GG18_d1_mc03_dr_graeme atherton

1. THE SHAPE OF GLOBAL HIGHER
EDUCATION: UNDERSTANDING
THE ASEAN REGION

2. Aims
• Evaluate the national IHE policies of the ASEAN countries
• Use the British Council National Policy Framework to add to global
picture
• Build better understanding of future trajectories for IHE in ASEAN
• Produce 1 overall report and update data for 10 countries

3. Methods
• Delivered by a partnership of Sunway University and Universiti Sains
Malaysia
Dr Graeme Atherton, Sunway University
Siti Norbaya Binti Azizan, Research Consultant
Dr Munir Shuib, Universiti Sains Malaysia
Professor Glenda Crosling, Sunway University
• 5 countries – support from British Council experts
• 4 countries – academic/policy experts from those countries

4. Structure of the National Policies Framework

5. IHE in ASEAN

6. ASEAN countries and the National Policy
Framework
Brunei High High High High
Cambodia Low High High Low
Indonesia High High Low Very High
Malaysia Very High Very High Very High Very High
Myanmar Low Low Low Low
Lao PDR Low High Low Low
Singapore High High High Very High
Thailand High Very High Low Very High
Philippines High High High High
Vietnam High High Very High High

7. Openness of higher education systems and support for the
international mobility of students, researchers, academic
programmes and university research

8. Government systems supporting openness for
IHE in ASEAN countries

9. IHE Strategy
• It is possible to locate IHE in the strategic planning framework for
higher education in the majority of ASEAN countries.
• More commonly, the commitment to extending internationalisation
sits within the broader HE planning framework e.g.
The IHE strategy for Cambodia is embedded in the Cambodian Higher
Education Road Map 2030 and Beyond, produced by the Ministry of
Education, Youth and Sport (MoEYS).
• Variability across the region in
overseas presence
extent of data collection.

10. Student Mobility
• It underpins much of the pan-ASEAN IHE alignment efforts, with nine
of the ten countries scoring in the high or very high category.
• But tied up with broader social and political contexts and thus each
country places their own distinctive view on it e.g.
Singapore had a very-high-profile public policy commitment to increase
international students to 150,000 foreign students by 2015 via its
Global Schoolhouse Project.
In Vietnam, Lao PDR and Cambodia, the common values of their
political regimes are shaping polices on student mobility.

11. Academic mobility and research collaboration
• The majority of ASEAN countries have some form of proactive
approach to engendering international research collaborations e.g
National Foundation for Science and Technology Development
(NAFOSTED) in Vietnam. NAFOSTED funds basic research carried out by
Vietnamese universities in social sciences and humanities and natural
sciences.
In Indonesia greater weight is allocated on academics publishing in
international journals (40 points) compared with domestically
published research (10 points).

12. Programme and institutional mobility
• This is one of the areas of the study where the differences between
countries in ASEAN are the greatest.
• Malaysia and Singapore especially are global leaders in terms of domestic
international provision
• very early stages of development in Myanmar and Lao PDR.
• With regard to the entry of foreign higher education providers, it appears
that linkages with a domestic partner are important, and in some cases
essential.
• Foreign higher education providers can establish a commercial presence in
the Philippines, but only in partnership with a local institution. In Malaysia
and Singapore, the creation of any new entities is regulated under private
higher education laws.

13. Quality assurance (QA) of higher education provision (domestic and
overseas) and recognition of international qualifications

14. Focus of Study
Regulatory environment and its relationship to countries’ International
Higher Education (IHE) strategies.
Considers:
• Quality assurance of international students.
• Quality assurance of programme and provider mobility.
• Recognition of international qualifications.

