mei 2015 source : perpustakaan utmportal.psz.utm.my/sdi_senat/images/dmdocuments/2015/05_mei...

06th MEI 2015

SOURCE : PERPUSTAKAAN UTM

TITLE SOURCE

Malaysia Education Blueprint 2015-2025 (Higher

Education) – Blueprint Overviewwww.moe.gov.my

Current Trends in Malaysian Higher Education

and the Effect on Education Policy and Practice:

An Overview

International Journal of Higher

Education

Internationalizing Higher Education in Malaysia:

Government Policies and University’s ResponseSAGE

Stakeholders’ views of South Korea’s higher

education internationalization policySpringer

TITLE SOURCE

Malaysia Education Blueprint 2015-2025

(Higher Education) – Blueprint Overviewwww.moe.gov.my

35 PSPTN review team members

14 chapter writing teams

20 lead authors

42 writing team members

Sources of input for development of Malaysia

Education Blueprint (Higher Education)

Global

Research

Blueprint

developers

PHASE I

(Engaged

stakeholders)

PHASE

III

PHASE II

Stakeholders

2,300+ survey responses

2,300+ townhall and focus groups participants

16 international advisors and experts

14 Malaysian advisors

1 national survey

18 townhalls

9 focus groups

250+ stakeholder representatives 5+ workshops

90+ HLI Chairmen, Vice Chancellors, and

Chief Executives

200+ HLIs represented

40+ industry skills councils and

professional bodies

25 members of national education

councils

50+ senior thought leaders and professors

140 districts of Parent-Teacher Association

20+ unions and associations

250+ students and alumni

30+ engagement

sessions

Continuous

online public

engagement

BLUEPRINT OVERVIEW

2015-2025 (HIGHER EDUCATION)

Top issues highlighted during stakeholder

engagement

1 Relationship with industry, including curriculum design

and delivery, research and development, and funding

Autonomy and financial sustainability of higher learning

institutions, as well as financial accessibility for students 4

3 Quality of higher learning institutions, including

rankings

2 Quality of graduates, such as communication skills and

English proficiency

5 Ability to successfully implement the strategies and

initiatives developed

The Universitas 21 report provides an

assessment of Higher Education in 50

countries across four dimensions

CURRENT STATE OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Examples for investigation

SOURCE: Annual report by Universitas 21, a global network of research universities for the 21st century with 26 members that enroll over 1.3 million students and employ over 220,000 staff and

faculty. The U21 Index compares national Higher Education systems for 50 countries.

Rank out of 50 countries

RESOURCES

12

ENVIRONMENT

26

CONNECTIVITY

35

OUTPUT

44 Malaysia

OVERALL

28 9 11 5 19 10

47 30 30 47 42

50 37 25 50 48

19 4 7 23 15

18 39 32 18 21

TYPE OF

METRICS

USED

Singapore

Thailand

Indonesia

Hong Kong

South Korea

Government

expenditure,

investments, R&D

Qualitative

assessment of

policy and

regulatory

environment

▪ Collaboration

globally and

with industry

▪ International

student

enrolment

▪ Research

output

▪ Institution

rankings

▪ Enrolment

▪ Employability

Average score of the four

categories

4 3 15 1 1

21 16 3 2 8

16 8 8 6 9

USA

UK

Australia

Glo

bal

Ben

ch

mark

s

Asia

n

Neig

hb

ou

rs

U21 Report: “28th Rank is

expected for

Malaysia’s

income

level”

2 3 4 1

Five Malaysian universities ranked in the top

100 in Asia and one in the top 200 globally

Malaysian Universities Global Ranking1 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Asia Ranking 32 56 57 66 76

1

151 259 294 309 376 <550 <700

1 Malaysian HLIs have 1 subject area in top 50 QS World ranking, 11 subject areas in top 100, 16 subject areas in top 150, and 19 subject areas in top 200

SOURCE: QS World University Rankings 2014

Universiti

Malaya

Universiti

Kebangsaan

Malaysia

Universiti

Teknologi

Malaysia

Universiti

Sains

Malaysia

Universiti

Putra

Malaysia

International

Islamic University

Malaysia

Universiti

Teknologi

MARA

Proposed student and graduate attributes

STUDENT ASPIRATIONS

NATIONAL

IDENTITY

LEADERSHIP

SKILLS

ETHICS &

SPIRITUALITY

THINKING

SKILLS KNOWLEDGE

LANGUAGE

PROFICIENCY

Possesses solid

moral foundation

and courage to

make right

decisions

Proudly identifies

as Malaysian and

embraces

diversity

Has strong

communication

skills, is entrepre-

neurial, is

resilient , can

lead and work in

teams

Is inquisitive and

innovative, can

apply and create

knowledge and

connect to

provide solutions

Has mastery of

core subjects and

general

knowledge about

the world

Operationally

proficient in at

least Bahasa

Malaysia and

English

HIG

HE

R E

DU

CA

TIO

N

Ethically and

morally upright,

spiritually

grounded, compa-

ssionate and

caring;

appreciates

sustainable

development and

a healthy lifestyle

Has pride in

Malaysia and an

understanding of

Malaysia in

relation to the

world

Is an effective

communicator,

emotionally

intelligent and able

to work across

cultures; is socially

responsible,

competitive,

resilient and

confident

Appreciates

diverse views, is

able to think

critically and be

innovative, has

problem solving

initiative and an

entrepreneurial

mindset

Has mastery of

own disciplines, is

able to harness,

connect and apply

knowledge learnt,

and has an

appreciation of

culture, arts and

technology

Proficient in

Bahasa Malaysia

and English, and

encouraged to

learn one

additional global

language

PR

ES

CH

OO

L T

O

PO

ST

-SE

CO

ND

AR

Y

ED

UC

AT

ION

BALANCE

AKHLAQ ILMU

SYSTEM ASPIRATIONS

The system aspirations will align with the five

set out in the Malaysia Education Blueprint

(Preschool to Post-Secondary Education)

Education that is excellent by

international standards and makes

Malaysia a destination for students from

other countries

Quality

Equity Excellent outcomes regardless of

geography, gender, or socioeconomic

background

Understanding, appreciation and acceptance of

diversity through shared experiences and

aspirations Unity

A system that maximises outcomes with

current budget Efficiency

Access Availability of higher education to relevant

population, as measured by entrance rates 1

2

3

4

5

SYSTEM ASPIRATIONS

Access aspirations

36% Tertiary

education

enrolment

Total Higher

Education enrolment

rate

Masters and PhD

enrolment rate

places added over last

10 years across IPTA,

IPTS, Poly and KK

53% Tertiary

education

enrolment1

Total Higher

Education enrolment

rate1

Masters and PhD

enrolment rate

new places by 2025

(mainly TVET, IPTS,

online learning)

CURRENT 2025 ASPIRATION

Quality aspirations

75% Graduate

employability

out of 50 countries in U21

for research output

ranking

International tertiary

students

University in Top 200

globally (QS

rankings

>80% Graduate

employability

Top 25 For research output ranking

International tertiary students

University in Global Top 25

University in Global

Top 100

University in Global

Top 200

Efficiency aspirations

Government spending2 per student

in public institutions

44TH out of 50 countries in

U21 outputs2 ranking

12TH

out of 50 countries in

U21 ranking on

resources committed

to Higher Education

No increase in Government spending per

student in public institutions

Top 25 In U21 output3ranking

1 Enrolment rates: Percentage of relevant 5-year age group (18-22 yr olds) enrolled; 2025 aspirations assume population growth of 1.4% p.a. (same rate as 18-22 yr olds for 2009-

12); 2025 enrolment rate aspirations will make Malaysia comparable to top ASEAN countries

2 Includes OE and DE of public institutions and ministry expenditure (RM 16,200 per student OE and RM 4,500 per student DE)

3 Outputs include research, enrolment, employability and rankings measures

48%

4%

500K

70%

8%

1.1M

RM20.7K

36

97K

1

250K

1 2 4

The Malaysia Education Blueprint (Higher Education) will generate major shifts in the way we operate

FROM…. … TO

ASPIRATIONS FOR THE HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM

… Job creators and balanced citizens with entrepreneurial mindset

… Academic and TVET pathways equally valued and cultivated

... Focus on outcomes

... A model of earned autonomy for institutions

… All stakeholders have shared responsibility for education resources

… Technology-enabled innovations to deliver and tailor education for all students

… Synchronised higher learning institutions

Job seekers…

Focus on university education

Focus on inputs…

Highly centralised…

Reliance on government resources…

Mass production delivery model…

Separation of private and public institutions

1 Includes foreign students in Malaysian institutions (97K in 2012 and 250K in 2025)

2 Includes teacher training institutes and Matriculation

2012 48% higher education enrolment

1.4M students1

(36% tertiary enrolment)

IPTS 455K

IPTA 545K

TVET 114K

134K

Other

(MOE)2 172K

MOE

Non-MOE

2025 70% higher education enrolment

2.5M students1

(53% tertiary enrolment)

5.1%

867K

2.6%

764K

7.8% 301K

1.4% 205K

Non-MOE

MOE

Annual Growth

355K

TVET

enrolment

in IPT

Increase Higher Education Enrolment to

among the highest in ASEAN

BLUEPRINT OVERVIEW

Benefits for different groups of stakeholders Higher quality education that better prepares graduates for employment and new

global challenges

Students at the heart of the system – more student choices as institutions

compete to raise quality

Funding and support for students who need it most, and students pay for student

loans only if they eventually benefit

Empowerment and autonomy with less “micro-management” by Ministry

Greater decision-making power for institutions on funding, curriculum, and HR

management

Transition to 5-year funding with performance contract, rather than annual funding

cycles

For students

and parents

For HLI

Leadership

For Academic

Staff

For Industry

Enjoy more diverse and flexible career pathways for teaching, research and

managerial staff, and flexibility for professionals to participate

Benefit from targeted development programmes to help staff excel in their roles

Opportunities for mobility across institutions and partnerships with industry

groups

More relevant programmes responsive to latest industry skills requirements

Increased effectiveness and ease of partnerships with institutions and Ministry,

e.g. solutions, research, curriculum

Graduates with directly employable skills, values and behaviors that match

industry demand

9 initiatives in the blueprint are prioritized

for 2015

PRIORITY INITIATIVES

1. Holistic, Entrepreneurial

and Balanced Graduates

2. Talent Excellence

3. Nation of Lifelong

Learners

4. Quality TVET Graduates

5. Financial Sustainability

6. Empowered Governance

7. Innovation Ecosystems

8. Global Prominence

9. Globalised Online

Learning

10.Transformed Higher

Education Delivery

Each of the 10

shifts covers 3-4

key strategies to

deliver on blueprint

objectives

Specific initiatives

identified for each

strategy in the

blueprint – to be

led or facilitated

by the Ministry

Criteria for

prioritisation

▪ New funding formulae

for Public HLIs

▪ Develop best practice

framework for HLI

governance

▪ Improve productivity

and cost efficiency of

HLIs

▪ Incentivise creation of

endowment funds

▪ Enable HLIs to

implement multi-track

schemes

▪ Standardise financial

reporting across HLIs

for greater

transparency

▪ Refine new

performance

contracts for HLIs

▪ Launch MOOCs in

subjects of

distinctiveness for

Malaysia

▪ Enable industry-led

TVET curriculum

design via

partnerships

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 shifts

35+ strategies

60+ Initiatives

9 Priority initiatives for 2015

▪ Highest impact

initiatives (potential

“game changers”)

▪ Quick wins and visible

outcomes possible in 1

year

▪ Requires senior

Ministry leadership

attention to drive

implementation

Operationalise

New Funding

Framework

▪ Joint taskforce with MoF and EPU to

detail out new finance framework,

processes and funding implications

A

University

Transformation

In Action

▪ Select pilot group of IPTAs to

accelerate implementation of priority

initiatives (across types of institution,

e.g. RU, Niche, Teaching University)

▪ Codify international best practices

and lessons from pilot rollout into series

of “Playbooks” to support all HLIs

B

University

Transformation

Playbooks

C

Creating M’sia’s

World Class

MOOC

▪ Establish MOOC benchmarked to

international standards (e.g. on Islamic

Finance), then codify and package

lessons learned and tools for use by other

HLIs

D

Accelerating

TVET Institutional

Transformation

E

▪ Develop industry-driven supply/

demand model, conduct course

rationalisation, capacity planning, secure

industry partners

Approach Stream

Holistic, Entrepreneurial and Balanced Graduates sets out the Ministry’s vision of developing well-rounded

graduates with both akhlaq (character) and ilmu (knowledge) by

elevating values-driven, entrepreneurial learning. This will be done

through an enhanced curriculum, expanded industry collaboration

and experiential learning programmes, as well as a new

integrated assessment that looks at the holistic development of

graduates.

WHY THIS MATTERS

2%

of recent

graduates

earned below

42%

45 RM 1,500

RM1,500 per month in 2013

Only of the

nation’s graduates are self-

employed or are running

their own businesses

70% vs.

40% of employees and

graduates who agree

of higher learning institutes

globally believe they have

adequately prepared students

for the workplace…

Top two

problems

companies face

when hiring

graduates are:

1 poor command

of English

2 poor character,

attitude or

personality

42 Only

of Malaysians see

entrepreneurship as a

good career choice

45%

SELECTED INITIATIVES

SHIFT

Entrepreneurship,

critical thinking and

teamwork are the skills students

feel they lack the most

Develop policy and guidelines for

courses that teach students 21st century

skills (for example, proficiency in English,

entrepreneurial skills, service learning,

and innovation), and make these

courses integral to the curriculum

Develop an integrated system to

assess student’s knowledge, values and

21st century skills

Introduce electives in entrepreneurship

and increase practical component in

entrepreneurship foundation courses

Create opportunities for students and

staff to develop entrepreneurship

skills (for example, through sabbatical,

industry secondment, and green lane

policy for student-owned businesses)

Reduce silos and improve

coordination between the Ministry’s

divisions and centres at Higher Learning

Institutions which are responsible for

learning

Involve more entrepreneurs and

industry leaders in teaching and

learning

Talent Excellence focuses on steps Malaysia’s higher education system will take to

attract, develop and retain high quality talent. These include

developing differentiated career pathways for lecturers,

researchers, academic leaders and practitioners that recognise

their strengths; and acknowledging different models of institutional

excellence (for example, research institutions versus teaching

institutions).

