ANQAHE, INQAAHE very much!
• Yes, we have been the member of APQN since 2009. We attended some workshops
and training course related to QA
information from APQN.
• Yes, information gathered and lessons learnt through meetings, conference,
workshops and discussions (online) organized by APQN and INQAAHE have
contributed to the review and strengthening of our policies and procedures on QA of
CBHE
• Yes, the implementation of local QA of CBHE has been benchmarked against the
good practices (e.g. A
regional and international networks.
• Yes. Such forums are much valued for shared understanding of QA terminology and
processes. We also try to learn from each other about dealing with issues in QA of
CBHE
Section V - A few Key messages emerging from
CBHE Profile
CBHE provision is currently available in most of the respondent countries /
it is growing. In terms of the number of students, the role of CBHE pro
countries seems to be marginal.
major form of provider mobility.
and independent institution.
popular types of program mobility in respondent countries.
Australia, UK and USA emerge as clear topers as main
programs are the ones to take major share of program and provider mobility a
to Graduate and Doctoral programs.
increasing cost of studying abroad, access/visa restrictions, etc.) comes out to be the main
reason for development of CBHE at most places.
Through APQN, we have sent staff for the conference, workshop and the exchange
program, and also signed the MoU with several counter-parts, which has provide
lots of information and inspiration about the QA-CBHE.
course. Learning new perspective, new framework, new criteria... We need
regional or international networks like APQN, ANQAHE, INQAAHE very much!
Yes, we have been the member of APQN since 2009. We attended some workshops
and training course related to QA -CBHE. We have also benefitted from reading
information from APQN.
Yes, information gathered and lessons learnt through meetings, conference,
kshops and discussions (online) organized by APQN and INQAAHE have
contributed to the review and strengthening of our policies and procedures on QA of
Yes, the implementation of local QA of CBHE has been benchmarked against the
good practices (e.g. APQN Toolkit, INQAAHE GGP) and shared experiences of
regional and international networks.
Yes. Such forums are much valued for shared understanding of QA terminology and
processes. We also try to learn from each other about dealing with issues in QA of
A few Key messages emerging from initial analyses of
CBHE provision is currently available in most of the respondent countries /
In terms of the number of students, the role of CBHE pro
countries seems to be marginal. Branch campus and Affiliation/ networks appear to be
mobility. It is followed by forms /categories like virtual
institution. Articulation, twinning and double/joint degree are most
popular types of program mobility in respondent countries.
UK and USA emerge as clear topers as main providers in Asia Pacific region.
programs are the ones to take major share of program and provider mobility a
to Graduate and Doctoral programs. Decreasing outbound student mobility (due to
increasing cost of studying abroad, access/visa restrictions, etc.) comes out to be the main
reason for development of CBHE at most places.
Page 23 of 27
Through APQN, we have sent staff for the conference, workshop and the exchange
parts, which has provide
course. Learning new perspective, new framework, new criteria... We need
regional or international networks like APQN, ANQAHE, INQAAHE very much!
Yes, we have been the member of APQN since 2009. We attended some workshops
CBHE. We have also benefitted from reading
Yes, information gathered and lessons learnt through meetings, conference,
kshops and discussions (online) organized by APQN and INQAAHE have
contributed to the review and strengthening of our policies and procedures on QA of
Yes, the implementation of local QA of CBHE has been benchmarked against the
PQN Toolkit, INQAAHE GGP) and shared experiences of
Yes. Such forums are much valued for shared understanding of QA terminology and
processes. We also try to learn from each other about dealing with issues in QA of
survey-
CBHE provision is currently available in most of the respondent countries / territories and
In terms of the number of students, the role of CBHE provision in Asian
Branch campus and Affiliation/ networks appear to be
like virtual university
double/joint degree are most
Asia Pacific region. UG
programs are the ones to take major share of program and provider mobility as compared
Decreasing outbound student mobility (due to
increasing cost of studying abroad, access/visa restrictions, etc.) comes out to be the main
Level of awareness and pa
UNESCO-OECD guidelines is low among various stakeholders.
qualifications is noted as a major concern for QA of CBHE in most [68%] Asian countries
large section of respondents
procedures and requirements of higher education delivered by foreign providers and/or
leading to a foreign qualification.
Issues and challenges of quality and QA of CBHE
Just about a quarter of respondents feel that overall perception of imported CBHE is of
higher quality as compared to local provision while another quarter says it is of same
quality. About 36% respondents feel that overall perception of imported CBHE by
European providers is of higher quality as compared to local provision while about 26%
says it is of same quality.
Majority of the respondents [68%] agree that
system of HE in your country, in terms of academic standards, HE acces
assurance processes (conflict of standards between local/provider QA systems,
absence/lack of coordination between the 2 systems, etc.) is pointed out as key challenge to
CBHE.
There is increased need for some public source of information
from which students and other stakeholders can find out whether a cross
(programme or institution) is recognized, licensed and/or quality assured by your national
authorities.
Regulatory and QA framework
About 57% respondents note that their
framework on QA of imported CBHE
subjected to compulsory QA procedures
Campus, Independent Institution and Acquisition/ Merger are more likely to be subjected
to QA procedures. This is on lower side for categories like study centre/ affiliation or
virtual university.
