Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine the student mobility programs of the three initiatives – in Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization-Regional Institution of Higher Education and Development, University Mobility in Asia and Pacific (UMAP), and Campus Asia – and provide a comparative analysis of the respective programs in terms of the role of government, institutional involvement, quality assurance, and challenges. In addition, the paper will assess their impacts on higher education regionalization by regulatory models toward the end of the paper.

The study adopts qualitative document analysis as a major research method to explore the developmental models of three student mobility programs. Document analysis is an approach used to gather and review the content of existing written documentation related to the study in order to extract pieces of information in a rigorous and systematic manner.

ASEAN International Mobility for Students (AIMS), Collective Action for Mobility Program of University Student in Asia (CAMPUS Asia), and UMAP student mobility schemes have a shared purpose in higher education regionalization, but with different regulatory frameworks and Functional, Organizational, and Political approach models. AIMS and CAMPUS Asia as a strong network and government-led initiatives adopt a combination of functional, organizational, and political approaches; UMAP provides university-driven regional mobility programs with a hybridized force. However, all three of them face the same challenges at regional and national levels, such as different national regulation, coordination among participants, and implementation of credit transfer schemes.

The scale of three student mobility programs is still low, which results in limited impact on higher education regionalization in Asia. However, a stronger decision-making model and increased financial support to universities and students are desirable for the creation of a sustainable and effective network.

This is an original research and makes a great contribution to Asian nations.

The principal goal of the article is to examine how Singapore, one of the East Asian tiger economies, has attempted to diversify its higher education system by developing “transnational education” in the island state.

With particular reference to the most recent education reforms and changing higher education governance in Singapore, this article focuses on how the Singapore government has changed its higher education governance models in enhancing the global competitiveness of its higher education system by adopting more pro‐competition policy instruments and allowing the growth of transnational education in the city state.

The findings suggest the choice of policy tools (the choice of market forces in higher education and the rise of transnational education in the present case) is highly political and governments should pay particular attention to the particular socio‐economic and socio‐political contexts of their countries when making such choices.

The paper shows that the role of government in East Asia is still important, especially when there is a strong need for government to set up appropriate regulations, social protection and welfare, hence, governments in East Asia are very much conceived as a complement to the markets.

This paper seeks to analyse the Singapore government's recent attempt to make Singapore a “Global Schoolhouse” by transforming its tertiary education sector. It aims to examine the government's attempt to promote greater diversity and autonomy in the tertiary education landscape; it also aims to examine the government's systems of state funding and accountability for the tertiary education sector.

The paper utilises a policy analysis approach to examine the development of the “Global Schoolhouse” in Singapore. In particular, it examines a case study of the setting up and subsequent sudden pull‐out of the University of New South Wales Asia (UNSW Asia) to highlight the increasing challenge faced by the government in this undertaking.

Despite the government's promotion of greater diversity and autonomy in the tertiary education landscape, the government maintains centralised control through systems of accountability to, and funding from, the state. The case study of UNSW Asia shows that it is a paradoxical challenge for the government to engineer a tertiary education “market economy” with private foreign players while maintaining centralised control over the achievement of its strategic agenda within its stipulated time frame.

The analysis of the Singapore “Global Schoolhouse” effort is limited to a general review of the higher education scene in Singapore and a case study.

The study of Singapore serves as a mirror to other developing countries in understanding the challenges in developing a “Global Schoolhouse” while trying to maintain centralised control.

This paper provides an analysis of the recent developments in the Singapore “Global Schoolhouse” effort.

This article focuses on regional-level cooperation in higher education by examining the functional, organizational and political approaches (FOPA) framework for higher education regionalization and using supra-national regional universities as established and successful examples of regional-level higher education cooperation among countries.

A conceptual framework is used to provide the structure for analyzing the key approaches to higher education regionalization, followed by an analysis of supra-national regional universities to demonstrate the application of the model.

The FOPA framework for higher education regionalization includes three approaches. The first is the functional approach, which includes both collaborative academic and research activities among higher education institutions as well strategies and policies to help align systems across a region. The second is the organizational approach, which focuses on networks, organizations, institutions and programs, which facilitate partnerships. The third is the political approach, which includes regional-level agreements, declarations and strategic plans to promote higher education collaboration. Key higher education activities for each approach are discussed in generic terms, with examples provided from major regions of the world.

The research was based on desk research only. No interviews were conducted.

A conceptual analysis and a model were provided for the concept of regionalization of higher education and for regional universities, which can help readers locate their interests and research in the regionalization of higher education. Examples of three different types of regional universities were provided to give concrete illustrations of a regional university.