WHY THIS MATTERS


>23,000 Whereas

scholarly articles were

published last year by

Malaysian HLIs….

10.6

TH

13.0

SIN KOR

11.0

MY

7.9

…the impact of

Malaysia’s publications

remained relatively low:

Malaysia’s average

citation per paper (7.9) is

lower than Thailand (11.0),

South Korea (10.6) and

Singapore (13.0).

Institutions with highly

regarded researchers (those

with higher productivity

and citation impact) tend

to have higher overall

rankings

TOP TOP

RANKING

1

Malaysia is also

ranked 36th for

number of Thompson

Highly Cited

Researchers, with

4 out of top 3,000

Options for Multi-track career

development pathways are

currently limited for higher learning talent

SHIFT

Position Higher Learning

Institutions (HLIs) according to

recognised institutional

excellence (for example, broad-

based research university, subject-

specific research university and

teaching university)

Enable HLIs to develop and

implement multi-track schemes

through devolution of power over

HR matters. These tracks include

teaching, research, academic

leadership, and industry

Create meritocratic mobility and

exchange programmes to

promote fruitful collaborations

between institutions and agencies

Enhance end-to-end talent

recruitment, development and

retention strategy

Nation of Lifelong

Learners sets out the Ministry’s strategy for ensuring equitable access to

lifelong learning (LLL) by providing (i) more flexible learning

opportunities; (ii) increasing the number of scholarships, bursaries

and incentives available to students; (iii) raising quality standards

for existing programmes; and (iv) building awareness and interest

among the public.

WHY THIS MATTERS


Centrally co-ordinate

implementation of lifelong learning

agenda to remove duplicate

programmes and provide a central

portal for students to access

programme information

Launch dedicated effort to promote

enculturation through targeted

stakeholder engagement

programmes (e.g., MyCC loyalty

programme, 1Family Multiple Skills

Programme) and better infrastructure

(e.g., kiosks, roadshows, and social

media)

Ensure clear, accredited

qualification pathways for lifelong

learning, including credit banks and

recognition of prior experiences

Expand financial support for

lifelong learning (e.g., through

Human Resource Development

Fund, PTPTN, MyBrain15, and tax

incentives)

International

benchmarks show

most people will

change jobs about

10x during their

careers…

65% of primary school

students today will be

employed in jobs that

do not currently exist

65

…and 490K

57%

490K enrolled in lifelong

learning

programmes in

Malaysia in 2013, of

which 277K (57%)

enrolled in

Community

Colleges

Community

Colleges

2.2x increase in enrolment

in lifelong learning

programmes in

Malaysia between

2009-2013

There was a

2009 2013

SHIFT

Quality TVET

Graduates Meeting Malaysia’s need for more skilled workers under the

Economic Transformation Programme will require a 2.5-fold

increase in TVET enrolment by 2025. To that end, the Ministry will

(i) enable industry-led curriculum design and delivery models; (ii)

strengthen the qualifications framework via MQA; (iii) increase the

number and quality of programmes offered by HLIs and vocational

colleges; and (iv) promote TVET as a viable and attractive

pathway.

WHY THIS MATTERS


Enable industry to lead

curriculum design and delivery by

developing new partnership models

and streamlining the collaboration

process

Lift quality of delivery through

increased apprenticeship, hands-on

training, real life simulations, and

specialized employer training

programs

Establish coordinating body for the

Ministry’s TVET Institutions to monitor

supply-demand of the TVET workforce,

optimise resources, develop industry

linkages, and rationalise TVET portfolio

Coordinate with other ministries or

departments offering TVET to

streamline national qualification

framework and pursue international

accreditations for TVET programmes

Promote TVET as a premier choice for

youths and working adults

1.3M

TVET enrolment to

650,000 students by

2025 is required to

meet workforce

demand

2.5x

Additional

There is an

oversupply of

TVET workers in 2

NKEA sectors and an

undersupply in

the remaining 10

sectors

TVET workers are expected

to be required in 12 National

Key Economic Area (NKEA)

sectors by 2020

1.3 M >50% of public TVET capacity is provided by

the Ministry’s institutions (Polytechnics,

Community Colleges, and Vocational

Colleges) with

budget allocated in 2013

billion RM1.93

TVET is perceived as a 2nd

choice qualification pathway

globally and in Malaysia

SHIFT

Financial

Sustainability Over the next decade, Malaysia will need to deliver high quality

education to twice as many students at a time of rising costs.

Therefore, to improve efficiency, the Ministry will link government

funding to performance, and allow HLIs to pursue other sources of

funding, such as endowments and industry funding. It will also

reform the PTPTN to improve loan repayment and increase

financial support to students who need it most.

WHY THIS MATTERS


Change funding formula for Higher

Learning Institutions (HLIs) to better link

funding with performance and outcomes

Enhance PTPTN performance and

sustainability, e.g.,

– Improve repayment with incentives and

enforcement

– Rebrand PTPTN to the Education

Fund

– Provide support for students who need

it most

– Allocate more funding to priority

courses

– Move towards income-contingent

loans

Incentivise creation of endow-

ment funds through

government matching grants

and allowing HLIs to use existing

land and assets to seed

endowments

Enhance revenues and

income-generation from

services and assets of HLIs

Improve productivity and cost

efficiency of HLIs

of public Higher

Learning Institutions’

expenditures are

funded by Government

grants

>90%

In the past 10 years, there has been a

in the average per student cost

of higher education at public

institutions, which is now

higher than or comparable to

fees at some private

institutions

7% In 2013, PTPTN approved

of loans to 201K students (48% of

IPTS intake and 75% of IPTA intake)

with 34% default rate

p.a. increase

in Malaysia’s expenditures on

higher education to ~MYR14

billion in 2013

14% p.a.

increase

>90

From its inception to March 2013,

PTPTN has provided

loans to > 2.1 million students,

with 51% default rate

MYR 48.9 billion

MYR 5.5 billion

SHIFT

0

1,500

3,000

4,500

6,000

7,500

Cost of higher education in Malaysia is near the OECD average and

comparable to many developed countries

2011

25.0

20.0

10.0

15.0

5.0

0

Sw

itze

rla

nd

Ca

na

da

Un

ite

d S

tate

s

USD Thousands (PPP adjusted)

Esto

nia

Me

xic

o

Slo

va

k R

ep

ub

lic

Tu

rke

y

Ch

ile

Ru

ssia

n F

ed

era

tio

n

La

tvia

Ice

lan

d

Hu

ng

ary

Cze

ch

Re

pu

blic

Po

rtu

ga

l

Po

lan

d

Ko

rea

Ita

ly

Un

ite

d K

ing

do

m

Au

str

ia

Fra

nce

Be

lgiu

m

Ire

lan

d

Au

str

alia

Ja

pa

n

Ge

rma

ny

Ne

the

rla

nd

s

Fin

lan

d

No

rwa

y

Sw

ed

en

De

nm

ark

Slo

ve

nia

Ne

w Z

ea

lan

d

Bra

zil

Isra

el

Ma

laysia

Sp

ain

Cost of higher education per student

OECD average = USD 14,000

Source: OECD 2014 education at a glance (2011 data) Includes annual expenditure per student by educational institutions for core services, ancillary services and R&D.

Government support and student fees for Public Institutions

Full-time students in USD (PPP basis), 2010-11

Comparison of Malaysia’s model against other countries

Average Tuition Fees for Public Institutions

1 Figures are reported for all students (full-time national and full-time non-national/foreign students)

2 Average tuition fees from USD 200 to USD 1, 402 for university programmes dependent on the Ministry of Education

3 Cost of higher education is lower in Turkey than many countries (40% below OECD average) and 70% of financial support comes in the form of student loans

Source: UNESCO, OECD Education at a Glance

Low Fees, Low Support

100% 75% 50% 25% 0%

S. Korea

Sweden Norway Denmark

Turkey3

Netherlands

New Zealand

United states1

United kingdom

Finland

Chile4

Japan3

France2 Italy

Belgium (FI.)

Belgium (Fr.)

Austria

Switzerland

Mexico

Australia

2

High Fees, High Support

1

Low Fees, High Support

4

High Fees, Low Support

3

MALAYSIA

(Public loans and/or scholarships/grants) % of Students who benefit from Financial Support

Financial

Sustainability Over the next decade, Malaysia will need to deliver high quality

education to twice as many students at a time of rising costs.

Therefore, to improve efficiency, the Ministry will link government

funding to performance, and allow HLIs to pursue other sources of

funding, such as endowments and industry funding. It will also

reform the PTPTN to improve loan repayment and increase

financial support to students who need it most.

SHIFT

Empowered

Governance The Ministry will focus on its role as a regulator and policy maker,

devolving greater decision making power to Higher Learning

Institutions (HLIs) in return for greater accountability against a set

of pre-agreed outcomes set out in a performance contract. This

devolution will be “stage-gated” based on each institution’s level of

readiness and track record. The Ministry will also strengthen the

quality assurance framework for private HLIs and link access to

government funding (e.g., PTPTN loans) to performance.

WHY THIS MATTERS


Reset role of Ministry in higher

education system as regulator and

policy-maker with Higher Learning

Institutions (HLIs) as operators

Define new, 3-5 year performance

contracts between the Ministry and

HLIs, e.g.,

– IPTA’s funding is at risk if

performance goals are not met

– IPTS’s funding support and ability to

self-regulate is linked with minimum

quality requirement

Revise governance structure and

decision rights for IPTA and IPTS

– Move authority to appoint

leaders and decision rights from

the Ministry to IPTA’s Board

– Move towards autonomy of

self-accreditation process for

IPTS that are ready

Global benchmarks show that having

budget autonomy for Higher Learning

Institutions

Autonomy also leads to better outcomes

through faster turnarounds

and agile management of

funding and resources

Malaysian HLIs have begun to move

towards greater autonomy…

…however, there is still high

concentration of

decision rights at the

Governmental level (e.g., staff payment,

courses offered, goods requisition),

creating supervision burden

and inefficiency

doubling of patents granted

doubles the

effectiveness of

additional spending

on research, including a

SHIFT

Shift to Performance Contract granting autonomy with accountability for

institutions which are ready

Shift the Role of the Ministry from controller to regulator and policy-

maker over next 10 years

Quality Assurance Framework for Universities

Academic

teaching and

curriculum

▪ Quality of teaching (student survey)

▪ Diversity of course offering

▪ Student attrition rates

▪ Student completion rates

▪ Employment at graduation

▪ Number of graduates in key disciplines

Research

outcomes and

training

▪ Quality and impact of research

▪ Patents, inventions, breakthroughs

▪ Number of graduate students in

training

Contribution to

community

▪ Training and consultancy

▪ Sharing of expertise (e.g., legal clinics,

symposiums)

Organisational

matters

▪ Setup of student financing office

▪ Alumni fundraising target

Periodic Review of Performance Contract

▪ Elements of contract

– Key policy parameters set by Ministry

– Key performance targets set by HLI

(strategic goals and KPIs)

– Quality assurance frameworks

▪ 3-5 year term of contract with set funding

levels

▪ Yearly self-assessment review by HLI,

submitted to Ministry

▪ External onsite review of 5 days led by

objective observers and attest actual

outcomes

▪ Payment/refund to Ministry if targets not

achieved

▪ Conducted every 3-5 years

Performance

contract

agreement

Periodic review

process

Formal

audit

TIGHT CONTROL LIGHT CONTROL

All baseline funder roles, and additionally

▪ Sets overall policy framework, typically via legislation

▪ Establishes key targets for undergraduate admission numbers

▪ Provides framework for direct funding for critical research areas (set key agenda for university)

All regulator and policy-maker, roles and additionally

▪ Overall direct strategic decision maker

▪ Can set admission criteria per program

▪ Support universities on large investment projects (alternative to endowment in lighter control models)

▪ Provide direct funding per student

▪ Provides indirect funding (via agencies, competitively, research funding)

All overseer roles, and additionally

▪ Appoints the President and senior officials

▪ Heavily involved in

– Strategy setting and delivery across the board

– Policy setting at all major decision levels

▪ Control enforced through heavy funding

Key charac-

teristics

Baseline funder Regulator and policy-

maker Overseer

Tight

controller

Cambridge

Oxford NUS

Tokyo

National Taiwan U

Chulalongkorn U

Universitas

Indonesia

UC Berkeley

Tsinghua

Malaysian public

universities (IPTAs)

Example

Empowered









SHIFT

http://www.ox.ac.uk/

Streamline IPTS oversight

In 10-year end state, various decision rights belonging to the

government should be transferred to the IPTA

Empowered









To… From… Key decisions at Malaysian public universities

Evaluate performance of leaders (e.g., VC)

Approve university strategy (vision, mission. Focus)

Evaluation/promotion of staff; set pay scales/incentive

Change organization (e.g., establish, merge deps)

Approve university constitutions, statutes, and rules

Appoint inst. leaders/ set terms of office (VC, DVC)

Approve university budget

Set tuition fees

Management of allocated grants

Decide allocation of funds and research grants

Determine number and profile of students

Set student admissions criteria

Make admission decision

Approve academic programme and curriculum

Student discipline and suspension

Appointment and dismissal of staff

Set pay schemes (salary designation)

Design staff development policies/programmes

Manage endowment and income-generating assets

Minister appoints Chairman and approves Board members (as nominated by Nomination Committee). Board appoints VC, and VC appoints DVC. Performance should be systematically evaluated by a committee at University

Student discipline and suspension issues should be limited to the University

Board or department approves own strategy

Management of staff should be separate from Public Service control in order to attract best resources and control performance

Monitoring of HLI quality and reports

Treasury and Finance Division approve budget from the Government. Board and IPTA’s departments approve and manages funding from other sources.

