Faculty in Cross-Border Higher Education

Running Head: FACULTY IN CROSS-BORDER HIGHER EDUCATION

Faculty in Cross-Border Higher Education

Edith Pfeifer List

Illinois State University

CIES 2015, Washington D.C.

FACULTY IN CROSS-BORDER HIGHER EDUCATION 2

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is the exploration of faculty perceptions of delivering cross-

border higher education. In the literature, education provided by an institution based in a

different country has been described as borderless education, offshore education, cross-border

education or transnational education (McBurnie & Ziguras, 2006). For this paper, the term cross-

border education will be used for consistency. A literature review reveals four major categories

of cross-border education: franchising, twinning/dual degrees, international branch campuses,

and distance education (Croom, 2012; Knight, 2007, 2011). Cross-border education is part of the

internationalization of higher education resulting from globalization. Altbach (2004) defines

globalization as “the broad economic, technological, and scientific trends that directly affect

higher education and are largely inevitable” (p. 5). The globalization of higher education has

resulted in education as an export. This paper explores the effects of delivering a curriculum in

an environment different than where it was developed and focuses on the faculty perspective.

This paper covers current literature and establishing a proposal for future study on the topic. The

teaching and learning within the cross-border higher education are crucial to whether it is a

successful model for the long-term.

For decades, higher education institutions in the United States have incorporated an

international aspect into their institutions with study abroad programs and international students

attending their schools. More recently, internationalization includes domestic curricula with

more international perspectives that reflect globalization. In cross-border higher education,

curricula is often developed and exported to another country for delivery either by local staff

and/or by fly-in faculty from the home campus. The delivery of the cross-border curricula is the

focus of this paper. Identified issues arising from the delivery of cross-border higher education

include intercultural competencies of faculty (Gopal, 2011; Jauregui, 2013; Spencer-Oatey,

2013), cultural relevancy of the curricula (Crosling, 2011; Pyvis, 2011; Shams & Huisman,

2014), power dynamics between campuses (Bell & Keevers, 2014; Dobos, Chapman, &

O’Donoghue, 2013; Wallace et al., 2011), and quality assurance (Clay & Minett-Smith, 2012;

Dunn & Wallace, 2008; Keevers et al., 2014; Waterval, Frambach, Driessen, & Scherpbier,

2014). Assessment and quality assurance within a cross-border context are used to ensure

comparability with the home institution program. The majority of the literature focuses on

delivery of cross-border education in the Asia-Pacific region. Less literature dealt with countries

in the Middle East (D. Chapman, Austin, Farah, Wilson, & Ridge, 2014; Jauregui, 2013;

McNamara, Knight, & Fernandez-Chung, 2013; K. Smith, 2009).

Two major themes in the literature are the need for communication between institutions

and professional development. The delivery of curricula by a remote staff requires

communication between the home institution staff and the delivering staff (A. Chapman & Pyvis,

2013; Dobos et al., 2013). This communication varies in terms of timeliness, intercultural

understanding, and effectiveness (Heffernan & Poole, 2005). Professional development ranges

from pre-departure orientation to on-going development and from informal to formal activities.

Gribble and Ziguras (2003) and Gopal (2011) discuss pre-departure orientation while propose

that on-going, actual experience may be more effective. Other faculty development issues

include adjusting to student learning styles (Dunn & Wallace, 2004; Waterval et al., 2014),

language barriers (McNicoll, Clohessy, Luff, & others, 2005; Spencer-Oatey, 2013), and

academic freedom (Edwards, Crosling, & Lim, 2014).


Introduction

Higher education is an important export globally. The Australian international higher

education sector in 2013-2014, generated 10.8 billion AUD (Australian Government Department

of Education, 2014). In 2011-2012, 570,000 students were studying for a United Kingdom

Higher Education credential at an institution outside of the United Kingdom or via distance

learning (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, 2013). Other exporting countries

include the United States, Russia, France and India (C-BERT, 2015). The institutions that export

their programs are responsible for providing a degree program of equal quality to those delivered

in their home countries. A crucial part to this equation is the faculty who deliver the curricula in

the host countries. Through a review of literature, this paper explores, issues regarding faculty

teaching in cross-border higher education: communication between partners, intercultural issues,

professional development, orientation, power inequalities between partners, workload, and

quality assurance. These issues affect curriculum delivery of cross-border higher education.

Cross-border higher education is part of the internationalization of higher education

resulting from globalization. Altbach (2004) defines globalization as “the broad economic,

technological, and scientific trends that directly affect higher education and are largely

inevitable” (p. 5). For decades, higher education institutions in the United States have

incorporated an international aspect into their institutions with study abroad programs and

international students attending their schools. More recently, internationalization includes

domestic curricula with more international perspectives that reflect globalization.

Globalization affected education by defining education as a service or a commodity that

can be imported to meet local demand or exported with a profit (Altbach & Knight, 2007).