One of the rationales driving regional universities is to address and increase a sense of regional identify and to meet the social, economic and educational needs of the specified region.

Regional universities, such as the University of West Indies, Arab Open University and the Pan-Africa University, are an understudied phenomenon. Using them as innovative and sustainable examples of higher education regional cooperation and the FOPA model, this study illustrates how single-campus, multiple-campus and virtual regional universities are functioning to meet the diversified needs and priorities across a region through cooperation among countries.

This paper discusses the effectiveness of a consortium-based student mobility programme by investigating the impact of the Asian International Mobility for Students (AIMS) Programme. AIMS is a regional multilateral large-scale student mobility programme based on a consortium of 10 member countries and 87 member universities with the Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization Regional Centre for Higher Education and Development (SEAMEO RIHED) as a facilitator. Over 6,000 students have participated in a semester-long intra-regional student exchange under AIMS since 2010.

The study employed questionnaire surveys and semi-structured interviews to investigate the impact of AIMS and its advantages as a consortium-based student mobility programme.

It was found that AIMS significantly impacted member universities by accelerating their internationalisation processes through increasing the number of inbound and outbound students and courses offered in English and so on. AIMS has promoted harmonisation among the members by developing common procedures and guidelines, providing platforms for mutual sharing of experiences and good practices and capacity building of international relations offices. AIMS has also had a significant impact on students by enhancing their regional identity and knowledge about the region of Asia, contributing to their development as future regional and global citizens. As advantages of AIMS, member universities efficiently built a foundation for international collaboration with common procedures and guidelines and shared their experiences through such venues as Annual Review Meetings. Students also feel supported by having clear guidance and find programmes prepared by host universities and SEAMEO RIHED useful.

This study is unique in that it empirically studies the impact of one of Asia’s largest student mobility programmes for the first time by analysing large-scale qualitative and quantitative data.

This paper explores the issue of developing and enhancing intra-ASEAN international student mobility given the context of ASEAN integration, regionalization of ASEAN higher education and the various intra‐ASEAN student mobility schemes currently implemented.

It explores higher education policies, available higher education and international student mobility data, as well as the various intra‐ASEAN (and relevant) student mobility schemes to present the current status of intra‐ASEAN student mobility, challenges and opportunities to further enhance student mobility within the ASEAN region.

Aside from showing that intra‐ASEAN student mobility is significantly low compared to outbound student mobility from ASEAN countries, the paper also highlights the relationship between a country’s income status with choice of intra‐ASEAN or extraASEAN student mobility. Finally, it recommends developing a comprehensive intra‐ASEAN mobility scheme taking the merits of the various intra‐ASEAN mobility schemes currently implemented and guided by developments in the European ERASMUS mobility programs.

This is probably the first (in fact, it is an exploratory) paper that address the issue of intra‐ASEAN international student mobility, which aims to explore relevant issues to address the development of a comprehensive ASEAN mobility scheme.

The purpose of this paper is to clarify the function and issues of intra‐ and inter‐regional cooperation of international higher education in Asia and consider the possibility of East Asian integration as regionalization.

The research consists of two steps. First, by comparing with examples of regional networks and universities’ cooperation programs, it breaks down the current situation of regional cooperation. Second, it analyses the structure of those networks and programs.

Both regional education networks and universities’ cooperation programs develop in multi‐layers and in different phases, and they have a function of distribution of Asian higher education as public goods for regionalization. There are still issues such as immigration control relating to the people's and programs’ mobility, program language, financial and personnel affairs, as well as adjustments to be made in accreditation assessment, credit compatibility and quality assurance including curriculum setting. Retaining the autonomy of countries and higher education agencies in international cooperation is also the major issue in promoting these programs. However, such international cooperation produces the new forms of international higher education for human resource development.

Not all networks and programs can be examined, but the trend and characteristics of the cooperation in higher education can be highlighted.

The findings give significance to the “Campus Asia” concept which is now in preparation for realization by the agreement at the summit of China, Japan and South Korea in October 2009.

While integration and regionalization in East Asia has been discussed previously from the political and economic aspects, this paper responds to the subject from the socio‐cultural aspect by focusing on international higher education in Asia.

The quality and market viability of international branch campuses (IBCs) depend upon their integration with university headquarters. Recent trends toward localizing branch-campus hiring have raised questions about the extent to which non-parent-campus lecturers will support global integration pursuits. This paper aims to examine IBC lecturers’ orientations towards global integration, exploring how they identify themselves and their campuses as part of their wider universities.