Programme and curriculum still needs to comply with MQA but no need for approval from Academic Division

Ministry continues to approve constitution but approval of statues and rules should be limited to University

Admini-

stration

and gover-

nance

Funding

and

financial

autonomy

Admission,

intake

plans,

curriculum

HR

Infrastructure development and management

Approve procurement decisions (facilities, services) Infrastructure management and purchasing decision approvals should be made at the University or College/department levels

Monitoring through performance contract

Government

University leadership (e.g., president, board)

College/department

Streamline IPTS oversight to lift quality standards and set the platform for enrolment growth

Link minimum quality standards (SETARA/MYQUEST) and performance targets

(employability, completion, and industry collaboration) to access to Government programmes for

IPTS

PTPTN loans

Research grants

Self-accreditation

Period of institutional license

Refresh the framework for evaluating financial sustainability of IPTS to increase transparency

for early warning and intervention

Move towards autonomy of self-accreditation process for IPTS that are ready in order to

streamline Ministry oversight

Aim for IPTS to play a large role in achieving enrolment aspirations by adding 400,000

students by 2025 (growth of 5% p.a.)

1

2

3

4

SHIFT

Innovation

Ecosystem enables academic and research institutions, companies and

communities to pool resources and form partnerships to incubate,

develop and market new ideas that fuel growth in national priority

areas. To facilitate this, the Ministry will (1) focus on creating scale

and growth in a few national priority research areas; (2) play a

catalytic role in securing private investment; and (3) create a

supportive ecosystem by addressing enablers such as technology

transfer offices, data monitoring mechanisms and talent

development.

WHY THIS MATTERS


Define a few national priority

research areas which are linked to

national priorities for economic

growth, and where Malaysia has

distinctive capabilities, in order to

create scale

Play a catalytic role in securing

investment, particularly through

matching schemes like the Private-

Public Research Network and

redesign of financing criteria and

grant review process

Incentivise universities to establish

supporting functions for technology

transfer

Matchmake stakeholders to give

access to research facilities and

available technologies

Capacity for

innovation and gross

national income are

correlated

The Ministry of Education is the

largest funding agency in the

innovation landscape, with

RM4.3 billion of funding between 2011-2014

However, gross domestic

expenditures of R&D in Malaysia

represented

1.1% only of GDP,

ranked 32nd globally

Malaysia also ranked 43rd for number of patents per 1,000

publications, behind China, India,

South Korea and Singapore

Malaysia ranked 23rd for number of publications globally in

2013, up 11 places from 34th in

2009

SHIFT

Global Prominence in higher education requires four elements – visibility, recognition,

distinction and expansion. To tap these elements, the Ministry will

strengthen the promotion, marketing and value proposition of

Malaysia’s higher education system; identify ways to increase the

enrolment of high calibre international students; and establish

stronger ties with the global higher education community.

WHY THIS MATTERS


Reform student pass and immigration pro-

cedure to match international best practice

Remodel Malaysia International

Scholarship (MIS) into a prestigious cross-

sector (Public/Private) contributed

scholarship programme

Increase value-efficiency of public univer-

sities in hosting international students, e.g.,

– Creating a consortium-based recruitment

and admission system for public

universities

– Reassessing international student tuition

fee models

Facilitate hassle-free academic

and professional pathways for

top international students via a

uniformed credit bank under

MQA

Strengthen MyAlumni as a

premier agency in building

international alumni and

professional networks

Malaysia has around 100,000 international students, ranked

12th globally

>60% of international students

are from Asia, Middle

East, and Africa

increase in

international tertiary

students enrolment is

needed by 2025 to

satisfy aspirations on

global connectivity

2.5x

There was

increase in inter-

national academic

staff between 2007-

2012

3.7x

Students chose Malaysia for its

1 quality

2

3

4 use of English as

medium of instructions

Despite success, Malaysia still needs to

improve process efficiency,

coordination, and positioning to better attract international students

reasonably-priced

academic programmes

cultural

diversity

3.7x

2012 2007

SHIFT

Globalised Online

Learning The future of online learning in the Malaysian higher education

system is premised on global quality standards, improved access

to higher learning and equity that ensures disadvantaged groups

are able to benefit from it. To achieve this, the Ministry aims to

make online and blended learning central to the curriculum, with

an aggressive push on Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs).

WHY THIS MATTERS


Establish online learning as an

integral component of higher

education, with 70% of courses

using blended learning by 2025

Launch MOOCs in subjects of

distinctiveness for Malaysia (e.g.,

Islamic finance and banking),

targeting 50% international enrolment,

and promote MOOC initiatives to the

Malaysian public

Establish the Malaysian national

e-learning center to support

shareable content creation,

establish a national platform and

build partnerships

Establish credit transfer

mechanisms for students completing

global online learning courses

Establish the infrastructure to deliver

online learning at scale

By 2019, an estimated

of all classes

at higher education

institutions in the US will

be delivered online

50% 50

in Malaysian internet users

(from 3.7 million to 20.1

million) between 2000-

2013

There was 5x increase

penetration rate in

Malaysia (ranked 7th in

Asia)

67%

Many outcomes set forth by the

National e-Learning Policy (DePAN)

are still to be reached, especially in Polytechnics and

Community Colleges 67

Greater internet penetration means

opportunities for higher education to:

1 Widen Access

2 Enhance Teaching Quality

3 Increase Cost Efficiency

4 Promote Malaysia’s

distinctive areas globally

SHIFT

Transformed Higher

Education Delivery As it narrows its focus on regulation and policy making, the

Ministry will (a) create a more dynamic organization structure and

staff it with those who bring the skills and talents the Ministry

requires; (b) continually upgrade its central infrastructure for

admissions, scholarships, strategic communications; (c) define its

newly-strengthened standard-setting and monitoring processes,

and (d) establish a programme to manage and ensure the

blueprint is delivered according to plan.

WHY THIS MATTERS


Restructure the Ministry

organization to

– Create stronger links between

Higher Learning Institutions (HLIs),

basic education institutions, and

industry

– Support the removal of rigid

distinction between public and

private HLIs

– Promote greater efficiency

Enhance and strengthen key

processes such as those in UPU and

EMGS

Strengthen quality assurance to

support student outcomes by

– Continuing to ensure that all

courses and programmes meet

national quality assurance

standards

– Increasing the number of courses

recognised by international

standards

Enhance the role of the delivery

unit to implement the Malaysia

Education Blueprint (Higher

Education)

enrolment in HLIs

administered by the

Ministry in the past ten

years (to >1.2 million

students in 2013) means a

large increase in the scale

and complexity of higher

education delivery

70% increase in

70

applications were made

through UPU in the

Academic Session

2014/2015, a

7.8% increase

74,000

over the previous

year

7.8%

Delivering on the Ministry’s aspirations

and adapting to the shifts in the

education system and the Ministry’s

role will require:

Evolution of

the Ministry’s

systems and

processes

A redesign

of the

organization

The Ministry’s role is changing to

regulator and policy

maker, empowering higher learning

institutions towards greater autonomy

SHIFT

TITLE SOURCE

Current Trends in Malaysian Higher

Education and the Effect on Education

Policy and Practice: An Overview

International Journal of Higher

Education

www.sciedu.ca/ijhe International Journal of Higher Education Vol. 3, No. 1; 2014

Published by Sciedu Press 85 ISSN 1927-6044 E-ISSN 1927-6052

Current Trends in Malaysian Higher Education and the Effect

on Education Policy and Practice: An Overview

Selvaraj Grapragasem1, Anbalagan Krishnan2 & Azlin Norhaini Mansor3 1 Institute of Teacher Education Sarawak Campus, Miri, Malaysia 2 Curtin University, Sarawak Campus, Miri, Malaysia 3 Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Malaysia

Correspondence: Selvaraj Grapragasem, Senior Lecturer, Institute of Teacher Education, Sarawak Campus, Malaysia. E-mail: [email protected]

Received: December 16, 2013 Accepted: January 9, 2014 Online Published: January 20, 2014

doi:10.5430/ijhe.v3n1p85 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v3n1p85

Abstract

Malaysia has evolved from a production-based to knowledge-based economy in order to stay relevant and compete in the global marketplace. Thus, the purpose of this article is to discuss current trends in Malaysian higher education and how these affect education policies and practices. Four main trends are discussed in this study: Globalization, Teaching and Learning, Governance, and the Knowledge-Based Society. These are followed by four elements that affect education policy and practices: Employability, Quality Assurance, Academia, and English Language Competency. The transformation that has taken place will surely contribute to the success of Malaysia’s Vision 2020 policy of becoming a fully developed nation in the near future.

Keywords: National education blueprint, Malaysia education system, Center of education excellence

1. Introduction

The government, under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education (MOE), is entrusted with providing quality education for the people of Malaysia. Education in Malaysia begins from pre-school and continues to university. The vision of the MOE is to make Malaysia a center for education excellence. An MOE source has stated that more than 95% of primary and secondary education and 60% of the tertiary education is funded by the government (Ministry of Higher Education, 2009).

The education system in Malaysia has gone through tremendous changes and transformation. Prior to British colonization, education was done informally, mainly to acquire basic living skills. Even during British occupation, there was no significant policy on education, but various vernacular schools catered for the needs of particular ethnic groups such as the Malays, Chinese and Indians. This policy was in line with the British intention of discouraging rapport between the different races in Malaya to uphold their “divide and rule” policy. During the Japanese occupation of Malaya, education was focused on propagating love and loyalty towards the Japanese emperor. It was only after the World War II, especially after the independence of Malaya in 1957, that a structured policy on education was formulated. The National Education System was implemented after the Education Act 1966 was passed by parliament. The government was able to use education as a tool to foster unity and nation-building through a common syllabus and curriculum. In 1989, the National Philosophy of Education was released and became part of Malaysia’s Vision 2020, which was to gain the status of a fully developed country by the year 2020. In order to strengthen Vision 2020 and better prepare the younger generation for the needs of the 21st century, the MOE has developed a new National Education Blueprint (NEB), which was launched in December 2012.

Through the MOE, the government has also restructured the higher education system to enable it to respond to the need for nation-building in accordance with the nine challenges in Vision 2020. The government has also developed strategies and plans to ensure that Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) are encouraged to undertake change and achieve excellence to face the competition posed by the global education market. The objective of these plans is to ensure that Malaysian universities achieve world-class status and operate as a hub for higher education in the Southeast Asia region (Ministry of Higher Education, 2007).



According to Lee (2005), the history of higher education in Malaysia has evolved through four phases, as follows:

(1) Education for elites

(2) Education for affirmative action

(3) Education as and for business

(4) Education for global competition.

In an effort to reposition the HEIs, the MOE has introduced two blueprints, the National Higher Education Strategic Plan (NHESP) beyond 2020 and National Higher Education Action Plan (NHEAP) 2007–2010. The strategic plan encompasses four phases as follows:

(1) Laying the foundation (2007–2010)

(2) Strengthening and enhancement (2011–1015)

(3) Excellence (2016–2020)

(4) Glory and sustainability (beyond 2020).

The first three phases until 2020 are grounded in the “end-state” objectives, thrust and strategies. The fourth phase, beyond 2020 is more inspirational in nature and will be based on the accomplishment of the three phases and new challenges circa 2020 (Ministry of Higher Education, 2007).

The purpose of this research is to review the overall education system in Malaysia. In particular the review focuses on trend and the impact of trend. The paper is structured into two main sections. The first reviews the trends in Malaysian higher education. Within this section, four areas will be discussed in detail, i.e. Globalization, Teaching and Learning, Governance, and Knowledge-Based Society. The next section discusses the effects of current trends, structured into four sub-sections, namely Employability, Quality Assurance, Academia and English Language Competency. Finally conclusions are given on both the trend and impacts on trend.

2. Main trends in Malaysian higher education

2.1 Globalization

Globalization implies the opening of local and nationalistic perspectives to a broader outlook of an interconnected and interdependent world with free transfer of capital, goods and services across national frontiers (Business Dictionary.com, 2013). According to Knight (2002), in today’s era of globalization, knowledge is increasingly a commodity that moves between countries. The growth of the knowledge-based economy has led not only to competition among employers worldwide for the best brains but also among the institutions that train the best brains. The author also stresses that globalization is seen as the root cause of changes taking place in higher education.

Higher education in Malaysia is formulated through public and private institutions, and began with the formation of University Malaya in 1959. Malaysia currently has 20 public universities, 24 polytechnics, 37 public community colleges, 33 private universities, five foreign university branch campuses and about 500 private colleges. Besides that, various other educational institutions from the UK, US, Australia, Canada, France, Germany and New Zealand offer twinning and franchised degree programs through partnerships with Malaysian colleges and universities (Ministry of Higher Education, 2009). This dramatic development and drastic changes in the number of colleges and universities have transformed Malaysia as an education hub, especially in the region of South East Asia. The education business provides a major stream of income to the national GDP, and the Malaysian government has given considerable attention to developing this sector.

For instance, the setting up of Educity in Iskandar Malaysia and Kuala Lumpur Education City (KLEC) has shown that Malaysia is serious about establishing itself as a regional education hub. The Financial Express (2007) further elaborated that Educity aims to provide high-quality education and produce a skilled workforce to support foreign companies located in the commercial zones of Iskandar Malaysia. It also plans to support academic-industry collaboration through joint research laboratories and design centers. Elsewhere, KLEC aims to showcase Malaysia as an environment-friendly, energy-efficient and networked knowledge-based regional center, as well as focusing on the development of human capital necessary for Malaysia’s knowledge economy.

The government initiatives to introduce and implement the Private Higher Education Institutions (PHEI) Act in 1966 has also paved the way for reputable foreign universities to establish branch campuses in Malaysia; these include Monash University, Curtin University and Swinburne University of Technology from Australia, and the universities



of Nottingham and Newcastle from the United Kingdom. According to Sarjit (2008), the introduction of PHEIs has made Malaysian higher education more diversified in terms of providers of education and modes of delivery.