CBHE categories like twinning, Double/joint degree or articulation ar
procedures by respondent Agency in majority cases. Whereas categories like Franchise,
Level of awareness and participation of higher education stakeholders in implementing
OECD guidelines is low among various stakeholders.
qualifications is noted as a major concern for QA of CBHE in most [68%] Asian countries
large section of respondents [ 68%] have legal and other issues related to the recognition
procedures and requirements of higher education delivered by foreign providers and/or
leading to a foreign qualification.
Issues and challenges of quality and QA of CBHE
of respondents feel that overall perception of imported CBHE is of
higher quality as compared to local provision while another quarter says it is of same
About 36% respondents feel that overall perception of imported CBHE by
of higher quality as compared to local provision while about 26%
Majority of the respondents [68%] agree that CBHE has a positive influence on the national
system of HE in your country, in terms of academic standards, HE acces
assurance processes (conflict of standards between local/provider QA systems,
absence/lack of coordination between the 2 systems, etc.) is pointed out as key challenge to
There is increased need for some public source of information (in own national context)
from which students and other stakeholders can find out whether a cross
(programme or institution) is recognized, licensed and/or quality assured by your national
Regulatory and QA framework
About 57% respondents note that their country or territory has a specific regulatory
framework on QA of imported CBHE. In case of 58% respondents
subjected to compulsory QA procedures. As is evident, CBHE categories like
ependent Institution and Acquisition/ Merger are more likely to be subjected
to QA procedures. This is on lower side for categories like study centre/ affiliation or
CBHE categories like twinning, Double/joint degree or articulation ar
procedures by respondent Agency in majority cases. Whereas categories like Franchise,
Page 24 of 27
rticipation of higher education stakeholders in implementing
OECD guidelines is low among various stakeholders. Comparability of
qualifications is noted as a major concern for QA of CBHE in most [68%] Asian countries. A
legal and other issues related to the recognition
procedures and requirements of higher education delivered by foreign providers and/or
of respondents feel that overall perception of imported CBHE is of
higher quality as compared to local provision while another quarter says it is of same
About 36% respondents feel that overall perception of imported CBHE by
of higher quality as compared to local provision while about 26%
CBHE has a positive influence on the national
system of HE in your country, in terms of academic standards, HE access, etc. Quality
assurance processes (conflict of standards between local/provider QA systems,
absence/lack of coordination between the 2 systems, etc.) is pointed out as key challenge to
(in own national context)
from which students and other stakeholders can find out whether a cross-border provision
(programme or institution) is recognized, licensed and/or quality assured by your national
country or territory has a specific regulatory
In case of 58% respondents imported CBHE is
As is evident, CBHE categories like Branch
ependent Institution and Acquisition/ Merger are more likely to be subjected
to QA procedures. This is on lower side for categories like study centre/ affiliation or
CBHE categories like twinning, Double/joint degree or articulation are subject to QA
procedures by respondent Agency in majority cases. Whereas categories like Franchise,
validation and virtual/distance education are subjected to QA by respondent agencies in a
fewer cases.
Local regulations, Locally developed guidelines f
OECD/UNESCO Guidelines 2005 or UNESCO & APQN Toolkit, Regulating the Quality of
Cross-border Education, 2007 are being used as
QA-CBHE procedures in most cases.
Using both the agency’s “home” and foreign country’s EQA framework seems to be most
popular approach in assessing imported CBHE provision.
and procedures used in assessing imported CBHE do not differ from those used for QA of
local HE provision. Majority [87%] of respondents agree that QA
take into consideration country needs (e.g. knowledge and technology transfer,
infrastructure development, localisation of research, capacity building, etc.)
The scope of QA of CBHE largely includes portability of qualifications and Student
protection issues. Need for capacity building for development of QA
many respondent countries is stressed besides
Centres and collaborations.
Collaborations
A good number of agencies [58%]
QA agencies and/or HEIs for the purpose of QA of imported CBHE
cover issues such as information sharing and Joint QA ex
information sharing and issues like cultural / sovereignty concerns are some of
impediments in collaborations.
Language barriers m lack of NICs, absence of multilateral agreements, etc
key challenges noted for collaborations
the need for collaboration and networks in sharing of experiences and good practices on
QA-CBHE.
Limitations of survey and analyses
It needs to mentioned here that this survey and analyses have some limitations as
Any such survey might have.
validation and virtual/distance education are subjected to QA by respondent agencies in a
Local regulations, Locally developed guidelines for CBHE and international guidelines like
OECD/UNESCO Guidelines 2005 or UNESCO & APQN Toolkit, Regulating the Quality of
border Education, 2007 are being used as model/frame of reference do you use for
CBHE procedures in most cases.
the agency’s “home” and foreign country’s EQA framework seems to be most
popular approach in assessing imported CBHE provision. Over 62% indicate that
and procedures used in assessing imported CBHE do not differ from those used for QA of
Majority [87%] of respondents agree that QA criteria and procedures
take into consideration country needs (e.g. knowledge and technology transfer,
infrastructure development, localisation of research, capacity building, etc.)
of CBHE largely includes portability of qualifications and Student
Need for capacity building for development of QA
many respondent countries is stressed besides need to establish National Information
A good number of agencies [58%] have some kind of collaboration with provider country
QA agencies and/or HEIs for the purpose of QA of imported CBHE.
cover issues such as information sharing and Joint QA exercises.
information sharing and issues like cultural / sovereignty concerns are some of
impediments in collaborations.