Employing constructivist grounded theory methodology, 37 lecturers and leaders at four Australian branch campuses in Southeast Asia were interviewed, engaging them in semi-structured discussions of their identities and experiences. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed using NVivo in an iterative process of theory development.

Branch-campus lecturers interviewed generally construct their individual and campus identities as separate from their wider universities. Barriers to branch campuses’ global integration include low organizational identification of lecturers, challenges in their relationships with headquarters colleagues and perceptions of cross-campus disparities in resources and students. Branch campuses’ organizationally separate identities are enacted in practice, fueling a self-reinforcing “Othering Loop” that could undermine these campuses’ quality and viability.

This research is the first emic exploration of locally-hired branch-campus lecturers’ views toward global integration. These findings provide an important corrective to the existing literature on this topic, challenging assumptions that localizing branch-campus hiring is the primary risk to integration. Multiple points of potential managerial intervention were identified, highlighting opportunities for university leaders to address contextual barriers and improve international branch campuses’ global integration while continuing current trends toward localized hiring.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the recent evolution of the policy debate over the internationalization of Japanese higher education in times of particularly strong financial constraint, with reference also made to trends in the higher education systems of neighboring Asian countries. The authors describe the de facto formation of a regional Asia‐Pacific higher education arena through open multilateral initiatives, which continues to develop despite the lack of a developed regional policy consensus.

The present paper is based upon over a decade of investigation into the Japanese and other Asian higher education systems. Observations drawn are based on the critical analysis of regional dynamics, including changing sociopolitical, demographic, economic and technology/information‐based factors. The paper objectively interprets information gathered on Japan's investment in human resources, the research performance and international standing of its universities, as well as on and cross‐border phenomena within the Asia‐Pacific region, such as transnational academic mobility, exchange agreements and other multilateral initiatives.

The international dimension of Asia‐Pacific higher education is becoming increasingly pronounced, primarily as a result of regional multilateral initiatives. Mutual exchange and collaboration between higher education institutions and individual academics and students are widespread and developing rapidly. However, at this moment, there is neither a developed policy consensus to guide the process, nor explicit agreement as to what the “regional higher education arena” in East Asia and the Asia Pacific looks like. Increasingly complex regional dynamics now present Japanese higher education with the need to reposition its role as a distinguished global leader to one as an active member in supporting multilateral initiatives within the Asia‐Pacific region.

In providing an objective synopsis of selected policy initiatives in Japanese and Asian higher education, this paper underscores the need to re‐conceptualize higher education dynamics in the Asian region and Japan's role therein. Long‐held views of Japan as “regional leader”, of the significance of the geographic situation of any one nation, of cross‐border initiatives as planned phenomena and of the factors influencing regional collaboration in academia are reassessed. As such, this paper moves beyond traditional “polar” conceptualizations to the new reality of “multilateral” relationships, concluding with an urgent call for consensus on key policy issues.

This paper aims to make a comparative study on the latest version of green campus evaluation standard between China and America: Green Campus Evaluation Standard (GB/T51356-2019) and the sustainability tracking, assessment and rating system (STARS 2.2). The differences of evaluation methods and contents are analyzed and their respective characteristics and advantages are sorted out, so as to promote the development of sustainable campus evaluation standards.

The research mainly adopts the method of comparative study, which is carried out from three dimensions, namely, the related policies development of campus construction and world university sustainable rankings; the content of evaluation standards (including evaluation methods and evaluation categories and scores); the characteristics and current application of standards.

There are great differences between the evaluation standards of China and America in organization and participation mode, evaluation method and content. Public engagement, energy and campus engagement are the hot spots. Buildings, energy, food and dining and investment and finance will become the focus of sustainable campus in the future. Specific optimization strategies of key points, evaluation method and content and organization and participation mode of Chinese standard are put forward.

This paper clarifies the advantages and disadvantages of the current global sustainable campus, and provides the basis for the next stage of construction policy. At the same time, it is helpful for all countries, especially China, to formulate construction guidelines that not only meet their own actual needs but also conform to the trend of global sustainable campus development.

The connotation of sustainable campus is enriched, and the evaluation standards of sustainable campus are improved. The development of sustainable campus is promoted, so as to realize the sustainable development goals.

This research expands the scope of the study to the whole campus, rather than just one aspect of campus buildings. It compares the evaluation standard of green campus in China with STARS in the USA, and no longer compares leadership in energy and environmental design for schools. It discusses the campus building’s energy conservation while paying attention to the campus green consciousness, green management and green planning. Based on the relevant data currently used by STARS in the global evaluation, this paper analyzes the hot spots and shortcomings of the current global sustainable campus construction and puts forward some optimization suggestions for China’s green campus evaluation system.