The establishment of these private higher education institutions has been undertaken mainly to reduce the migration of local students overseas, as well as to attract foreign students to study in Malaysia. Based on the data collected by Chong and Amli (2013), the number of foreign students enrolled in public and private HEIs increased from 27,872 in 2002 to 86,919 in 2010. These students are coming from different parts of the world such as China, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Iran, Maldives, Nigeria, Sudan, Yemen, Botswana, Thailand and Saudi Arabia. Malaysia was ranked 11th in the world as a destination among international students (Ministry of Higher Education, 2009). According to Mohamed Khaled Nordin, the former Minister of Higher Education, foreign students will spur the economy. He estimated that a foreign student will spend RM30,000 annually on his studies in Malaysia (The Star, 2010).

The increase of colleges and universities in Malaysia was also a positive sign for the implementation of democratization of secondary education in 1990s. Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM), or the Malaysian Certificate of Education, has become the minimum qualification for students in Malaysia to further their studies at higher education level. It has significantly increased the number of secondary students eligible for higher education (Tan & Santhiram, 2009).

The establishment of local and foreign colleges and universities in Malaysia has also contributed to the development of human capital, especially skilled workers to work in the five economic corridors established to stimulate global and domestic investment. One of these is the Sarawak Corridor of Renewable Energy (SCORE). The Sarawak state government, in monitoring the demand and supply of the workforce required by SCORE, has set-up U-SCORE, a consortium of public and private institutions of higher learning in the state. It is estimated that the impact of SCORE will be to expand Sarawak’s GDP to RM118 billion, and increase per capita income to RM97,400.00 (Regional Corridor Development, 2013). The report from Regional Corridor Development Authority (RECODA) not only indicates the necessity of establishing HEIs but also their contribution to the economic growth of the nation.

2.2 Teaching and Learning

Teaching and learning is one of the strategies included in National Higher Education Strategic Plan (NHEAP) 2007–2010. In order to ensure a stable and strong institution, dynamic and relevant curricula and pedagogy are needed. A well-designed higher education curriculum should include creativity, innovation, leadership and entrepreneurship. It should equip students with appropriate skills to enable them to compete with the challenging global market. Peer review and industry collaboration must be enhanced in curricula development and evaluation.

One of the initiatives adopted by Malaysian HEIs is “education as a humanitarian response”. A simple and logical definition of humanitarian is helping to improve and save human lives or to alleviate human suffering. According to Brock (2012), education as a humanitarian response is conventionally seen in terms of “education for emergencies” and “education for special needs”. Providing educational support to those suffering from natural or manmade disaster becomes the responsibility of every human being.

Based on a study by Sirat (2002), University Sains Malaysia, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia (USM) is managing its interface with the geographic region, particularly as it applies to purposeful community service. USM has established two branch campuses, one for medical sciences (1979) on the east coast and another one for engineering (1986) in the northern part of Malaysia. The establishment of these branch campuses has actually helped the communities there in terms of increasing access to academic and technical training as well as utilizing the campuses’ various facilities, especially sports and information technology. Students learning in these campuses are actually exposed to meaningful informal education besides their formal education. This kind of exposure is vital and in line with the aspiration of the government to intensify the development of human capital for nation-building.

Effective teaching and learning needs an effective delivery system. Textbooks are no longer considered as an important element of knowledge acquisition. Learning activities are done through electronic media, whereby information and communication technology (ICT) has become the main means of imparting knowledge and gathering information in higher education. ICT has actually changed students’ learning behavior, helping to move from content-centered curricula to competency-based curricula, and from teacher-centered to student-centered forms of delivery (Oliver, 2002).

The advancement in ICT has also changed the delivery style of teaching and learning. The conventional method of imparting knowledge through face-to-face interaction is slowly taking a step backward, even though it is still used in public and private colleges and universities in Malaysia. Virtual classrooms, e-learning and blended learning are slowly gaining momentum.



The study conducted by Norazah, Mohamed Amin, and Zaidan (2011) into e-learning shows that 11 HEIs in Malaysia offers more than 50% of their courses online. The data also shows that 13.8% lecturers provide more than 80% online learning materials and that 44.6% of students prefer to read materials uploaded by their lecturers. The findings also show that students’ preference for online courses is very encouraging. In fact, lecturers also agree that the integration of e-learning into their courses has benefited students. In general, it clearly shows that the application of e-learning is accepted by lecturers and students of HEIs as an effective means of communication.

2.3 Governance

Higher education in Malaysia has grown tremendously since independence in 1957 to meet the demand for quality education. In order to produce sufficient graduates to meet the manpower requirements of the nation’s economic growth and to portray Malaysia as an education hub, especially in South East Asia, the MOE has formulated two education plans, the NHESP beyond 2020 and the NHEAP 2007–2010.

The government, through the MOE, has democratized higher education and encourages the setting up of private colleges and universities in line with its vision to provide access for all qualified students to tertiary education. To date, Malaysia has more than 942,200 students enrolled in 20 public universities, 32 private universities and colleges, four branch campuses of international universities, 21 polytechnics, 37 public community colleges and 485 private colleges (Ministry of Higher Education, 2007).

Private HEIs are given the green light to operate independently with minimal intervention from the MOE. Nevertheless, private HEIs are encouraged to adhere to the need and aspiration of the government to provide quality education and transform Malaysia into a center for education excellence. The government also recognizes the importance of giving greater autonomy and accountability to public HEIs. Some of the changes that are in progress include implementing the legal framework to transfer administrative powers to universities and to replace the University Council with university boards of directors.

The government has also upgraded four institutions, University Malaya (UM), University Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), University Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) and University Putra Malaysia (UPM), into research universities, and USM into Apex University. These five institutions are expected to obtain full autonomy by 2015 (The Star, 2011). USM will be the nation’s center of academic distinction. It will be an avenue to ensure the retention of the best and brightest students and faculty in Malaysia’s HEIs (Ministry of Higher Education, 2007).

2.4 Knowledge-Based Society

The fundamental objective of the education system is to ensure that all Malaysian students, be they in primary schools, secondary schools or in higher education, are equipped with the knowledge and skills required to be successful in life. In an effort to develop a holistic individual, the government spelled out its national education philosophy in 1996:

Education in Malaysia is an ongoing effort towards further develop the potential of individuals in a holistic and integrated manner, so as to produce individuals who are intellectually, spiritually, emotionally and physically balanced and harmonious, based on a firm belief in a devotion to God. Such an effort is designed to produce Malaysian citizens who are knowledgeable and competent, who possess high moral standards, and who are responsible and capable of achieving high levels of personal well-being as well as being able to contribute to the harmony and betterment of the family, the society and the nation at large. (Malaysian Education Blueprint, 2013–2025)

Malaysia has certainly moved towards a knowledge-based society since the transformation of its education system into a more holistic approach through the introduction of various initiatives and approaches in the Malaysian Education Blueprint 2013–2025, the NHEAP 2007–2010, and the NHESP beyond 2020. As the former Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad said in 2001:

In our pursuit towards developing the K-economy, knowledge has to replace labour and capital as key factors of production in our economy. The challenge for Malaysia is to develop this knowledge amongst our citizens so that our success will be due to the contributions of Malaysian talents and knowledge workers. (Evers, 2001)

Lifelong learning is one the imperatives suggested by the MOE in the NHEAP 2007–2010. The establishment of public and private universities, university colleges, open universities, polytechnics, community colleges and private colleges in Malaysia has made it possible to implement lifelong learning, especially for adult learners. In addition, other government agencies are offering education and training to Malaysian citizens through various ministries such



as Entrepreneur and Co-operative Development, Rural and Regional Development, Agriculture and Agro-Based Industry, Women, Family & Community Development, Culture, Arts & Heritage, Youth & Sports, and Tourism and Health (Ministry of Higher Education, 2007).

Advances in ICT have also contributed significantly to lifelong learning. Students have the option to learn online. Programs are designed to produce knowledge workers. Institutions of higher learning are collaborating with industry to make the learning experience more meaningful and relevant. Students are also given the flexibility to design their own study programs. Students are given the choice to pursuit the field of their choice and focus on a few areas in an attempt to increase their market value.

The government via the MOE plays an important role in the development of skilled and knowledgeable human capital. The vision to make Malaysia a center of education excellence is being advanced through proper planning and the restructuring of the higher education system. Through the development of skilled, knowledgeable and innovative human capital, Malaysia could be transformed into a high-income nation.

3. The effects of current trends on Malaysian education policy and practice

3.1 Employability

The transformation of its higher education system has evolved Malaysia towards becoming a center of education excellence and the education hub of South East Asia. In order to be competitive in the global market, Malaysia is aware of the need to collaborate with foreign countries. The restructuring of its education policy have given foreign stakeholders the opportunity to conduct twinning programs with local colleges and universities, as well as to open international branch campuses in Malaysia.

One of the concerns of parliamentarians and the public is unemployment among Malaysian graduates. Hrm ASIA (2012) reports that some 150,000 people graduate from Malaysia’s universities each year, but many of them fail to secure a job. This report revealed that some 44,000 Malaysian graduates had yet to find work in 2011. This figure represents an increase from 43,000 in 2010 and 41,000 in 2009. Experts have identified that unemployed Malaysian graduates are not adequately equipped with the skills that employers expect, in addition to their poor command of the English language, poor problem-solving skills and a lack of professional etiquette.

This view was supported by Chiew (2013), who noted that while Malaysia had very low unemployment rate of 3.3% (434,000 of its 13-million labor force) as of December 2012, graduate unemployment was high. The author suggested that the main reason for this was a mismatch of talent produced by Malaysian higher learning institutions, while not discounting the fact that the ineffective delivery system in higher institutions could also play a part.

The formulation of the Malaysian Education Blueprint 2013–2025, the NHEAP 2007–2010 and the NHESP beyond 2020, and the democratization of post-secondary education, has increased the number of graduates tremendously (150,000 graduates every year from higher education institutions in Malaysia). The government realizes the need to help graduates to find jobs. One of the initiatives that have been carried out is the establishment of a government agency known as the Graduate Career Accelerated Program (GCAP). According to Yong (2012), two private-education centers, Scicom Education Group and MyPartners, will provide six weeks’ training for unemployed graduates who have scored cumulative grade point averages of between 2.0 and 3.0. Upon completion of the training session, the firms will assist the graduates to find employment in the service sector, including commercial banks and multinational companies.

Choo (2013) has asserted that CIMB Group has signed a partnership agreement with six firms to help enhance graduates’ skills. The author also quoted from Hamidah Naziadin, Head of Group Corporate Resources, that the talent development partnership would contribute to the Malaysian talent pool by developing a new generation of leaders who are technically competent, extensively networked and well exposed to international best practices.

In fact many private firms in Malaysia are coming forward to help Malaysian graduates to secure jobs. This is indeed a noble move that supports the government’s intention to produce quality skilled workers who can compete in the global marketplace.

3.2 Quality Assurance

In order to attract international students to Malaysia, the government realizes the importance of branding Malaysian education. According to Susan (2008), the Malaysian education brand draws on deep cultural, religious and political resonances to promote its product, one that emphasizes lifestyle, culture and quality of education. Susan further elaborates that Malaysia demonstrates a high level of fluidity in globalizing the higher education market. This



requires its HEIs to be more competitive, attentive to strategies on opening new markets, utilize intelligence and to become a more attractive and unique brand.

One of the issues to be looked into very closely to ensure the healthy growth and competitiveness of Malaysia’s HEIs is quality assurance. In 1997, Lembaga Akreditasi Negara (LAN) was established to ensure the quality of education provided by the private HEIs. In 2002, the government also established a Quality Assurance Division (QAD) within the MOE to monitor public HEIs. In 2005, the cabinet made a major decision to establish a Malaysia Qualification Agency (MQA), which would responsible for quality assurance in higher education and to implement the Malaysian Qualifications Framework (MQF).

The MQA has developed the Codes of Practice for Program Accreditation (COPPA) and Codes of Practice for Institutional Audit (COPIA). These codes are benchmarked against international good practices and nationally accepted by stakeholders through various consultations (Studymalaysia, 2012).

In achieving Malaysia’s aspiration to be an education hub in the region, the MQA has also designed three assessments that could be the motivators to improve Malaysia’s position in the competitiveness ranking among nations in the world. These assessments are the Rating System for Malaysian Higher Education Institutions (SETARA), the Malaysia Quality Evaluation System for Private Colleges (MyQUEST), and the Malaysia Research Assessment Instrument (MyRA). As an example, the results of the first Discipline-Based Rating System (D-Setara) were unveiled by the Higher Education Minister and reported in The Star (February 10, 2013) by Priya Kulasagaran. D-Setara is voluntary, and classifies institutions in six tiers: Tier Six (outstanding), Tier Five (excellent), Tier Four (very good), Tier Three (good), Tier Two (satisfactory) and Tier One (weak).

According to Najmi Mohd Noor, director of the MQA’s Institutional Audit Division, D-Setara would be more relevant to prospective students as it focuses on specific fields of study rather than an institution’s overall quality of teaching and learning (The Star, 2013). Malaysian universities are also encouraged to participate in QS World University Ranking to be recognized as world-class universities. Ben Sowter, the QS head of research, has said the ranking method is based on academic reputation, employer reputation, student/faculty ratio, papers per faculty, citations per paper, and internationalization, as well as inbound and outbound student exchange (Chapman, 2013).

Due to the rapid expansion of the higher education system, quality assurance has become an effective mechanism for the professional recognition of HEIs in Malaysia. The establishment of MQA is vital to ensure that HEIs provide relevant quality education to students and uphold the government’s aspiration to make Malaysia an “education hub”, especially in the region of South East Asia.

3.3 Academia

The word “academia” can be translated as “the academic community”. The government has formulated three well-planned education blueprints: Malaysian Education Blueprint 2013–2025; the NHEAP 2007–2010; and the NHESP beyond 2020. These have transformed Malaysia into one the most sought-after countries by foreign investors and students in terms of its education sector. The Malaysian HEIs have the responsibility for offering quality education. The excellence of any HEIs can only be determined by competent and qualified academic staff.