Previously, education was considered a national public good. National and international trade


liberalization policies such as the World Trade Organization’s General Agreement on Trade in

Services (GATS) have supported and enabled institutions to export higher education as a service

or a commodity. The providers of cross-border higher education are not just non-profit private

and public institutions, but also for-profit organizations such as corporate universities,

international conglomerates, and professional associations (Altbach & Knight, 2007). For

example, Laureate Education, Inc. offers higher education programs to over 850,000 students in

29 countries (Laureate Education, Inc., 2014).

Higher education provided by an institution based in a different country has been

described as borderless education, offshore education, cross-border education or transnational

education (McBurnie & Ziguras, 2006). For this paper, the term cross-border education will be

used for consistency. A literature review revealed four major categories of cross-border higher

education: franchising, twinning/dual degrees, international branch campuses, and distance

education (Croom, 2012; Knight, 2007, 2011). Franchising involves an institution providing

curriculum, materials, and the right to award a degree in another institution’s name for a fee

(Altbach, 2012). Twinning or dual degrees involves two different institutions that collaborate on

the coursework in one or both countries and either the host institution or both institutions award

the degree (Knight, 2011). Distance education refers to either coursework delivered online or

with another form of communication that may or may not include face-to-face support in a

different country (Knight, 2011). All of these forms of cross-border higher education involve

delivery of a curriculum developed in a different context than where it is delivered.

There are a variety of faculty arrangements for curriculum delivery in cross-border higher

education. One arrangement is “fly-in/fly-out” or “flying faculty” model where the faculty fly to

the host campus for a short period of intensive teaching (Aiello & Clarke, 2010; Jais, 2012; Seah


& Edwards, 2006; K. Smith, 2013, 2014). The course is then supported locally by a teaching

team of tutors or distance education methods for the duration of the course. Another arrangement

is faculty employed at the partner facility. In some instances, the local faculty may be from the

home institution (Altbach, 2011). Otherwise, faculty are hired specifically to teach at the partner

facility. Two studies have focused specifically on expatriate faculty who have taught in several

countries over their careers (Jauregui, 2013; Sia, 2015). Only one study focused on female

faculty (Hamza, 2006). The majority of cross-border faculty focus on delivery of cross-border

education to Asia-Pacific. The minority of studies are related to countries in the Gulf Region (D.

Chapman et al., 2014; Jauregui, 2013; McNamara et al., 2013; K. Smith, 2009).

Issues for flying faculty

Flying faculty teach for short periods at the partner institution while still teaching at the

home institution. The remainder of the course is supported with local tutors or distance education

support (Aiello & Clarke, 2010). One rationale for engaging flying faculty is the lack of

interested by home faculty to move abroad. This may be due to personal considerations or a

heavy teaching load and on-going research at home (Fielden & Gillard, 2011). Fielden and

Gillard (2011) found that while programs anticipated to have home campus faculty resident at

the partner facility in the beginning, it turned out that most faculty are hired from outside of the

institution in the nine cases. The flying faculty model allows for teaching abroad without leaving

the home institution and allows for continuity from the home institution abroad.

Flying faculty identified several negative issues with this model of cross-border

curriculum delivery. Some faculty reported feeling a conflict between their responsibilities at the

home campus including teaching classes and teaching short sessions at a partner facility (Aiello

& Clarke, 2010). Some faculty reported that the intensity of short sessions at host campus


focused on the delivery of content and not student learning (Aiello & Clarke, 2010). Other issues

reported include time away from family, the physical exhaustion from quick turnaround times

(K. Smith, 2014), the lack of a reduction in workload at the home campus, home students not

understanding why faculty are gone for periods, and low or no monetary incentive for traveling

(Debowski, 2003; Dobos et al., 2013; Jais, 2012; National Tertiary Education Union Policy &

Research Unit, 2004; Pyvis, 2011).

Positively, flying faculty found the experience enriching both in terms of teaching abroad

and in their courses at the home facility (Dunn & Wallace, 2004; Leask, 2004; Seah & Edwards,

2006). Tudor (2011) remarked that the UK faculty “learnt as much from the [partner] students as

they learnt from us.” (p. 81). In addition, faculty were responsible for teaching a breadth of

material in a short period of time which creates a greater versatility and understanding of the

course on the faculty’s part (K. Smith, 2013). For some faculty, the additional workload may be

outlined in a second contract which would allow for acknowledgment of issues raised above

(National Tertiary Education Union Policy & Research Unit, 2004) or part of a commitment in

their regular contract (Debowski, 2003).

The use of flying faculty is based on the premise of local academic support for the

remainder of the course. Dunn and Wallace (2004) reported that Singapore students preferred the

input from their Australian lecturers from local tutors which complicated the local delivery.

Leask (2004) reported that while local Hong Kong tutors had skills and knowledge that would be

helpful to the Australian home faculty, there was no relationship to support it. An example of

greater collaboration, is in Pyvis (2011) regarding training of local tutors in an Australian-

Chinese twinning program at the home institution. The training enabled the tutors to better

understand and convey the home institution’s values at the partner program.


Some of the issues that flying faculty experience extend to the faculty at the home

institution who manage the cross-border programs. Some home institution faculty who do not

travel have additional tasks and workload as cross-border program coordinators or course

moderators (Debowski, 2003). The effects of an increased workload may come from differing

schedules of home and partner programs and feeling responsible for the programs (Dobos et al.,

2013). The effects of cross-border faculty are not limited to just those who are traveling or living

in another country.