15. Quality assurance for international students
Entry / selection criteria for international students Are education institutions provided with timely information, support and guidance by academic recognition bodies (or other bodies) to help
select appropriately qualified foreign students for entry?
Code of practice for teaching / assessing international students Are there national bodies or other systems in place to monitor, revise and advise on institutions' procedures for teaching and assessing
foreign students, e.g. by way of best-practice surveys, advisory bodies or networks?
Policies / guidelines for engagement with recruitment agents: at home and overseas Are there policies or procedures in place to advise local institutions on how best to engage with international agents for the recruitment of
international students? This area includes framework of engagement, guidelines and code of conduct related to the country's HEIs
engagement with agents based overseas and/or, equally, national level oversight of education agents active in the respective country.
Indicator score
Quality assurance of programme and provider mobility
Monitoring of foreign institutions Do national quality assurance agencies regularly monitor, and if appropriate, accredit the cross border activities of foreign institutions (e.g.
distance learning, programme collaboration, branch campuses) in the home country of the quality assurance agency?
Monitoring of domestic institutions overseas Do national quality assurance agencies advise, monitor and accredit the cross border activities of domestic institutions' (e.g. distance
learning, programme collaboration, branch campuses)?
Enforcement action Are national quality assurance agencies active at enforcing their standards and requirements, either for foreign institutions, domestic
institutions overseas, or both if appropriate?
Collaboration with regional / international QA agencies Do national quality assurance agencies take an active part in international collaboration on quality assurance standards, e g. by adopting the
UNESCO/Council of Europe ‘Code of Good Practice in the Provision of Transnational Education' and by taking part in regional and
international networks?
Indicator score
Recognition of foreign qualifications
Foreign degree recognition Is the process taken by national academic recognition bodies in recognising foreign qualifications clear, transparent, and consistent?
Recognition of TNE qualifications Do national academic recognition bodies make efforts to recognise TNE qualifications, e.g. by way of guidelines or TNE code of good
practice?
Communication with labour market Do national academic recognition bodies work to provide clear and timely information to the labour market and other professional bodies
on the comparability of foreign / TNE qualifications?
Collaboration with regional / international recognition agencies Do national academic recognition bodies take an active part in attempts to improve recognition procedures across borders, e.g. by signing
up to UNESCO regional conventions; the Bologna Process, and, where appropriate, by establishing bilateral agreements on degree
recognition?

16. COUNTRIES Overall Score Openness Q A and RECOGNITION Access and Sustainability
Australia Very High Very High Very High High
BRUNEI High High HIGH High
CAMBODIA Low High HIGH Low
China High Very High Low Very High
Egypt Low Low Low High
Germany Very High Very High Very High Very High
Ghana Low Low Low Low
India High High Low High
INDONESIA High High LOW Very High
Kazakhstan High Low Low High
Kenya Low High Low Low
MALAYSIA Very High Very High VERY HIGH Very High
MYANMAR Low Low LOW Low
Nigeria Low Low Very Low Low
LAO PDR Low High LOW Low
SINGAPORE High High HIGH Very High
THAILAND High Very High LOW Very High
Pakistan High High Low High
PHILIPPINES High High HIGH High
Russia High High Low High
Turkey High High Low Very High

17. Summary of Outcomes
• All ASEAN countries have, or developing, significant levels of inbound
Trans-national Education (TNE) and aiming to grow their HE systems.
• Hence, they are building relationships with foreign HEIs.
• But does not imply that monitoring systems in place to specifically
deal with such providers.
• Most countries, monitoring part of overall system of accreditation
and quality assurance (QA) that new providers need to comply with.

18. Outcomes in More Detail
• Development of improved QA frameworks: priority in ASEAN.
ASEAN Quality Assurance Network (AQAN) began in 2007: network of QA
authorities, 10 ASEAN nations. Share good practice, collaborate on capacity
building, aim to develop regional QA framework for SEAsia. Produced ASEAN
QA Framework (ASQAF): to improve QA practice in region.
• Extent QA structures account for IHE variable: countries with significant TNE
activity: better developed approaches. Suggests specific IHE QA comes after
significant activity, rather than preceding it.
• Policy challenge: how to make QA more pro-active c.f reactive in IHE policy
development.
• Of three QA categories of National Policy Framework, greatest variation
between countries in this area.

19. Questions: 1. Quality Assurance for International
Students
Quality assurance for international students
Entry / selection criteria for international students Education institutions get timely information, support and
guidance by academic recognition bodies (or other bodies) in
selecting appropriately qualified foreign students for entry?
Code of practice for teaching / assessing international students National bodies or other systems in place to monitor, revise and
advise on institutions' procedures for teaching and assessing
foreign students, e.g. by way of best-practice surveys, advisory
bodies or networks?
Policies / guidelines for engagement with recruitment agents: at home and overseas Policies or procedures to advise local institutions how best to
engage with international agents for the recruitment of
international students? Includes framework of engagement,
guidelines and code of conduct related to the country's HEIs
engagement with agents based overseas and/or, equally, national
level oversight of education agents active in the respective
country.