In 2006, there were more than 20,000 lecturers in public HEIs. Some 5000 of these hold a PhD qualification. The government has targeted to increase it by 60% by 2010. Several initiatives have been identified to uplift the profession such as tenureships and more stringent criteria for professorships. In addition the quality and number of lecturers have also been increased through Research and Development (R&D), Pillar and MyBrain15 (Ministry of Higher Education, 2007).

The government has indentified two important aspects in the development of R&D:

(1) Building the critical mass of researchers, scientists and engineers (RSE);

(2) Inculcating the right culture to ensure passion, dedication and commitment towards research. (Ministry of Higher Education, 2007).

Even though the government has set the science-to-arts ratio as 60:40 in order to fulfill the future demands of a developing nation, this target has yet to be achieved. According to Majlis Penyelidikan dan Kemajuan Sains Negara, Malaysia needs a workforce of 493,830 people in RSE by 2020 to support the current government initiatives in the Economic Transformation Program, the Government Transformation Program and the New Economic Model (MyForesight, 2013).

MyBrain15 is one of the government’s strategies to produce human capital to promote economic growth and industrial development, and to explore new areas of research that can sustain Malaysia as a global competitor. In



order to achieve its target of creating a pool of 100,000 high-quality graduates with doctoral degrees, the government is willing to give scholarships to individuals, especially lecturers, to pursuit their degree in local or foreign universities (Ministry of Higher Education, 2007).

Enhancing human capital in the education sector to provide quality education to students is vital to uphold the integrity of education in Malaysia. It will be a letdown – especially to the government – if proper planning is carried out through the establishment of various education blueprints and initiatives, but the delivery system in HEIs is compromised by a lack of manpower, especially of qualified lecturers.

3.4 English Language Competency

Malay, or Bahasa Melayu, is the national language and widely used in the Malaysian education system as the medium of instruction, especially in national schools and public universities. A plural society such as Malaysia needs a strong mechanism for communication and integration purposes, and the government believes that using the Malay language in all aspects of the education system could strengthen nation-building and national integration.

As the country moves into a new era from a production-based economy to an innovative and knowledge-based one, the government has allowed English to be used as the medium of instruction, especially in private HEIs (Tan, 2002). This change is essential as the government has to respond to globalization and internationalization. Moreover, to meet the government’s aspirations to make Malaysia an education hub in the region and attract foreign investment in education, English has to be used as the medium of instruction in private HEIs. Thus language becomes one of the main agendas for attracting foreign students to Malaysia.

The Education Act 1996 and the Private HEIs Act approves the use of English as a medium of instruction for technical areas in post-secondary courses. The English language is also allowed to be used in courses provided through twinning programs with overseas institutions as well as offshore campuses. Nevertheless, Section 23 of the Education Act 1966 states that “where the main medium of the instruction in an education institution is other than the national language, the national language shall be taught as a compulsory subject in the educational institution” (Saran, 2002). This provision is stipulated to ensure that the Malay language does not become totally redundant in Malaysia, as it is the national language.

The use of the English language in our education system is also lauded by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad. He has defended the move, saying that “learning English language will reinforce the spirit of nationalism when it is used to bring about development and progress for the country… True nationalism means doing everything possible for the country, even if it means learning the English language” (Mahathir, 1999).

English proficiency tests such as IELTS and TOEFL are widely used in academic institutions throughout the world for admission and placement purposes in HEIs. Similarly, in Malaysia, the Malaysian University English Test (MUET) is used to measure proficiency, a prerequisite for admission, and also as placement in various academic programs (Souba & Chuah, 2011). The MUET determines the ability of students to perform effectively in their academic pursuits at tertiary level. The establishment of ICT in HEIs also requires students to have a good grasp of the English language to enable them to do their research and assignments effectively. Moreover, English has also becomes a communication language among students, especially in private HEIs.

English is sometimes referred to as the language of progress and development. It has become one of the widely used international languages in the world. The government’s aspiration to establish Malaysia as a center for education excellence can only materialize if the English language is widely used in teaching and learning, communication and R&D in public and private HEIs.

4. Conclusion

The current trends in Malaysian higher education are based on four factors:

(1) Globalization,

(2) Teaching and Learning,

(3) Governance and

(4) Knowledge-based Society.

Based on these trends, the government through The MOE has formulated three education blueprints: The Malaysian Education Blueprint 2013–2025, NHEAP 2007–2010 and NHESP beyond 2020 in order to pursuit the idea of becoming an “education hub” in the region, especially in South East Asia. The Malaysia Education Act 1996 and later the Private Higher Education Act were also restructured to attract more foreign investors to collaborate with



Malaysian HEIs and also to set up foreign branch campuses in Malaysia. The focus on making Malaysia an education hub has resulted in the setting up of many public and private colleges and universities. The government has made various changes in the governance of these public and private HEIs, and with the setting-up of the MQA, the government can rest assured that quality education is provided to the students in HEIs. This includes teaching and learning and also qualified lecturers. The government has also given a green light to the use of the English language as the medium of instruction, especially in private HEIs, even though Malay is the national language and has been widely used as a medium of communication, and of instruction in schools and public HEIs since independence. This drastic change has been introduced by the government in order to accommodate and compete in the global market in education. The Malaysian education policy and practice has to be reviewed from time to time by the government through the MOE to make sure it is relevant to the needs and aspirations of Malaysian society and to raise the Malaysian higher education system to new heights.

References

Anantha R. A. (2011). An analysis of globalization and higher education in Malaysia. Australian Journal of Business and Management Research. 1(9):73-81.

Brock, C. (2012). Perspectives on the contributions of higher education to education as a humanitarian response. Journal of International and Comparative Education 2012, 191):13-22.

Business Dictionary.com (2013). Globalization. Retrieved June 11, 2013, from www.businessdictionary.com.

Chapman, K. (2013). Five varsities make it into top 100. Retrieved June 12, 2013, from www.thestar.com.my.

Chiew C.S. (2013, March 14). Helping unemployed graduates in Malaysia. Retrieved June 8, 2013, from www.straitstimes.com.

Chong P.Y & Amli H.. (2013). International students’ learning experiences at private higher education institutions in Malaysia. Proceeding of the Global Summit on Education 2013 (e-ISBN 978-967-11768-0-1). 11-12 March 2013, Kuala Lumpur. pp. 298 – 312.

Evers, H. D., (2001). Towards a Malaysian knowledge society. Third International Malaysian Studies Conference (MSC3), Bangi. 6 – 8 August 2011.

Financial Express. (2007, August 31). Strategies towards a global education hub. Retrieved June 12, 2013, from www.thefinancialexpress.

Hrm ASIA. (2012, November 12). Malaysia helping graduates to get job. Retrieved June 12, 2013, from www.hrmasia.com.

Knight, J., (2002). Trade in higher education services: The implications of GATS. London : Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.

Lee, M. (2005). Global trends, national policies and institutional responses: restructuring higher education in Malaysia. Educational Research for Policy and Practice. 3: 31-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10671-004-6034-y

Mahathir M.. (1999). The spirit of nationalism. The Sun, September 11, 1999.

Ministry of Education. (2012). Malaysian Education Blueprint 2013-2025. Ministry of Education Malaysia

Ministry of Higher Education. (2007). National Higher Education Action Plan 2007-2010: Triggering higher education transformation.

Ministry of Higher Education. (2009). Malaysian Education: Malaysia Centre Of Educational Excellence.

MyForesight (2013)). Enabling the future: Re-energizing Malaysia education from cradle to career. Retrieved June 9, 2013, from www.myforesight.my.

Norazah, M.N., Mohamed Amin, E., & Zaidan, A.B. (2011). Integration of e-learning in Teaching & Learning in Malaysia Higher Education Institutions. In M.A. Embi (Eds). e-learning in Malaysian higher education institutions: status, trend & challenges. Malaysia: Ministry of Higher Education. (81-98).

Oliver. R., (2002). The role of ICT in higher education for the 21st century: ICT as a change agent for education. HE21 conference. Retrieved June 9, 2013, from www.citeseerx.ist.psu.edu.

Priya K. (2013, February 10). Rating for specific fields of study. The Star online. Retrieved June 9, 2013, from www.thestar.com.my.



Regional Corridor Development Authority. (2013, June 11). Human capital development. Retrieved June 11, 2013, from www.recoda.com.my.

Saran, K. G. (2002). English language challenges for Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Universiti Putra Malaysia Publication.

Sarjit, K., Morshidi, S., & Noraini, A. (Eds). (2008). Globalization and internationalization of higher education in Malaysia. Penang, Malaysia: Universiti Sains Malaysia Press.

Sirat, M. (2002). Managing the interface with the region: The case of Universiti Sains Malaysia, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia. In J.L Pyle & R. Forrant, op.cit. pp. 194-211.

Souba R and Chuah K.M. (2011). The Malaysian University English Test (MUET) and its use for placement purposes: A predictive validity study. Electronic journal of foreign language teaching 2011, 892):234-245.

Studymalaysia. (2012, October 02). Enhancing the quality of Malaysia higher education. Retrieved June 11, 2013, from www.studymalaysia.com.

Susan, R. (2008, March 16). Malaysia education: Strategic branding leads to growth in international student number 2006-8. GlobalHigherEd. Retrieved June 9, 2013 from, www.globalhighered.wordpress.com.

Tan, A. M. (2002). Malaysian private higher education. London: Asean Academic Press.

Yong Y.N. (2012, November 20). Malaysia helping graduates find jobs. Retrieved June 9, 2013, from www.straitstimes.com

TITLE SOURCE

Internationalizing Higher Education in

Malaysia: Government Policies and

University’s Response

SAGE

Journal of Studies in International Education17(5) 648 –662© 2013 Nuffic

Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1028315313476954jsi.sagepub.com

476954 JSI17510.1177/1028315313476954Journal of Studies in International EducationTham

1National University of Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor

Corresponding Author:Siew Yean Tham, Institute of Malaysian and International Studies (IKMAS), National University of Malaysia, 43600 Bangi, Selangor. Email: [email protected]; [email protected]

Internationalizing Higher Education in Malaysia: Government Policies and University’s Response

Siew Yean Tham1

Abstract

The intensity of internationalization has increased with an escalation in internationalization activities, leading to increasing student, program, and institutional mobility. In Malaysia, the internationalization of higher education in terms of student mobility has changed tremendously in the last two decades as the country has shifted from a sending to a receiving country. Policy-wise, the government has targeted to be a regional hub for higher education. The objectives of this article are to examine government policies, their rationales, and the response of public and private institutions toward these policies. The findings show that while there is also a new emphasis on research and knowledge generation, government policies essentially focus mainly on increasing inbound students to increase export revenues. Institutions’ response vary between public and private as the former have access to research funding from the government while the other is much more fee-dependent and therefore tend to focus on international students as an additional source of revenue but both view internationalization targets set by the government as an end by themselves.

Keywords

Malaysia, internationalization, government policies, responses

Introduction

The term internationalization is multifaceted and its meaning and interpretations as applied in higher education has evolved over time. This is reflected in the various terminologies and elements associated with internationalization over time.

Article

Tham 649

The different terminologies also indicate different phases of internationalization as each terminology is associated with specific dimensions of internationalization (Knight, 2008). They also reflect different rationales for internationalization due to changes in the development of higher education (Kehm, 2003). Prior to the 1980s, international education and cooperation were more commonly used terms instead of internationalization, with activities that were focused on development projects, foreign students, international academic, and cultural agreements (Knight, 2008). Intercultural education was used as an instrument or activity to enhance the quality of education, focusing on cooperation and learning (de Wit, 2011). As globalization intensified, internationalization became increasingly mainstreamed. Cross border movements accelerated, with technology facilitating new forms of internationalization such as virtual education. Economic rationales became increasingly dominant at the institution and policy level accompanied with an increasing focus on market-driven activities rather than development proj-ects. Internationalization also became progressively reduced to a more pragmatic definition of cross border movements of people, programs, and institutions rather than an understanding of internationalization as a “process of integrating an inter-national and intercultural dimension into the teaching, research, and service functions of the institution (Knight, 2004). Instead, activities which are the means for achiev-ing internationalization are sometimes viewed as an end by themselves.

The importance of Malaysia in studies on the internationalization of higher educa-tion is due to two reasons: first, the shift in importance of the country from being a sending to receiving country for students and second; its ambitious policy to be a regional hub for higher education. In view of this, the objective of this article is to examine key policies for internationalizing higher education and the response of pri-vate and public institutions to these policies. The article is organized as follows: a brief overview of Malaysia’s higher education sector is provided in Section 2. Government policies for internationalization are discussed in Section 3, while the response of uni-versities are analyzed in Section 4. The conclusion summarizes the main findings and key challenges facing the internationalization of higher education.

Overview of Malaysia’s Higher Education SectorIn Malaysia, there are respectively, 20 and 468 public and private higher education institutions. Public universities are categorized into three types: research, compre-hensive, and focused universities. The main difference between these three types lies in the fields of study and the ratio between undergraduate and graduate students. Research universities as in comprehensive universities, started out by offering all fields of studies but are encouraged to move toward fields of specialization based on their respective research focus. Focused universities offer specific fields of studies only. The government conferred research university (RU) status for the five oldest public universities (namely Universiti Malaya (UM), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), Universiti Putra Malaysia

650 Journal of Studies in International Education 17(5)

(UPM), and Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM)) in the last 5 years and provided additional research funding for them. They have to shift their respective ratio of undergraduate to graduate students to 50:50, unlike the other two categories that have a ratio of 70:30.

Private higher education institutions (PrHEIs) grew from 354 in 1996 to 704 in 2001 to meet the excess demand for tertiary education while regulatory enforcement was weak before falling to 468 in 2011 with more stringent enforcement of the regu-lations (Table 1). There are four main categories of private institutions, namely pri-vate universities, university colleges, branch campuses, and colleges. Private colleges are not able to confer their own degrees, unlike the other three categories. University colleges are previously private colleges that have shown a good track record in con-ducting transnational programs completely in Malaysia and are subsequently allowed to confer their own degrees like private universities. While the four older branch campuses (namely Monash University Malaysia, Curtin University of Technology (Sarawak), The University of Nottingham (Malaysia Campus), and Swinburne University of Technology (Sarawak) operate several faculties in Malaysia, the most recent branch campus operate a single faculty, namely the Medical Faculty from the University of Newcastle (Newcastle University of Medicine), at Educity1 in Iskandar Malaysia.