Professional Development and Orientation

In most studies, cross-border faculty reported a lack of opportunities for professional

development and orientation. Dunn and Wallace (2004) suggested that an orientation for flying

faculty would allow them to be more prepared rather than using trial and error to improve the

educational experience. Dunn and Wallace (2006) found in a later study with nine Australian

universities’ flying faculty that respondents did not have an orientation and had little in the way

of professional development opportunities. Cross-border faculty orientation would ideally

include information about local educational systems and information about the country and its

culture (Dunn & Wallace, 2006; K. Smith, 2013). Gribble and Ziguras (2003) and Hoare (2013)

found that study respondents felt that teaching international students was good preparation for

the classroom, but the faculty needed location specific context to prepare for teaching in a cross-

border setting.

Gribble and Ziguras (2003) found in their study of 20 Australian business faculty and

administrators that most had informal pre-departure orientation by conversing with individuals

who had prior experiences. The informal information gathering about prior experiences was

valued more than formal methods which were quickly outdated and less location-specific


(Gribble & Ziguras, 2003; K. Smith, 2013). Informal mentoring was also preferred by

respondents in Seah and Edwards (2006) over a formal process. Jauregui (2013) found that

among expatriate faculty at Education City in Qatar, informal discussions and interactions were

considered an effective method of information gathering regarding teaching strategies, classroom

management and locally appropriate course materials. However, in Hoare (2013), upon

reflection, newer faculty reported that some of the information given by experienced faculty

members were negative stereotypes. K. Smith (2013) advocated for institutional support for

reflective opportunities to engage in transformative professional development. This would allow

for a deeper understanding of their cross-border experience.

A key issue for teaching in cross-border higher education is the awareness of intercultural

interactions whether from the perspective of the home institution or the partner institution.

Crosling (2012) posits that orientation of partner faculty is important for understanding of the

home institution’s values. This understanding can then be translated in the classroom and in

assessment of student learning. Gopal (2011) advocates for cross-border pre-departure

orientation and on-going opportunities for professional development based on Deardorff’s (2006)

process model of intercultural dependence. This type of training would allow for understanding

how to deal with situations in a cross-border setting. Smith (2009) advocates for cross-border

faculty to engage in a reflective practice about their experiences to explore personal development

and educational change. Hoare (2013) concluded that reflective learning should be supported

instead of just informal training. An example of this type of professional development is a

University of South Australia program in Malaysia where both partners engage and collaborate

in initiatives and research of cross-border teaching and learning (Hicks & Jarrett, 2008).


Professional development and orientation should address the needs and concerns of the

cross-border faculty wherever they are employed. However, Allen (2014) found that participants

in professional development activities conducted by the home campus for the host campus

faculty lacked cultural relevance for their Southeast Asian context. This same issue was found in

A. Chapman and Pyvis’s (2013) Malaysian case study where the cross-border faculty

professional development was intended for home campus faculty who were teaching abroad.

Keevers et al. (2014) highlighted the need for professional development that is grounded in the

daily work and experience of cross-border faculty.

Local Context/Intercultural Issues

Cross-border education is an opportunity for intercultural learning for all parties

involved. “These staff [those engaged in cross-border teaching], who taught regularly as ‘others’

in an ‘other’ cultural context had their long-held views of teaching and learning challenged, and

had engaged in valuable intercultural learning” (Leask, 2004, sec. 6 para. 3). Intercultural studies

of cross-border education used G. Hofstede’s work on cultural dimensions (Djerasimovic, 2014;

Heffernan & Poole, 2005; Lynch, 2013; Prowse & Goddard, 2010; Seah & Edwards, 2006) and

D. Deardorff’s work on intercultural competence (Gopal, 2011; Jauregui, 2013; Sia, 2015).

Bovill, Jordan, and Watters (2014) note the need for cultural awareness regarding attitudes is just

as important as other qualifications for teaching in a cross-border setting.

The curriculum materials in cross-border education usually come from the home

institution. Cross-border faculty appear to have little academic freedom in the choice of their

delivery of the curriculum (Edwards et al., 2014). Dobos (2011) reported that when weekly

teaching materials did not arrive at a Malaysian campus of an Australian university, some cross-

border faculty enjoyed creating the materials while others felt burdened by it. Crosling (2011)


discussed a program at a Malaysian branch campus of an Australian university where the local

faculty developed local programs specifically based on local or regional context. This program

appears to be unusual, but empowered partner faculty to teach to their strengths. Some partner

campus faculty were encouraged to modify the course material to reflect the local context (A.

Chapman & Pyvis, 2013; Clay & Minett-Smith, 2012; Dobos, 2011). Modification of the course

material may for example include local case studies or examples from the region. While some

campuses have mostly a local student population, those with a more international student

population find that providing local examples may not be productive (Dobos, 2011). For some,

the curriculum is delivered identically as at the home institution. This assumes that students

understand the educational experiences and have a language ability comparable to understand the

concepts and strategies used in the home institution.