20. 1. Quality Assurance of International Students (IS)
(i) IS’ entry and selection criteria; (ii) code of practice: teaching and assessing IS;
(iii) policies / guidelines for engaging with recruitment agents.
• ASEAN nations QA approaches differ because inbound/outbound student
numbers vary greatly across region.
But systems in place and their strength not only based on student numbers:
Brunei, Cambodia and Vietnam, low IS numbers but evidence of clarity in entry
and selection criteria. HEIs themselves developing policies, rather than at sector
wide level.
• Re. teaching and assessment, except for Malaysia and Vietnam, not significant
evidence of guidance focussed on IS. Most ASEAN countries developing overall
QA frameworks, trying to refer to international students. Process needs to be
informed by HE sector, not only led by policymakers.

21. Some Examples:
• Malaysia:
MQA published list of qualification equivalencies across countries.
Student admission criteria specified in COPPA (fair admission process);
Education Malaysia Global Services (EMGS): comprehensive information &
procedures
• Vietnam: government circular: specifies IS university admission rules: threshold
qualification required for level of qualification, minimum language
requirements. Also, specifies students’ obligations
• Myanmar: ASEAN country at earliest stage in development of IHE policy and
regulatory framework
But HE sector collaborating to develop IS student support approach and IHE work.

22. The MHEA was formed in Myanmar in 2017/2018 to support those working on international higher
education in Myanmar universities. It is bringing together those from across institutions to develop and
share practice in the international education field. It is the product of a training course in international
higher education work delivered to representatives of 20 universities over 2016 by the Institute of
International Education (IIE).

23. Questions: 2. QA of Programme &Provider Mobility
Quality assurance of programme and provider mobility
Monitoring of foreign institutions National QA agencies regularly monitor, and if appropriate, accredit cross
border activities of foreign institutions (e.g. distance learning, programme
collaboration, branch campuses) in home country of QA agency?
Monitoring of domestic institutions overseas National QA agencies advise, monitor and accredit cross border activities of
domestic institutions' (e.g. distance learning, programme collaboration,
branch campuses)?
Enforcement action National QA agencies active at enforcing their standards and requirements,
either for foreign institutions, domestic institutions overseas, or both if
appropriate?
Collaboration with regional / international QA agencies National QA agencies take active part in international collaboration on QA
standards, e g. by adopting the UNESCO/Council of Europe ‘Code of Good
Practice in the Provision of Transnational Education' and by taking part in
regional and international networks?

24. 2. Quality assurance of programme and provider mobility
(i) monitoring foreign institutions; (ii) monitoring domestic institutions overseas;
(iii) enforcement action; (iv) collaborating with regional and international QA
agencies.
All ASEAN countries already have, or are developing, significant levels of inbound
Trans-national Education (TNE) to grow their HE systems.
• Hence, developing foreign HEIs’ regulatory infra-structure.
• But monitoring systems not necessarily in place for such providers. Most
countries, monitoring part of overall accreditation and QA system (compliance
of new providers required).

25. Some Examples
• Laos: national QA Regulations for whole institutions and programs delivered by
both public and private providers, which includes foreign institutions.
• No plans for specific regulation to monitor the foreign invested
institutions/programs.
• Recognition in some ASEAN nations: need to deal with distance and online
learning and implications for education of home students.
For example, Thailand:
Ministry developed criteria to regulate the offer of degree programmes via distance education systems: detailed, deals with
programme management and staffing, resources, student support, monitoring of student involvement and student identity
checks in tests and examinations. Must be adequate provision of learning resources, preparation and orientation of students,
and provision of services. Three different delivery modes identified: print media, broadcast and eLearning. Programmes must
follow the standard time schedule for higher education programmes and meet the structural requirements of the standard
criteria. Details of requirements are included in an Announcement of the Ministry of Education on Criteria for Asking Permission
to Offer and Manage Degree programmes in the Distance Education System

26. Questions: 3. Recognition of Foreign Qualifications
Recognition of foreign qualificationsP
Foreign degree recognition
Process of national academic recognition bodies in recognising foreign
qualifications clear, transparent, and consistent?
Recognition of TNE qualifications
National academic recognition bodies make efforts to recognise TNE
qualifications, e.g. by way of guidelines or TNE code of good practice?
Communication with labour market
National academic recognition bodies work to provide clear and timely
information to labour market and other professional bodies on comparability of
foreign / TNE qualifications?
Collaboration with regional / international recognition agencies
National academic recognition bodies active in attempts to improve recognition
procedures across borders, e.g. by signing up to UNESCO regional conventions;
the Bologna Process, and, where appropriate, by establishing bilateral
agreements on degree recognition?