The sizes of PrHEIs in terms of student enrolment are quite uneven. In 2009, it was reported that approximately 36% of the 440 registered active PrHEIs had a stu-dent population of less than 300 students (Malaysia, 2010). This implies that the profitability of the different PrHEIs also differs greatly since student fees are the main revenue source. Some PrHEIs are listed in Bursa Malaysia (formerly known as the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange), and some are struggling financially to survive (Malaysia, 2010). They also vary in terms of types of business enterprises, ranging from for-profit institutions that are backed by large corporations, to institutions that are backed by government-linked companies (GLCs), political parties, as well as nonprofit institutions. For instance, Multimedia University belongs to Telekoms Malaysia which is a GLC, while Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman (UTAR) was estab-lished by the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA), a political party. Albukhary

Table 1. Number of PrHEIs, 1996 to 2011.

Type 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

U 0 0 5 6 7 11 11 11 11 10 12 18 18 21 23 27UC 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 5 10 11 15 15 18 23 21 21BC 0 0 1 2 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 5C 354 497 577 632 691 690 518 519 533 532 482 488 491 405 403 415Total 354 497 583 599 642 706 534 539 559 558 514 525 531 454 452 468

Note: U = University status. UC = University college status. BC = Branch campus. C = College.Source: 1996 to 2010 from Tham 2012a; 2011 taken from www.mohe.gov.my.

Tham 651

International University is an example of a nonprofit university that was established under the Albukhary Foundation.

The increasing number of PrHEIs has changed the share of these institutions in total student enrolment. In 1985, PrHEIs accounted for 15% of total enrolment, but this has increased to 54% by 2010. Competition has intensified as most of these insti-tutions offer similar twinning or foreign affiliated programs in demand-driven fields such as business studies and engineering. Some, however, offer local or home-grown programs such as Multimedia University that are usually cheaper than imported programs.

Government Policies and Institutions’ ResponseGovernment Policies and Rationales

Malaysia as an education hub. Mahathir introduced his Vision 2020 in 1991 which envisaged Malaysia as a developed nation by 2020, thereby requiring an increase in the country’s human capital. The additional human capital requirements was translated into policy directions in the Sixth Malaysia Plan (Malaysia, 1991) by expanding the role of the private sector as a provider through twinning programs between these insti-tutions and the public higher education institutions (PuHEIs) as well as with foreign universities. Later, the mid-term review of the Sixth Malaysia Plan (1993) tabled the idea of promoting the education sector as a significant component of the services industry that can contribute toward export revenues and reduce the perennial services deficit, thereby leading to the vision of Malaysia as an education hub. This vision and its economic rationales continue to be highlighted in subsequent government eco-nomic plans up to this day.

The National Higher Education Strategic Plan (NHESP) supports the targeted 100,000 international students by 2010 as stated in the Ninth Malaysia Plan (Malaysia, 2006) by identifying the intensification of internationalization as one of its seven strategic thrusts (MOHE, 2007).2 This target has subsequently been revised to 200,000 in the Economic Transformation Plan (ETP) and reiterated in the recently launched internationalization policy document from MOHE (Malaysia, 2010; MOHE, 2011a). The latter document gives an interim target of 150,000 by 2015. These targets as well as the expected outcomes from the internationalization policy document3 indicate that Malaysia’s focus as a regional education hub is very much focused on inbound students as opposed to the other types of education hubs (see Knight & Morshidi, 2011). However, the actual targeted number appears to be an aspirational goal as it was an ambitious target to more than double the enrolment in 5 years, given the intense competition for international students from other existing and potential hubs. When 87,000 international students were enrolled in 2010, the government revised the target of 100,000 to be achieved by 2012 (PEMANDU, 2011).

The implementation of Malaysia’s vision as an education hub required institutional support as the private higher education sector was mostly left to market forces before


the enactment of the Private Higher Education Institutions Act, 1996 (PrHEI Act). This landmark Act establishes a regulatory framework for regulating the development of the private higher education sector. It was accompanied with the enactment of other Acts to govern and facilitate a more orderly development of private provision. The National Council of Higher Education Act, 1996 was formulated to enable the estab-lishment of a Council to determine policy and to coordinate the development of ter-tiary education. Concurrently, the National Accreditation Act 1996 provided for the establishment of a board (or the National Accreditation Board; LAN) to ensure that high academic standards, quality, and control were maintained. Quality assurance for public universities was governed by the Quality Assurance Division (QAD) for these universities in the Ministry of Education. The National Accreditation Board and QAD were subsequently unified to become the Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA) in 2007 to strengthen the quality assurance systems and to unify quality assurance of both public and private institutions under one organization. The provision of quality assurance has served to enhance the host environment of Malaysia for students by protecting their interests in terms of ensuring minimum standards are complied.

Another form of institutional support was provided in the establishment of a sepa-rate ministry for higher education, namely the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) in 2004 to focus on the development of both public and PrHEIs as the government wanted to cultivate world-class tertiary institutions (Badawi, 2004). The newly estab-lished ministry was also directed to work closely with the Ministry of Education to ensure consistency in policies. MOHE also established an education marketing divi-sion to promote Malaysia as a center of higher education excellence, focusing on mar-keting and recognition. Four education promotion centers were established in China, Dubai, UAE, Vietnam, and Indonesia. But PrHEIs have been using international mar-keting to promote their academic programs and to recruit international students long before the establishment of MOHE’s marketing division. Specific incentives were also given for the promotion of exports such as tax exemption on income equivalent to 50% of the value of the increased export of higher education and double deduction for expenses incurred in the promotion of higher education.

Other policy initiatives undertaken to enhance Malaysia’s host environment for international students include improving the governance structure by restricting the recruitment of these students to accredited programs, and a policy for upgrading pri-vate colleges to university status and then to full-fledged private universities when they meet the list of conditions stipulated by MOHE such as human capital, physical infrastructure, and facilities. The newly upgraded universities will have to phase out their transnational programs and replace them with home-grown programs within a specified period of time. Two publicly disclosed domestic rating systems have been used since 2007 and 2011 to rate the quality of teaching and learning at the under-graduate level for universities and colleges, respectively.

Moving beyond a student hub?. MOHE was also concerned with the performance of PuHEIs due to increasing calls for accountability since the government has and con-tinues to invest heavily in their development. Performance in terms of ranking in

Tham 653

international ranking systems such as the Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) or QS World University Rankings (QSWUR) or Shanghai Jiao Tong’s Academic Ranking of World Universities for some public universities has been carried out since 2004. The quest for international recognition as world-class universities is expressed in the NHESP in the form of targeting the PuHEIs (though this is not stated explicitly) to be ranked among the top in the world. This intensified pressures for PuHEIs to improve certain elements of internationalization that are used to determine world ranking exercises, such as the number of international students and staff and research collabo-rations that would lead to publications in high impact journals such as International Social Science and Science Citation indexed journals.4

In 2011, the launch of the action plan for the second phase of the NHESP (MOHE, 2011b) indicates an attempt to capture a broader set of activities under the rubric of internationalization to encompass other academic activities beyond mere numbers of international students and staff. This includes among others, increasing the visibility of Malaysian higher education outside Malaysia through collaborations and networks as well as establishing academic centers of PuHEIs in other countries for teaching, learning, and research. In the same year, MOHE also launched Malaysia’s Global Outreach initiative to intensify global exchanges between Malaysia and other develop-ing countries, including exchanges of knowledge, and people such as alumni, govern-ment officials as well as program exchanges that are targeted at specific training programs based on the needs of other developing countries as identified in the docu-ment (MOHE, 2011c).

The recently launched Economic Transformation Plan also indicates a bigger role in research for PrHEIs with some designated as key institutions for identified research niches (Malaysia, 2010). For example, Asia-e-University was identified for expanding international distance learning, the International Centre for Education in Islamic Finance (INCEIF) for Islamic finance, UCSI University for hospitality and tourism, and Masterskills and SEGI for health sciences. This is in line with the current private sector-led growth approach of the government and harnessing private investment for growth as research is investment-intensive.

Summary assessment of internationalization policies: Rationales and focus. The quest for internationalization in terms of government policies is motivated primarily by economic considerations such as export revenues and human capital needs. The gov-ernment estimates that Malaysia will gain RM3 billion in foreign exchange from the targeted 100,000 international students in 2012. Although there is an overwhelming emphasis on student numbers, especially for the PrHEIs, there is an effort made to include other types of internationalization activities such as staff exchanges and research collaboration. There is also a distinct endeavor made to broaden the scope of policy emphasis on internationalization in the second phase of the NHESP, by includ-ing more elements of internationalization activities. It remains to be seen if these new initiatives will diversify internationalization efforts as they have just started in 2011. Nevertheless, the policies remain instrumental, ad hoc, and do not seek to embed internationalization into the core functions of the university as defined by Knight


(2004). The primary motivation continues to be economic, that is to enhance Malay-sia’s reputation and standing as a provider, for the purpose of increasing international student enrolment. Although economic motivations are also found in the internation-alization policies of other countries such as New Zealand and the United Kingdom, academic, and cultural rationales are included in the internationalization policies of countries such as the Netherlands, where other internationalization activities are rec-ognized besides the export of higher education (Shannon, 2009). Van der Wende (1997)’s matrix of policy priorities in some of the European countries illustrate a broader range of internationalization activities in these countries, indicating a more comprehensive perspective of internationalization, so that these policies are closer to Knight’s (2004) definition.

Responses of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs)Private higher education institutions (PrHEIs). There are two distinct features of PrHEIs

in Malaysia, namely their transnational programs and international student enrolment. PrHEIs consider internationalization as part of their institutional make up due to these two features, indicating the extremely narrow view of internationalization held by these institutions. Their use of transnational programs can be traced to the nature of their emergence before the enactment of the PrHEI Act 1996. At the time of indepen-dence in 1957, opportunities for higher education in Malaysia were limited as there was only one public university and no private universities in the country. PrHEIs emerged to meet the demand and functioned as tutorial centers for transnational programs that were geared toward selected skills and professional qualifications. After independence, excess demand and its potential negative impact on interethnic relations in multiethnic Malaysia due to affirmative action and ethnic quotas in enrolment in the limited number of public universities led the government to allow private provision to supplement public universities. The demand for transnational programs from private providers coincided with changes in the United Kingdom and Australia’s higher education policies including funding that motivated universities there to innovate dif-ferent supply models such as twinning and franchise programs for export (Tham, 2010). In turn, these transnational programs attracted domestic and international stu-dents as they provide a program that is conducted in English, with a degree that is awarded by the parent institution from the developed world such as the U.K, Australia, or the United States at a cost that is less than that at parent institutions. Branch cam-puses are also attractive for similar reasons, although they can be more expensive than some of the twinning and franchise programs (Tham, 2012b).

The enactment of PrHEI Act in 1996 marked a shift in the governance of the PrHEIs as they required all PrHEIs to renew their registration and to seek fresh approval for each program (Lee & Ibrahim, 2010). The act also came together with requirements for accreditation for the purpose of quality assurance, even though some of the trans-national programs, especially British programs, were already accredited in their home country due to home requirements. While the transition was difficult due to teething

Tham 655

and learning problems as both regulators and regulated have to learn how to comply and monitor compliance with the standards of quality that were defined by the newly formed quality assurance department. PrHEIs had “to learn to live with this” (in the words of a dean from a PrHEI), with a dedicated department and personnel in the larger PrHEIs, to handle the accreditation demands (Tham & Kam, 2008). The subse-quent establishment of MQA enhanced transparency in the accreditation process as students and parents can check the accreditation status of their programs of interest from the web site. Accreditation is used for marketing the programs of PrHEIs, espe-cially to international students since they can only be enrolled to accredited programs. Accreditation, although not compulsory, is also needed for enabling domestic students to access student loans5 and the renewal of PrHEIs’ licenses to operate their institu-tions. The four oldest branch campuses were awarded self-accreditation status in 2010.

PrHEIs are forced to look outwards for student enrolment as the domestic market is exceedingly competitive due to the large number of providers and programs that is catering for a relatively small domestic market. Table 1 shows the number of PrHEIs increasing to a peak in 2001 before decreasing as a result of more stringent enforce-ment such as issuing fines, regular audits, inspections, and following up on complaints from the public (Gooch, 2011). International marketing strategies such as relationship marketing, rebranding their brand equity, partnering local institutions abroad, targeted marketing at specific companies for staff training, and the use of recruitment agents as well as the establishment of an international office with dedicated staff to handle inter-national students has therefore become the hallmark of PrHEIs. Their marketing dif-fers from the marketing at the ministry level as the latter is more focused on marketing Malaysian education as a brand name, although individual institutions are also invited along. Program innovations such as different variations of transnational programs pro-liferated as institutions competed against each other to meet the students and market

Table 2. Enrolment of International Students in Public and Private HEIs, 2002 to 2010.

HEIs

Year Public Private

2002 5,045 22,8272003 5,239 25,1582004 5,735 25,9392005 6,622 33,9032006 7,941 36,4492007 14,324 33,6042008 18,486 50,6792009 22,456 58,2942010 24,214 62,705

Source: Tham 2012a.


demand. In 2010, there were 3,218 joint, double, or franchise programs in Malaysia that have received provisional or full accreditation (Knight & Morshidi, 2011).

International student enrolment has increased progressively over time, as shown in Table 2, with most of the students recruited from other developing countries, espe-cially Indonesia, China, and increasingly from West Asia such as Iran. A survey on international students’ views of Malaysia found that the main attractiveness of Malaysia as a host country lies mainly in the international recognition of qualifica-tions, competitive program fees, opportunity to make international contact, assistance with student visas, and an opportunity to experience different cultures in multicultural Malaysia (Rohana & Yong, 2010).