Depending on the local context, classroom activities and materials may be modified. For

example, Miliszewska and Horwood (2004) found that students at a Hong Kong partner program

and those at the Australian home campus appreciate different aspects while working on an

identical project. The difference was explained that the Hong Kong students were already

employed while the Australian students had yet to work in their field. Dunn and Wallace (2004)

found that at a Singapore partner program, some students memorized and repeated material

verbatim without citation for tests on which they received high marks. While the Australian

partner considered this plagiarism, locally it was considered a demonstration of learning or may

have resulted from low English language ability. In another example from a branch campus in

Qatar, the local faculty taught differently by structuring their classes more and scaffolding their

assignments and going over readings in more detail than they would at the home campus in


Canada (Prowse & Goddard, 2010). Each of these examples illustrate the different interactions

faculty and students had regarding curriculum delivery.

Within the cross-border classroom, students had differing levels of English language

competence and differing expectations regarding teaching styles. The levels of student

familiarity with English varied. Sia (2015) reports that at Uzbekistani cross-border institutions

while the classes are in English, English is an optional language for students to study in

secondary education and recommended that faculty take this into account. In another example,

at a Singapore partner program, Dunn and Wallace (2004) reported that students found the

technical nature of the English difficult to understand along with a difficulty regarding the

concepts and philosophy of the Australian textbook. In a later study of additional Australian

universities’ cross-border programs, Dunn and Wallace (2006) reported that home faculty knew

that cross-border students struggled with the textbooks. Spencer-Oatey (2013) found that even

partner faculty had difficulty with technical terms and concepts in English that made

communication with home institution faculty difficult. In addition to terminology, Pyvis (2008)

found that for faculty at a Mauritian partner institution, where they were required to be fluent in

both English and French, the faculty were not familiar with the teaching methods and

expectations of “English-speaking” institutions (p. 232-233).

In Bodycott and Walker (2000), the authors’ increased intercultural understanding of

students at a Hong Kong institution lead to more effective classroom discussions. Higher

Education Academy (2014) in their publication, Transnational and multimodal teaching,

recommended that faculty be sensitive to student responses regarding class discussion, debates or

role playing which may be unfamiliar to them. Hamza (2010) reported that female faculty in the

Gulf Region had to adjust to student learning styles based on a more traditional system and to


adjust to some female students who wore a face covering during class. As the faculty became

more aware of their environment, their attitudes and perceptions changed both of themselves and

of others (Hamza, 2010). Sia (2015) reported cultural differences in faculty expectations of

student classroom behavior in cross-border higher education facilities in Uzbekistan.

Communication

Communication between partners was often by email between the institutions, although

not always timely (A. Chapman & Pyvis, 2013; Clay & Minett-Smith, 2012; Dobos, 2011;

Dobos et al., 2013; Pyvis, 2011; Tudor, 2011). In addition, some emails were misinterpreted due

to a lack of cultural understanding between the institutions (Dobos et al., 2013). In some cases,

major issues or programmatic issues were addressed with telephone calls (A. Chapman & Pyvis,

2013). However, Dobos, Chapman and O’Donoghue (2013) found that some partner faculty did

not even have access to telephones to call the home faculty if there was a need. Heffernan and

Poole (2005) found a need for communication guidelines and timeframes for both partners.

Chapman and Pyvis (2013) noted the lack of formal communication guidelines between faculty

appeared to be based on the goodwill of the parties. In contrast, Pyvis (2011) reported that in a

Chinese-Australian partnership that program coordinators were required to email regularly and

the frequency was monitored.

While communication is an important component, there is more involved with

understanding the situation at the partner institution. Smith (2009) found that UAE faculty’s

perception of the Australian partners not understanding what was happening at the branch

campus was confirmed by a respondent from the Australian partner. Several case studies called

for more face-to-face communication with video to build relationships (Clay & Minett-Smith,

2012; Heffernan & Poole, 2005; Keevers et al., 2014; O’Mahony, 2014). Due to the higher


turnover rate of partner faculty, it is difficult to develop relationships between home and partner

faculty (Dobos et al., 2013). These may be a result of short-term contracts, local working

conditions, or other factors (McNicoll et al., 2005). Chapman and Pyvis (2013) found that visits

between a Chinese and Australian institution partners significantly assisted the understanding

between faculty members about teaching styles and methods of the home institution. Local tutors

were responsible for translating concepts into Mandarin for students, and responsible for

explaining the learning styles and assignments (A. Chapman & Pyvis, 2013; Pyvis, 2011). Dobos

(2011) found that while home campus faculty visits to the branch campus had decreased, an

increase in visits to the home campus by host campus faculty had improved relations and

understanding between the groups. Iyer-Raniga and Wingrove (2012) discussed a pilot project

between a Singapore partner and an Australian university faculty where visits and workshops

coincided to support both professional development and student learning.