Language barriers m lack of NICs, absence of multilateral agreements, etc
key challenges noted for collaborations. Respondent agencies fully appreciate and support
the need for collaboration and networks in sharing of experiences and good practices on
Limitations of survey and analyses
ioned here that this survey and analyses have some limitations as
Any such survey might have. A few are given below.
Page 25 of 27
validation and virtual/distance education are subjected to QA by respondent agencies in a
or CBHE and international guidelines like
OECD/UNESCO Guidelines 2005 or UNESCO & APQN Toolkit, Regulating the Quality of
model/frame of reference do you use for
the agency’s “home” and foreign country’s EQA framework seems to be most
Over 62% indicate that criteria
and procedures used in assessing imported CBHE do not differ from those used for QA of
criteria and procedures
take into consideration country needs (e.g. knowledge and technology transfer,
infrastructure development, localisation of research, capacity building, etc.).
of CBHE largely includes portability of qualifications and Student
Need for capacity building for development of QA-CBHE processes in
eed to establish National Information
have some kind of collaboration with provider country
. Collaboration largely
ercises. Lack of dialogue,
information sharing and issues like cultural / sovereignty concerns are some of
Language barriers m lack of NICs, absence of multilateral agreements, etc. are some of the
Respondent agencies fully appreciate and support
the need for collaboration and networks in sharing of experiences and good practices on
ioned here that this survey and analyses have some limitations as
• APQN has over 52 members which are QA bodies. About 19 responses used in this
analyses may not be a good sample to draw generalizations.
• Many of the responses are based on opinions and views
• Data given by respondents is not subjected to cross check
• Survey analyses is not supplemented by research and other secondary sources
Despite these and other limitations , it is hoped that survey poin
trends of QA of CBHE across Asia and pacific regions.
APQN has over 52 members which are QA bodies. About 19 responses used in this
analyses may not be a good sample to draw generalizations.
Many of the responses are based on opinions and views
Data given by respondents is not subjected to cross check
Survey analyses is not supplemented by research and other secondary sources
Despite these and other limitations , it is hoped that survey points to status and some key
trends of QA of CBHE across Asia and pacific regions.
*****
Page 26 of 27
APQN has over 52 members which are QA bodies. About 19 responses used in this
Survey analyses is not supplemented by research and other secondary sources
ts to status and some key
List of participating countries/ territories and agencies
1. Australia – NEAS
2. Australia – Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency
3. Bhutan – Quality Assurance and Accreditation Division
4. Cambodia – Accreditation Committee of Cambodia
5. China – China Academic Degree and Graduate Education Development Center
6. China – Shanghai Education Evaluation Institute
7. China – Yunnan Higher Education
8. Fiji – Secretariat of the Pacific Board for Educational Assessment (SPBEA)
9. Hong Kong – Hong Kong Council for Accreditation of Academic and Vocational
Qualifications
10. India – National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC)
11. Japan – Japan University Accreditation Association
12. Japan – National Institution for Academic Degrees and University Evaluation (NIAD
UE)
13. Malaysia – Malaysian Qualifications Agency
14. Maldives – Maldives Qualifications Authority
15. Republic of Korea – Korean Cou
16. Samoa – Samoa Qualifications Authority
17. Taiwan – Taiwan Assessment and Evaluation Association
18. Thailand – Office for National Education Standards and Quality Assessment (Public
Organization)
19. Vietnam – Vocational Training Accr
Training
List of participating countries/ territories and agencies
Education Quality and Standards Agency
Quality Assurance and Accreditation Division
Accreditation Committee of Cambodia
China Academic Degree and Graduate Education Development Center
Shanghai Education Evaluation Institute
Yunnan Higher Education Evaluation Centre (YHEEC)
of the Pacific Board for Educational Assessment (SPBEA)
Hong Kong Council for Accreditation of Academic and Vocational
National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC)
Japan University Accreditation Association
Institution for Academic Degrees and University Evaluation (NIAD
Malaysian Qualifications Agency
Maldives Qualifications Authority
Korean Council for University Education
Samoa Qualifications Authority
Taiwan Assessment and Evaluation Association
Office for National Education Standards and Quality Assessment (Public
Vocational Training Accreditation Agency, Directorate of Vocational
Page 27 of 27
List of participating countries/ territories and agencies
China Academic Degree and Graduate Education Development Center
of the Pacific Board for Educational Assessment (SPBEA)
Hong Kong Council for Accreditation of Academic and Vocational
National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC)
Institution for Academic Degrees and University Evaluation (NIAD-
Office for National Education Standards and Quality Assessment (Public
editation Agency, Directorate of Vocational
Annexure - 1