27. 3. Recognition of qualifications
National qual. frameworks / practices to streamline international students’ access
to country’s HE system by mapping qualifications against local equivalents.
(i) foreign degree recognition; (ii) recognition of TNE qualifications; (iii)
communication with labour market; (iv) collaboration with regional and
international recognition agencies.
• Evidence of efforts to make recognition of foreign qualifications transparent.
Cambodia, Malaysia, Brunei and the Philippines: score well, but recognition of
TNE qualifications not as advanced as for foreign qualifications (work underway
to improve this across ASEAN)
• Efforts for clear and timely information to labour market and other professional
bodies on the comparability of foreign / TNE qualifications less well developed:
no countries score ‘very high’.
• But, Malaysia: details on foreign undergrad and postgrad degrees recognised for
appointment in Malaysian public sector available on government website.
• Extensive ASEAN collaboration with regional/international recognition QA
agencies

28. Some Examples
• For domestic institutions working abroad, less evidence of policies to
monitor activity: ASEAN HEIs not working abroad to a large degree.
• Across all ASEAN countries, evidence of collaboration with regional and
sub-regional agencies in QA.
For example, QA agency in Indonesia (BAN-PT), full member of
International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education
(INQAAHE), ASEAN Quality Assurance Network, Association of the Quality
Assurance Agencies of the Islamic World, and Asia-Pacific Quality Network.

29. Summary of QA in ASEAN IHE
• Pan-ASEAN collaboration is key – especially in QA
• Differences across countries, but are still engaged in extensive collaboration
with other ASEAN nations, especially in QA.
Knowledge exchange /practice relatively prevalent. ASEAN benefits from
organisations such as ASEAN secretariat, SEAMEO and ASEAN University
Network (AUN): actively promoting regional collaboration and alignment in QA.
• Primary challenge for all countries, (probable exception of Singapore): develop
QA systems that enable expansion of their whole system.
For example, Philippines, nearly 20,000 fully accredited HE programmes, over
4,000 institutions, but only minority fully accredited.
 Philippines is extreme example, but QA is common challenge when countries
trying to expand systems within resource constraints.

30. Equitable access and sustainable development policies

31. Equitable access and sustainable development of
IHE in ASEAN countries

32. Funding of inbound and outbound student
mobility and international research collaborations
• All ASEAN nations have some form of study abroad scholarship
programmes, but they vary greatly in size and extent.
• In Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam, the government leads
the way in terms of scholarships offered.
• In the other countries, the government has less of an ability to lead
and foreign aid plays a bigger role with the aid offered by the state
being more targeted at strategic needs.
• Support for international students studying in ASEAN countries in the
form of scholarships is less widespread.
• Support that does exist tends to focus more on students from ASEAN
nations

33. Funding of inbound and outbound academic
mobility and international research
• Support available for outbound academic mobility varies over the
region.
• A desire to improve the academic capacity of the domestic HE system,
and academic staff working abroad is perceived as a mechanism to
achieve this.
• Where inbound academic mobility is concerned, there is less activity
evident.
• Devoting resources within their capabilities, and some countries ––
are taking a strategic approach to partnership development: Malaysia
Thailand and Vietnam and Singapore active

34. Sustainable development policies
• The displacement of home students by international students is not a
significant issue in ASEAN countries, with the notable exception of
Singapore.
• ‘Brain drain’ is an issue. Malaysia, Cambodia, Brunei, Myanmar
Indonesia and the Philippines all have policies here e.g. In 2011, the
Malaysian government established TalentCorp, an agency working to
formulate and facilitate initiatives to address the availability of talent
in line with the needs of the country’s economic transformation.
• Most countries recipients of donor aid not providers of it

35. Key Findings
• IHE policy commitments are embedded in existing policies
• Student mobility is shaped by wider socio-economic forces
• Pan-ASEAN collaboration is key – especially in quality assurance
• Addressing ‘potential brain drain’ is a key concern
• Commitment to research collaboration is high

36. Developing an ASEAN-centric approach to
IHE?
• Academic capacity building as central to IHE policy as student
mobility - building of this capacity will unlock greater student
mobility.
• Can future policy developments in IHE globally be data-driven? -
collection, dissemination and analysis of data on international student
and faculty mobility, programme and provider mobility, and research
collaboration at the national level
• Deep understandings of IHE at national level
• Enabling IHE make a significant contribution to both the development
of higher education systems in the region and to ASEAN itself.

37. Discussion questions
• How are you engaged with international HE work in ASEAN
countries/how do you hope to be engaged?
• From your perspective what are the major challenges/opportunities
with regard to the development of international HE work in the
ASEAN region?
• What policies need to be in place to support greater
internationalisation in HE in the ASEAN region?