Workload

Cross-border higher education faculty report heavy workloads due to teaching and

administrative tasks at both the partner and the home institutions. In a cross border partnership

between a UK institution and its branch campus, home campus faculty noted the significant

teaching load of the branch faculty who were responsible for the delivery of multiple programs

(Clay & Minett-Smith, 2012). Dobos et al. (2013) found a lack of transparency in terms of

workload increased the anxiety of the home faculty. With the changing nature of the partner

programs and the possible presence of issues at the partner campus, the workload of the home

faculty increases accordingly (Dobos et al., 2013). Home campus faculty felt tension between

their cross-border and home institution responsibilities where the home institution should have

taken precedence (A. Chapman & Pyvis, 2013). Home institution coordinators were not


compensated for the additional workload with the cross-border program (A. Chapman & Pyvis,

2013). This tension was also felt regarding visits to the cross-border facilities since there was a

lack of support both financial and personnel-wise at the home campus (A. Chapman & Pyvis,

2013).

At the partner facility, the faculty salaries were tied to their student evaluations which

leaded to tensions between a high workload and student satisfaction levels (Dobos, 2011). Dobos

(2011) reported that at a Malaysian campus of a Australian university, the cross-border faculty

had many administrative tasks in additional to a heavy teaching load. Dobos et al. (2013) found

that collaboration on research was not a priority for partner faculty. In nine case studies, Fielden

and Gillard (2011) found that only three cross-border institutions had provisions for faculty

research.

Inequalities between campuses

Faculty perceived inequalities in the relationship between the home institutions and

partner institutions. Dobos et al. (2013) reported that the relationship between the home faculty

and partner faculty was described as a “master-servant” relationship due to the power differences

(p. 139). Similarly, K. Smith (2014) described the partner relationship as “weighted in terms of

power towards the home country”(p. 128). This is reinforced by the perception of home faculty

that partner faculty have lesser credentials and are less proficient in English (Dobos et al., 2013;

Keevers et al., 2014). Often the home institution has oversight of the appointment of cross-

border faculty (Dobos et al., 2013; National Tertiary Education Union Policy & Research Unit,

2004; Pyvis, 2008; Shams & Huisman, 2014). At a UAE branch campus, the expatriate faculty

are only given three-year contracts which results in a sense of impermanence which distances

faculty from working towards long-term changes (L. Smith, 2009).


Chapman and Pyvis (2013) found that cross-border faculty complained of inequalities

regarding salary, protections, and professional development support compared to the home

campus faculty. Dobos (2011) found that cross-border faculty at a Malaysian branch campus felt

dejected by the lack of a collegial relationship with the home campus faculty; however this may

be due to the workload and not disinterest from the home institution. Dobos et al. (2013) reported

that while interactions between home and partner faculty were usually respectful, but the heavy

workloads of partner faculty and high turnover rate of partner faculty result in lower morale.

Shams and Huisman (2014) noted that hiring local staff showed engagement in the local

community and facilitates integration; however, student respondents valued non-local faculty for

their international contributions. While staffing may be the responsibility of the partner, there

was a concern that the faculty did not have the same credentials as the Australian home

institution (Dobos, 2011; Keevers et al., 2014). Additionally, the evaluation of partner faculty

may have been burdensome for some faculty and caused them to leave (Dobos, 2011). In Dobos

et al. (2013), the treatment of partner faculty by the partner administration was reported as one of

intimidation.

Visits between institutions was identified as a method that improved relations between

the faculties. While some visits of home institution faculty to the cross-border institution took

place, the cross-border faculty felt they should have happened more (A. Chapman & Pyvis,

2013; Dobos et al., 2013). For some host partner faculty, visits to the home campus took place

during breaks, so while they spoke with home faculty, they could not observe or participate in

the classes (Dobos et al., 2013). Clay & Minett-Smith (2012) found that between a UK and its

international branch campus staff that essential trust and understanding between the campuses

developed over time. However, differences in time zones and academic calendars between


facilities caused frustrations between a UK institution and its partner (Clay & Minett-Smith,

2012). Also, Chapman and Pyvis (2013) reported that while home institution faculty were

supportive of cross-border faculty involvement in curriculum, they did not see how it could be

implemented practically.

Leask (2006) found that “timely and appropriate feedback” was the most essential

characteristic of cross-border faculty and students. For some cross-border faculty, this may not

be within their ability because they are not responsible for the final grades. Also, Slethaug (2007)

writes that,

“awarding and interpreting marks [grades] is located within a culture in particular ways.

Teachers in the cross-cultural classroom will need to spend considerable time

understanding the particular cultural context of the school or university and making sure

that students and parents do as well. It is not easy for teachers to change systems in this

respect for not only are the valuations of the marks different, but the percentage of those

receiving them will differ from country to country. Assigning marks [grades], then is a

big issue for the cross-cultural classroom” (p. 161).

Grades are assigned at different levels in a cross-border situation. Dobos (2011) found that

Malaysian branch campus faculty felt disenfranchised by the grading of assessments and

assignments of their students by the Australian university faculty. Grading and final grades may

take some time to be returned to students and cross-border faculty may not be involved in the

final grade (Wallace et al., 2011).

Quality Assurance

Quality assurance is a key component in cross-border higher education. It provides a

level of consumer protection for the student, the institution, and the country (McBurnie, 2008).