PrHEIs are still by and large mainly focused on teaching as tuition fees are the primary source of revenue for these mainly profit-making institutions. However, the government’s decision and policy to allow private colleges to upgrade to become university-college and later to full-fledged private universities has progressively nudged PrHEIs to focus more on research and publications. Sam (2008), for example, documents some of the research centers of seven selected PrHEIs (Multimedia University, Taylor’s University College, Monash University Malaysia, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, New Era College, Southern College). There is also some anec-dotal evidence of research collaboration between PrHEIs and some of the home insti-tutions of their transnational programs such as the research collaboration between INTI International University and Colleges with the University of Wollongong of Australia (The Star, 2012). Branch campuses have also established certain research niches, for example, the Brain Research Institute at Monash University, Malaysian campus. The government has also provided funding of RM113 million for capital and operational costs for 7 years to support, the design, construction, and maintenance of the Crops for the Future Research Centre at Nottingham Malaysia Campus (http://www.nottingham.edu.my/CFFRC/FAQs.aspx). Though PrHEIs are also able to access government research grants, there is no published data on the amount of public fund-ing that have been accessed by these universities. MQA requirements also facilitate research by stipulating a limit on the teaching load. But, research culture takes time to take root and the transition toward research will take time. Nevertheless, signs of change can be seen in the publication record of Multimedia University, one of the pioneering private universities in the country (Table 3).

Staff exchanges in PrHEIs are limited to foreign faculty visiting local from the home institutions of the transnational programs for primarily quality purposes and occasional lecturing stints. Academic staff from private colleges do not have much opportunity to visit foreign institutions as sabbatical leave is limited.

Public higher education institutions (PuHEIs). This section will focus on the RUs only as they are older, more established, and have more funding and academic resources than the newer PuHEIs. RUs are primarily domestic-market oriented, with a cap of 5% for international students in terms of enrolment at the undergraduate level. This cap was hugely underutilized before 2007 due to excess demand, highly subsidized tuition fees, and language issues as the language of instruction is in the national language as

Tham 657

opposed to the permission to use English in PrHEIs. International students were recruited mainly for the postgraduate programs as opposed to undergraduate programs. Nevertheless, the ranking demands have changed the enrolment picture. Table 2 shows a sudden jump in international student enrolment in 2007 in PuHEIs, with the use of English language programs that are dedicated for international students as in the case of UKM or switching to the use of English as the language of instruction in other RUs. These universities have also embarked on marketing and the use of recruitment agents. Like PrHEIs, they have also established international offices to look after the needs of their international students but unlike PrHEIs, these are manned by academic staff that have to juggle this responsibility together with other duties.

RUs are also shifting toward exchange and joint degree programs with foreign col-laborators (Norzaini & Yang, 2008; Azizah, 2013). These mobility programs include postgraduate mobility programs that allow students to spend a few months in a foreign laboratory. They also include programs for inbound students that are geared to expose them to the research strengths of a university. For example, UKM organizes short-term programs focusing on sustainability of tropical heritage or indigenous communities (Azizah, 2013). Joint degree programs such as the UKM and the University of Duisburg Essen double degree in electrical and electronics engineering are also forged as part of the internationalization efforts of these universities. Nevertheless, program innovation in RUs are significantly less and slower than the PrHEIs since there is less competition within the public universities and the demand is greater than supply due to heavily subsidized fees.

Table 3. Number of Publications in Selected PuHEIs, 2001 to 2009.

University/year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total

ScopusUKM 158 184 209 356 378 539 647 1,040 1,622 5,133UPM 218 232 280 367 401 567 651 1,025 1,686 5,427USM 270 240 368 467 544 710 775 1,157 1,499 6,030UM 300 320 414 525 612 726 804 1,096 1,675 6,472UTM 36 84 76 194 230 282 360 643 785 2,690MMU 35 67 127 200 244 306 333 371 398 2,081Web of ScienceUKM 124 144 177 277 236 330 404 799 1,002 3,493UPM 184 198 266 284 306 394 414 674 933 3,653USM 272 261 313 329 421 512 574 975 1,241 4,898UM 267 257 371 459 496 506 670 930 1,383 5,339UTM 23 50 106 137 136 168 260 412 496 1,788MMU 28 35 143 160 208 237 262 288 324 1,685

Notes: UKM = Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. UPM = Universiti Pertanian Malaysia. USM = Univer-siti Sains Malaysia. UM = Universiti Malaya. UTM = Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. MMU = Multimedia University.Source: UKM 2010.


Prior to the establishment of the QAD in the Ministry of Education, quality assur-ance in the RUs were regulated by their respective constitution, as well as the use of external examiners, input from local and foreign institutions, as well as the involvement of professional associations. Subsequently, quality assurance has become increasingly more structured under the QAD and later the MQA. As in the case of PrHEIs, RUs now have a dedicated QAD with quality assurance officers in each faculty and research institute, thereby homogenizing the process in both public and private HEIs. In 2010, four out of the five RUs have been awarded self-accreditation status.

RUs have established academic centers of research that focus on research. These include among others, UM Centre of Research for Power Electronics, Drives, Automation and Control, UKM Medical Molecular Biology Institute, Institute for Research in Molecular Medicine in USM, and Institute of Bioscience in UPM. They are increasingly using international research collaborations and research grants as these are among some of the key factors used in their assessment as RUs. While RUs have traditionally hosted foreign lecturers in the form of external assessors, examiners, visiting professors, and lecturers, there is an increasing emphasis on getting world renowned scholars such as Nobel Laureates as visitors. Likewise academic staff from RUs have opportunities to spend their sabbatical overseas every 3 or 5 years to enhance their knowledge and network. It is hoped that these collaborations will also translate into the all-important high impact journal publications that are needed to raise the rankings of these universities in the international league tables for universities. Financial incentives are also provided for publication in high impact journals. Table 3 indicates that the shift in focus had a positive impact in terms of increasing publica-tions from the RUs. Nevertheless, the cumulative total of publications of UM that was the highest among the RUs, is significantly smaller than some of the universities in the region such as the National University of Singapore that had a cumulative total of 36,437 publications in the Web of Science for the same period. Moreover, the target in terms of world ranking by the year 2010 has not been achieved since none of the RUs has made it to the top 200 universities in the THES ranking for 2010. UM, the oldest university was ranked 207 in 2010, 167 in 2011, and 156 in the QS World University Rankings for 2012/13. In 2012, UKM was ranked 261, followed by USM (326), UTM (358), and UPM (360).6 In the same year, UKM was the only RU ranked 98 in the Times Higher Education ranking of universities under 50 years old.7

ConclusionThe development of private higher education was politically and economically moti-vated while government policies on internationalization are driven by the export revenues that can be generated from inflows of international students. Government policies are performance centric, leading to the quantification of internationalization in terms of a measurable list of activities. This led to a broadening of the set of activities that are meant to define internationalization from the first phase to the sec-ond phase of the NSHEP. Internationalization targets such as numbers of international

Tham 659

students or world-class status for local universities are viewed by both public and private universities as an end by themselves. This piecemeal as well as instrumental view of targets as an end by themselves will not lead to the internalization of interna-tionalization ethos into a university’s mission for it views internationalization as an activity rather than as a core mission of a university as in Knight’s (2004) conceptu-alization of internationalization. Even quality assurance is used as a marketing tool to attract more international students rather than as a means for enhancing teaching and learning.

Lastly, the desire to raise the banner of Malaysia’s higher education in the world may have led to the policy that the upgrading of private colleges to universities has to be accompanied with a phasing out of transnational programs within a 10-year time frame. Instead, in the near future, these newly minted private universities will have to provide home-grown programs that meet the accreditation requirements of MQA. Since accreditation is not the same as recognition, it remains to be seen if these home-grown programs can substitute transnational programs in terms of attracting both domestic and international students. Private universities will have to invest consider-able financial resources to innovate new home-grown programs that meet market needs, as well as international accreditation demands or to improve the international recognition of their programs. It seems unlikely that many small private institutions will be able to survive under this kind of future scenario and only bigger institutions in terms of established track records, enrolment, and deep financial resources will be left at the end of the day, together with branch campuses that are at least semi-elitist insti-tutions in their parent country. The only type of small private institutions that may survive in the future may be very niche boutique colleges that offer specific and spe-cialized programs such as music, art, and sport as these programs are less dependent on economies of scale like big comprehensive universities.

Author’s Note

Revised version of article presented at National University of Singapore (NUS) Conference on “Internationalizing Higher Education in the Asia-Pacific”, 15-16 March 2012, Faculty of Arts & Social Sciences, NUS.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: I would like to change the funding statement to acknowledge partial funding support from the National University of Malaysia, from the Research University Grant (UKM-GUP-TKS-08-10-242).


Notes

1. Educity is part of new initiatives utilized to attract foreign direct investment in the education sector in Malaysia’s bid to become a regional education hub (Knight & Morshidi, 2011). The other initiative is the Kuala Lumpur Education City (KLEC).

2. The other six strategic thrusts are widening access and enhancing equity; improving the quality of teaching and learning; enhancing research and innovation; strengthening insti-tutions of higher education; enculturation of lifelong learning; and reinforcing the Higher Education Ministry’s Delivery System (MOHE, 2007).

3. The three stated expected outcomes are an increased growth of international students and staff, increased inbound and outbound mobility for students and staff and an increased posi-tive experience of international students in the country (MOHE 2011).

4. For example, 5% of the THES and QS WUR index is allocated to the number of international students and another 5% is allocated for international staff.

5. The National Higher Education Fund Corporation (NHEFC) provides student loans based on three eligibility critieria, namely, net income of student’s family; acceptance into full time accredited programs of PuHEIs or PrHEIs and a minimum standard in the student’s year 11 examination results (Tham 2012b).

6. The rankings are not always directly comparable with each other nor over time as the vari-ables and their respective weights in the ranking have been adjusted over time.

7. The other RUs were not ranked because they either did not qualify by age or did not participate.

References

Azizah, K. (2013). Public universities. In S. Y. Tham (Ed.), Internationalizing higher education in Malaysia: Understanding, practices and challenges. (Chapter 3, pp. 41-65). Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS).

Badawi, A. (2004). Opening address of Prime Minister of Malaysia at the Malaysian Education Summit 2004. Retrieved from www.pmo.gov.my/ucapan/?m=p&p=paklah&id=2840

de Wit, H. (2011). Law of the stimulative arrears? Internationalization of the universities of applied sciences, misconceptions and challenges. In H. de Wit (Ed.), Trends, issues and chal-lenges in internationalization of higher education (pp. 7-24). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Cen-tre of Applied Research on Economics and Management, University of Applied Sciences.

Gooch, L. (2011, October 2). Malaysia tries to rein in private education institutions. The New York Times.

Kehm, B. M. (2003). Internationalization in higher education. In R. Begg (Ed.), The dialogue between higher education research and practice (pp. 109-120). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Jour-nal of Studies in International Education, 8, 5-31.

Knight, J. (2008). Internationalization of higher education in the 21st century: Concepts, ratio-nales, strategies and issues. In K. Sarjit, S. Morshidi, & A. Norzaini (Eds.), Globalization and internationalization of higher education in Malaysia (pp 22-50). Penang, Malaysia: Penerbit USM and National Higher Education Research Institute.

Tham 661

Knight, J., & Morshidi, S. (2011). The complexities and challenges of regional education hubs: Focus on Malaysia. Higher Education, 62, 593-606. doi 10.1007/s10734-011-9467-2

Lee, F. O., & Ibrahim, A. B. (2010). Growth and development of private higher education in Malaysia. Retrieved from www.20yearpoa.org/projectPapers/articles1/2010-06-02/48.html.

Malaysia. (1991). Sixth Malaysia plan. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: National Printing Department.Malaysia. (1993). Mid-term review of the sixth Malaysia plan. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia:

National Printing Department.Malaysia. (2006). Ninth Malaysia plan. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Malaysia National Printers.Malaysia. (2010). Economic transformation programme: A roadmap for Malaysia. Putrajaya,

Malaysia: Performance Management and Delivery Unit (PEMANDU).Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE). (2007). The national higher education strategic plan

beyond 2020. Putrajaya, Malaysia: Author.Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE). (2011a). Internationalization policy 2011. Putrajaya,

Malaysia: Author.Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE). (2011b). Pelan tindakan pengajian tinggi negara fasa 2

(2011-2015) [National action plan for higher education: Second phase (2011-2015)]. Putrajaya, Malaysia: Author.

Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE). (2011c). NHESP2: Malaysia’s global reach: A new dimension. Putrajaya, Malaysia: Author.

Norzaini, A., & Yang, F. A. A. (2008). Implementing a strategic plan for internationalization: The case of universiti kebangsaan Malaysia. In K. Sarjit, S. Morshidi, & A. Norzaini (Eds.), Globalization and internationalization of higher education in Malaysia (pp. 77-99). Pen-ang, Malaysia: Penerbit USM.

Performance Management and Delivery Unit (PEMANDU) (2011). ETP annual report 2011. Putrajaya, Malaysia: Author.

Rohana, J., & Yong, Z. Z. (2010, June). International students’ views of Malaysian higher edu-cation. Powerpoint presented at Conference on Bringing the world to Malaysia and Malay-sia to the world system, Putrajaya International Convention Centre (PICC), Malaysia.

Sam, C. P. (2008, September). Research environment of Malaysian private HEIs: Features, funding and policy implications. Paper presented at the Asia Pacific Sub-regional Prepara-tory Conference for the 2009 World Conference on Higher Education, Facing global and local challenges: The new dynamics for higher education, Macau PR, China.

Shannon, W. (2009). National policies for the internationalization of higher education in New Zealand: A comparative analysis (Master’s thesis). National Centre for Research on Europe, University of Canterbury, New Zealand.

Tham, S. Y., & Kam, A. J. Y. (2008). Internationalising higher education in Malaysia: Com-paring the challenges of different higher education institutions in Malaysia. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 28, 352-367.

Tham, S. Y. (2010). Trade in higher education services in Malaysia: Key policy challenges. Higher Education Policy 23, 99-122.