Since cross-border education is supposed to be equal to the course or degree program offered at

the home institution. Quality assurance measures may come from either the home institution

and/or from the partner institution. For example, both the Australian Universities Quality Audit


Agency and accreditation by the Malaysian Ministry were involved to regulate various aspects of

a partnership (Dobos, 2011). Quality assurance measures can also be used to provide a level of

transparency, if published, although not a guarantee of quality (McBurnie, 2008).

Quality assurance methods however can be the source of tensions between the home

institutions and its partners. Wallace et al. (2011) found that “there appears to be a tension

between the need for the Australian university to maintain control of the assessment for the sake

of quality and standards and the need for trust by the transnational partners” (p. 8). Keever et al.

(2014) reported tensions between issues of equivalency and the need to fit the local context.

While Dobos (2011) found tensions between the commercial partner interests in fees and

academic concerns for quality and assurance in an Australian-Malaysian partnership. L. Smith

(2009) found that when a UAE branch campus became an autonomous university due to

accreditation, it allowed the branch campus to become more independent and faculty felt more

respected.

Proposed Future Study

The majority of the literature cited for this paper is about partnerships of United Kingdom

and Australian institutions. The perspective of United States institutions is not well represented

in the literature. This may be due to the third-party accreditation in the United States and

governmental accreditation in the United Kingdom and Australia. Study of United States

institutions and the curricular modification or lack therefore would further the understanding of

cross-border higher education. The faculty perspective on curricula would provide insights into

the methods of internalization of higher education.


Conclusion

Cross-border higher education is an opportunity for internationalization if knowledge

flows in multiple directions. This literature review includes both dominant and collaborative

examples of cross-border curricula delivery. Faculty are a key component of the delivery

process. Their participation, not just in the classroom, but in quality assurance and collaborative

curricula development can expand and improve the internationalization of higher education. The

reciprocal relationship can improve both faculty development and the student experience both at

the home institutions and partner institutions in both the short and long term.


Bibliography

Aiello, M., & Clarke, J. (2010). “Flying Faculty and the Transnational Teacher”-the way forward

for globalized education? Innovations in Practice, 51.

Allen, J. (2014). Investigating transnational collaboration of faculty development and learning:

An argument for making learning culturally relevant. International Journal for the

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(2). Retrieved from

http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/ij-sotl/vol8/iss2/17

Altbach, P. (2004). Globalisation and the university: myths and realities in an unequal world.

Tertiary Education and Management, 10(1), 3–25.

Altbach, P. (2011). Is there a future for branch campuses? International Higher Education, (65).

Altbach, P. (2012). Franchising - the McDonaldization of higher education. International Higher

Education, (66), 7–8.

Altbach, P., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: motivations and

realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3-4), 290–305.

Australian Government Department of Education. (2014). Export income to Australia from

international education activity. Canberra. Retrieved from

https://internationaleducation.gov.au/research/Research-

Snapshots/Documents/Export%20Income%20FY2013-14.pdf

Bell, M., & Keevers, L. (2014). Transnational teaching teams: professional development for

quality enhancement of learning and teaching. Retrieved from

http://transnationalteachingteams.org/documents/Instruments/TTTliteraturereview.pdf

Bodycott, P., & Walker, A. (2000). Teaching abroad: Lessons learned about inter-cultural

understanding for teachers in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 5(1), 79–

94. http://doi.org/10.1080/135625100114975


Bovill, C., Jordan, L., & Watters, N. (2014). Transnational approaches to teaching and learning

in higher education: challenges and possible guiding principles. Teaching in Higher

Education, 20(1), 12–23. http://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2014.945162

C-BERT. (2015, January 8). C-BERT Branch Campus Listing. Retrieved February 13, 2015,

from http://www.globalhighered.org/branchcampuses.php

Chapman, A., & Pyvis, D. (2013). Enhancing quality in transnational higher education:

experiences of teaching and learning in Australian offshore programs. Lanham:

Lexington Books.

Chapman, D., Austin, A., Farah, S., Wilson, E., & Ridge, N. (2014). Academic staff in the UAE:

Unsettled journey. Higher Education Policy, 27(1), 131–151.

http://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2013.19

Clay, H., & Minett-Smith, C. (2012). Managing across borders: Empowering and supporting

staff to lead global teaching teams. International Journal of Learning, 18(10). Retrieved

from http://ijl.cgpublisher.com/product/pub.30/prod.3344

Croom, P. W. (2012). Internationalization and institutional strategy. AUDEM: The International

Journal of Higher Education and Democracy, 3(1), 99–119.

Crosling, G. (2011). Defining identity, engaging teachers and engaging students: “Education

strengths” in a foreign branch campus. In International Perspectives on Higher

Education Research (Vol. 6, pp. 245–252). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.

Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/S1479-3628(2011)0000006024

Crosling, G. (2012). Issues and strategies for student engagement through assessment in

transnational higher education. In L. Clouder, C. Broughan, S. Jewell, & G. Steventon


(Eds.), Improving student engagement and development through assessment: theory and

practice in higher education (pp. 196–209). New York: Routledge.

Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student

outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3),

241–266.

Debowski, S. (2003). Lost in internationalised space: The challenge of sustaining academics

teaching offshore. In 17th IDP Australian International Education Conference. Sydney,

Australia. Retrieved from http://aiec.idp.com/uploads/pdf/DebowskiFri0900_p.pdf

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. (2013). International education – global growth

and prosperity: an accompanying analytical narrative. London: United Kingdom

Government. Retrieved from

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/229845/bis

-13-1082-international-education-accompanying-analytical-narrative.pdf

Djerasimovic, S. (2014). Examining the discourses of cross-cultural communication in

transnational higher education: from imposition to transformation. Journal of Education

for Teaching, 40(3), 204–216. http://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2014.903022

Dobos, K. (2011). “Serving two masters” - academics’ perspectives on working at an offshore

campus in Malaysia. Educational Review, 63(1), 19–35.

http://doi.org/10.1080/00131911003748035

Dobos, K., Chapman, A., & O’Donoghue, T. (2013). Australian universities delivering

educational programs in other countries: A study of off-shore higher education.

Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press.


Dunn, L., & Wallace, M. (2004). Australian academics teaching in Singapore: striving for

cultural empathy. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 41(3), 291–304.

http://doi.org/10.1080/14703290420001733285

Dunn, L., & Wallace, M. (2006). Australian academics and transnational teaching: an

exploratory study of their preparedness and experiences. Higher Education Research &

Development, 25(4), 357–369. http://doi.org/10.1080/07294360600947343

Dunn, L., & Wallace, M. (Eds.). (2008). Teaching in transnational higher education: enhancing

learning for offshore international students. New York: Routledge.

Edwards, R., Crosling, G., & Lim, N.-C. (2014). Organizational structures for international

universities: Implications for campus autonomy, academic freedom, collegiality, and

conflict. Journal of Studies in International Education, 18(2), 180–194.

http://doi.org/10.1177/1028315313493182

Fielden, J., & Gillard, E. (2011). A guide to offshore staffing strategies for UK universities.

London: UK HE International and Europe Unit.

Gopal, A. (2011). Internationalization of higher education: preparing faculty to teach cross-

culturally. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23(3),

373–381.

Gribble, K., & Ziguras, C. (2003). Learning to teach offshore: Pre-departure training for lecturers

in transnational programs. Higher Education Research & Development, 22(2), 205–216.

http://doi.org/10.1080/07294360304115

Hamza, A. (2006). Case studies of American women academicians in the Arab countries of the

Gulf region: Cultural adaptation and contribution to globalization of higher education

(Doctoral Dissertation). Texas Tech University.


Hamza, A. (2010). International experience: An opportunity for professional development in

higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14(1), 50–69.

http://doi.org/10.1177/1028315308329793

Heffernan, T., & Poole, D. (2005). In search of “the vibe”: Creating effective international

education partnerships. Higher Education, 50(2), 223–245.

http://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6352-2

Hicks, M., & Jarrett, K. (2008). Instruction, orientation and professional development. In L.

Dunn & M. Wallace (Eds.), Teaching in transnational higher education (pp. 238–248).

New York: Routledge.

Higher Education Academy. (2014). Transnational and multimodal teaching. Higher Education

Academy. Retrieved from

https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/resources/Transnational_and_multimoda

l_teaching.pdf

Hoare, L. (2013). Swimming in the deep end: Transnational teaching as culture learning? Higher

Education Research & Development, 32(4), 561–574.

http://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.700918

Iyer-Raniga, U., & Wingrove, D. (2012). Curriculum innovation in transnational teaching: A

pilot study. In ARCOM 2012 (pp. 201–211). ARCOM. Retrieved from

http://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/view/rmit:20840

Jais, J. (2012). Flying academics–examining short-term international teaching assignments

impact on academics’ career success and work-life balance. RMIT University. Retrieved

from http://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/eserv/rmit:160244/Jais.pdf


Jauregui, M. (2013). Cross-cultural training of expatriate faculty teaching in international

branch campuses (Doctoral Dissertation). University of Southern California, United

States -- California. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

Keevers, L., Lefoe, G., Leask, B., Sultan, F. K. P. D., Ganesharatnam, S., Loh, V., & Lim, J. S.

Y. (2014). “I like the people I work with. Maybe I”ll get to meet them in person one day’:

teaching and learning practice development with transnational teaching teams. Journal of

Education for Teaching, 40(3), 232–250. http://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2014.903024

Knight, J. (2007). Cross-border tertiary education: an introduction. In Cross-border tertiary

education: a way towards capacity development (p. 200). Paris: OECD.

Knight, J. (2011). Higher education crossing borders: a framework and overview of new

developments and issues. In R. Sakamoto & D. W. Chapman (Eds.), Cross-border

partnerships in higher education: strategies and issues (pp. 16–41). New York:

Routledge.

Laureate Education, Inc. (2014). About Laureate. Retrieved July 31, 2014, from

http://www.laureate.net/AboutLaureate

Leask, B. (2004). Transnational education and intercultural learning: Reconstructing the offshore

teaching team to enhance internationalisation. In Proceedings of the Australian

Universities Quality Forum. Australian Universities Quality Agency. Retrieved from

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.114.9090&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Leask, B. (2006). Keeping the promise to transnational students: developing the ideal teacher for

the transnational classroom. Retrieved from http://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv31183


Lynch, K. (2013). Australian Universities’ Preparation and Support for Fly-in Fly-out

Academics. RMIT University. Retrieved from

http://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/eserv/rmit:160714/lynch.pdf

McBurnie, G. (2008). Quality assurance for transnational education: International, national and

institutional approaches. In L. Dunn & M. Wallace (Eds.), Teaching in transnational

higher education: enhancing learning for offshore international students (pp. 195–203).

New York: Routledge.

McBurnie, G., & Ziguras, C. (2006). Transnational education: Issues and trends in offshore

higher education. London: Routledge.

McNamara, J., Knight, J., & Fernandez-Chung, R. M. (2013). The shape of things to come 2: The

evolution of transnational education. The British Council. Retrieved from

http://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/britishcouncil.uk2/files/the_shape_of_things_to_come

_2.pdf

McNicoll, Y. R., Clohessy, J. M., Luff, A. R., & others. (2005). Auditing offshore partnerships:

Lessons from reviewing nursing and psychology courses offered in Singapore. In 2005

Australian Universities Quality Forum (p. 108). Melbourne: Australian Universities

Quality Agency.

Miliszewska, I., & Horwood, J. (2004). Engagement theory: A framework for supporting cultural

differences in transnational education. In Proceedings of the 27th HERDSA Annual

Conference (p. 223). Miri, Sarawak: Higher Education Research and Development

Society of Australasia, Inc.


National Tertiary Education Union Policy & Research Unit. (2004). Excess baggage: Australian

staff involvement in the delivery of offshore courses : research report and case study

findings, July 2004. Melbourne: National Tertiary Education Union.

O’Mahony, J. (2014). Enhancing student learning and teacher development in transnational

education. York, United Kingdom: The Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from

http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/news/detail/2014/learning_teaching_transnational_educatio

n_reports

Prowse, J., & Goddard, J. T. (2010). Teaching across cultures: Canada and Qatar. Canadian

Journal of Higher Education, 40(1), 31–52.

Pyvis, D. (2008). Transnational education in Mauritius: Quality assurance for program exporters.

In L. Dunn & M. Wallace (Eds.), Teaching in transnational education: Enhancing

learning for offshore international students (pp. 227–37). New York: Routledge.

Pyvis, D. (2011). The need for context-sensitive measures of educational quality in transnational

higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 16(6), 733–744.

http://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2011.570436

Seah, W. T., & Edwards, J. (2006). Flying in, flying out: Offshore teaching in higher education.

Australian Journal of Education (ACER Press), 50(3), 297–311.

Shams, F., & Huisman, J. (2014). The role of institutional dual embeddedness in the strategic

local adaptation of international branch campuses: evidence from Malaysia and

Singapore. Studies in Higher Education, 1–16.

http://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.966669


Sia, E. (2015). Intercultural competence teaching in transnational higher education: a case review

of an international branch campus in Uzbekistan. Journal of Education for Teaching, 1–

12. http://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2015.1011899

Slethaug, G. (2007). Teaching abroad : International education and the cross-cultural

classroom. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Smith, K. (2009). Transnational teaching experiences: An under-explored territory for

transformative professional development. International Journal for Academic

Development, 14(2), 111–122.

Smith, K. (2013). Overseas flying faculty teaching as a trigger for transformative professional

development. International Journal for Academic Development, 18(2), 127–138.

http://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2012.655280

Smith, K. (2014). Exploring flying faculty teaching experiences: motivations, challenges and

opportunities. Studies in Higher Education, 39(1), 117–134.

http://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.646259

Smith, L. (2009). Sinking in the sand? Academic work in an offshore campus of an Australian

university. Higher Education Research & Development, 28(5), 467–479.

http://doi.org/10.1080/07294360903154118

Spencer-Oatey, H. (2013). Maximizing the benefits of international education collaborations

managing interaction processes. Journal of Studies in International Education, 17(3),

244–261.

Tudor, T. L. (2011). Internationalisation in the UK HEI sector: a case study of the development

of a collaborative Masters programme between the University of Northampton and the


University of Madras. Enhancing the Learner Experience in Higher Education, 3(1), 74–

84.

Wallace, M., Mahmud, S., Yeo, S., Briguglio, C., Sanderson, G., Hukam-Singh, P., &

Thuraingsam, T. (2011). Moderation for fair assessment in transnational learning and

teach: Final report. Sydney, Australia: Learning and Teaching Council.

Waterval, D. G. J., Frambach, J. M., Driessen, E. W., & Scherpbier, A. J. J. A. (2014). Copy but

not paste: A literature review of crossborder curriculum partnerships. Journal of Studies

in International Education, 1028315314533608.

http://doi.org/10.1177/1028315314533608

Faculty in Cross-Border Higher Education

Documents

Transcript of Faculty in Cross-Border Higher Education