Tham, S. Y. (2012a, January). Malaysia’s trade and regulations in tertiary education sector. Paper presented at the ADBI-OECD Conference on Trade in Services, New Delhi, India.


Tham, S. Y. (2012b). Exploring access and equity in private higher education institutions: Insights from Malaysia. In P. Sauvé, G. O. Pascadilla & M. Mikic (Eds.), Service sector reforms: Asia Pacific perspectives (pp. 197-220). Bangkok, Thailand: ADBI and ARTNet. Retrieved from http://www.adbi.org/book/2012/03/01/5011.service.sector.reforms.asia.pacific/

The Star. (2012, November 7). INTI shares research grant. StarSpecial. Education Guide, p. 5.Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. (2010). Statistik Penerbitan UKM & Institusi Pengajian

Tinggi Terpilih [Statistics on the publications of UKM and selected higher institutions of learning]. Bangi, Malaysia: Author.

Van der Wende, M. (1997). International comparative analysis and synthesis. In T. Klavermark & M. Van der Wende. (Eds.), National policies for the internationalization of higher educa-tion in Europe (pp. 225-251). Stockholm, Sweden: National Agency for Higher Education.

Author Biography

Siew Yean Tham, PhD (Rochester), is a professor in international trade and a principal research fellow at the Institute of Malaysian and International Studies (IKMAS), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. She has research interests and publications in foreign direct investment, economic integration, and trade in services, including higher education services and the internationaliza-tion of higher education. She was deputy director of IKMAS from 2003 to 2007 and director from 2007 to 2010.

TITLE SOURCE

Stakeholders’ views of South Korea’s

higher education internationalization

policy

Springer

Stakeholders’ views of South Korea’s higher educationinternationalization policy

Young Ha Cho • John D. Palmer

Published online: 17 June 2012� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Abstract The study investigated the stakeholders’ perceptions of South Korea’s higher

education internationalization policy. Based on the research framework that defines four

policy values—propriety, effectiveness, diversity, and engagement, the convergence model

was employed with a concurrent mixed method sampling strategy to analyze the stake-

holders’ perceptions. According to the findings, the stakeholders perceived that the gov-

ernment’s internationalization policy to date has contributed to the international

competitiveness of Korean universities by and large in a quantitative manner. Their views

however signaled that the government should consider the quality and identity of Korean

higher education institutions when designing and implementing internationalization policy.

Based on the implications that the findings have in the policy context, this study suggested

two points for future policy research into Korean higher education internationalization: (1)

develop a glonacal definition of world-classness for Korean universities and (2) build up a

mixture model of centralization and decentralization for the government-university rela-

tions, which encourages internal self-governance of Korean universities.

Keywords Internationalization � Policy � Higher education � Stakeholders �South Korea

Introduction

Internationalization policy at the higher education level aims to promote an internal

transformation that strives for global competition and cooperation (van der Wende 2001).

In the policy process, national governments throughout the world have strategically

Y. H. Cho (&)The Graduate School of Education, Kyung Hee University, 1 Hoegi-dong,Dondaemun-gu, Seoul, South Koreae-mail: [email protected]

J. D. PalmerDepartment of Educational Studies, Colgate University, 13 Oak Drive, Hamilton, NY 13346, USAe-mail: [email protected]

123

High Educ (2013) 65:291–308DOI 10.1007/s10734-012-9544-1

considered altering several of the following policy plans: purpose, licensing, accreditation,

funding, curriculum, teaching, research, and regulation (Knight 2004; Teichler 2004) in

order to make their universities world-class.

These policy patterns have obviously emerged in East Asian higher education. Since the

early 1990s, these government and institutional leaders have focused on the use of the

market force, development planning and strategic management, and increased competition

in order to gain international recognition as world class universities (Mok and Welch

2003). Indeed, the governments are mostly concerned with matching international com-

petition and research intensity with higher education policies that focus on corporatization,

marketization, international benchmarking, and university stratification (Deem et al. 2008;

Mok 2007); whereas, university officials have pursued institutional linkages with the

international academic community (Hawkins 2008; Wang 2008).

Korean higher education is no exception. The growing impacts of globalization have

continued to press the Korean government to transform its higher education system (Byun and

Kim 2011; Mok et al. 2003). In response, the government has zealously been developing and

implementing internationalization policies with the main goal of establishing Korea as an

academic center in East Asian higher education; a place where top scholars throughout the

world research and teach (Gress and Ilon 2009; McNeill 2008; Mok et al. 2003).

Mok (2007) then asked: what route should East Asian universities pursue in developing

their internationalization policy?1 Should they follow policy learning, policy borrowing,

internationalization, or recolonization? (Steiner-Khamsi 2010). Mok’s inquiries stem from

the dominant assumption that western countries have long led the global discourse on

internationalization due to their strong position in the higher education market and the

growing global acceptance of English as the power language (van der Wende 2001; Wang

2008). Therefore, to a certain degree, Mok is advocating for peripheral (i.e., non-western)

institutions to be both explored and included in the global discourses. Such views could

lead to balanced and unbiased perceptions reflected in the current understanding of

internationalization of higher education (Stromquist 2007).

In this respect, Korean higher education, like other East Asian competitors, has made

several strides toward catching up with the western front-runners. However, there remains

relatively little research on Korean higher education policy negotiations and implemen-

tations (Byun and Kim 2011; Hien 2010; Shin 2009). Additionally, the Korean case is

instructive for East Asian governments that specifically seek a strong and close relationship

with their higher education systems (Kim and Lee 2006). In that, Korean universities strive

to fit into considerable alterations and reorganizations along with the government policies

and seek to be autonomous in responding to the global market at the same time.

Taking these main points into consideration, our study pursued stakeholders’ percep-

tions of internationalization policy of Korean higher education. We believe that the

stakeholder’s perception is significant due to the fact that the decision-making processes in

higher education institutions are predominantly influenced by a triangular exercise of

stakeholder groups involving governance, administrations, and faculty. Moreover, stake-

holders are the actors who may gain or lose the most from the university’s activities

(Benneworth and Jongbloed 2010). Hence, their perception can be seen as an indicator that

the university utilizes to foresee environmental threats and opportunities (Burrows 1999).

These perceptions are also useful to evaluate policy impacts upon interested groups of

Korean higher education.

1 There is a controversy about whether Korean higher education is a replica of American model (Kim2010).

292 High Educ (2013) 65:291–308

123

In the context of higher education policy, stakeholders are individuals or groups

involving government, employers, students, academic and administrative staff, institutional

managers, prospective students and their parents, and taxpayers who believe that higher

education institutions and polices are accountable to them and therefore behave accord-

ingly (Jongbloed et al. 2008). In other words, a stakeholder depends on the basis of what is

at ‘‘stake’’ and ‘‘what counts’’ (Mitchell et al. 1997 p. 856). Therefore, the primary research

question that guided this study is directly related to the stakeholder’s perception of

internationalization policy: How do identified stakeholders perceive the direction, process,

and outcomes of internationalization policy for Korean higher education?

Policy context for internationalization

Initial internationalization policy in the 1990s focused on the rapid expansion of Korean

higher education system by loosening university establishment and student quota policies.

The aim was to intensify the competitiveness of Korean universities (Kim 2008b). How-

ever, these universities have continued to be rated as less competitive than many western

institutions particularly in terms of peer-reviewed article publication and citation indexed

in the Thomson-Reuters ISI database (McNeill 2009). According to the 2010 report of the

London Times World University Rankings, only four Korean universities were ranked in

the top two-hundred.2

To improve the international rankings of Korean universities, a former member of the

National Assembly and the current Head Minister of The Ministry of Education, Science,

and Technology (MEST), Ju-Ho Lee (2005) demanded that the government policy should

seriously contemplate and manage the escalating number of foreign professors and stu-

dents, increasing amount of English-medium instruction (EMI) classes, rising pressure for

professors to publish in leading scholarly journals in English, growing need to develop the

physical infrastructure to induce foreigners and international exchanges, and mounting

concern over budgetary issues. In addressing these issues, the government mapped out the

following internationalization policy strategies (Ministry of Education & Human

Resources Development 2007): (1) student exchange, (2) faculty exchange, (3) inducement

of foreign institutions, faculty, and students, and (4) export of Korean higher education

services. In the end, the government set their policy sights on three main goals to be

reached by 2020: (1) have 10 universities ranked in the top two hundred of world class

universities, (2) rank at least 9th worldwide in the number of ISI-indexed journal articles

published, and (3) increase the number of foreign faculty and students to 10,000 and

150,000 respectively (MEST 2010).

Policy research framework

According to Weimer (2009), policy research is defined by its relevance to some aspect of

a policy and is useful in investigating the extent or nature of a policy condition or situation

that may be worthy of public attention. In that, a guiding principle of policy research is

value (Kahan and Consulting 2008); where value refers to the real and perceived worth of

the policy to the stakeholders (Yarbrough et al. 2011). Since the selection of values relies

on commonly held beliefs and practices that guide policy context, the chosen values could

2 POSTECH (28), KAIST (79), Seoul National University (109), and Yonsei University (190)

High Educ (2013) 65:291–308 293

123

be diverse and multiple.3 In this context, House and Howe (1999) contended that value is

not really objective and an issue or thing has value only because it is thought to be

valuable. That is, values depend on individual choice somehow. Hence, it is difficult to

develop a set of values general enough to guide a policy research framework since a value

itself is selective and implicit. Values, nevertheless, must be selected to undertake com-

parative policy research (Benjamin et al. 1993).

Based on the literature reviewed and the context of Korean higher education interna-

tionalization policy discussed, we selected propriety, effectiveness, diversity, and

engagement as the values that anchor the policy research framework for our study. The

discussions below provide the rationales for why we selected these specific values and how

they are important for this study.

Propriety

Yu et al. (2006) identified propriety as an essential value for policy research in higher

education due to the belief that propriety of a given policy goal influences the level of the

organizational commitment (Miner 2005). This argument is suggestive to this study. In

order to internationalize higher education, the goals, objectives, and methods of the policy

should be pertinent and timely to the needs of the stakeholders because, without their

commitment, it is hard to expect the positive policy outcomes. To measure propriety, we

focused on the stakeholders’ perceptions of how internationalization policy of Korean

higher education is valid and appropriate in terms of goal-setting, strategic approach and

method.

Effectiveness

Effectiveness is the foundation of organizational success (Drucker 1973). To be effective,

organizational goals should be integrated into individual goals. In other words, individual

goals must be satisfied by the accomplishment of organizational goals (Hersey et al. 2001).

For such reason, effectiveness is a sine qua non to be considered in examining the

stakeholders’ perceptions of how Korean higher education internationalization has been

productive. In general, the degree of effectiveness is determined by the degree of policy

goal attainment (Hoy and Miskel 2008; Lunenburg and Ornstein 2008).

In this study, effectiveness can be measured through the degree to which stakeholders

perceive that Korean higher education is positively internationalized by government pol-

icy. In reality, however, multiple stakeholders usually prefer conflicting criteria in defining

effectiveness. Effectiveness then can be seen as ‘‘mainly a problem-driven construct rather

than a theory-driven construct’’ (Cameron 2005, p. 313) and thus does not remain constant

(Hoy and Miskel 2008). Therefore, enduring and fundamental changes to policy practice

become crucial for effectiveness.

3 Studies have suggested the following values employable for higher education policy research: quality,excellence, shared responsibility, openness, honesty, equity, fairness, comprehensiveness, authenticity,validity, professionalism, engagement, equality, autonomy, accountability, efficiency, propriety (of policypurpose, means, and process), consistency, effectiveness, social need, cost, availability, political feasibility,moral, ethical, and social norms, competition, democratic accordance (Gross 1973; Kahan and Consulting2008; Premfors 1982; Shin 2011).

294 High Educ (2013) 65:291–308

123

Diversity

National higher education systems are diverse in terms of governance, admission policy,

programs, funding modes, teaching and research, international cooperation, and academic

structure. However, the diversity is now receding (Teichler 2004). In order to acquire

international competitiveness and cooperation, countries are seeking systematic homoge-

neity with the belief that structural differences between national higher education systems

impede internationalization. Paradoxically, diversity is still a critical value. In this context,

OECD (2007) demands that the role of higher education institutions for a 21st century

should be diversely defined because diversity becomes a fundamental underpinning of their

social, economic and cultural development strategies at the local, national and international

level. From this perspective, the 21st century higher education institutions must be glon-

acal4 so as to be engaged in diverse activities at the local, national, and international level

(Teichler 2004).

In this study, we regarded diversity as a constituent part of the internationalization

policy. Prospective students and faculty in glonacalized campus view diversity as an

essential asset for learning (Chan and Lo 2008; Denson and Bowman 2011).

Engagement

Successful internationalization demands that university establish an institutional climate in

which stakeholders are engaged in determining the criteria for the relevant performance of

an individual or a group (Hersey et al. 2001). This engagement creates at least two

advantages: (1) diverse groups of stakeholders are permitted to participate in determining

the basis on which their internationalization efforts will be judged and (2) involvement of

stakeholders increases their commitment to the goals and objectives established for

internationalizing their campus. Bennett (2010) used the term engagement to describe the

involvement of stakeholders in any activity related to student learning or organizational

development. In this context, engagement is a proper value that guides the international-

ization policy research.

Based on the idea of Yarbrough et al. (2011), we focused on inclusiveness and

responsiveness as the essential attributes of engagement. Inclusiveness and responsiveness

are respectively referred to as the breadth of involvement of and orientation to

stakeholders.

Methods

Our study is based on the convergence model, which is a mixed methods research

approach. This model collects and analyzes quantitative and qualitative data separately and

then interprets the results by converging the different findings. The researcher then draws

valid and well-substantiated conclusions from both sets of data (Creswell and Plano Clark

2007). The participants of this study responded to a mixed methods investigation based on

a closed-ended survey (quantitative) and open-ended interview questions (qualitative).

4 Glonacal is a term that Marginson and Rhoades (2002) created using letters from the words global,national, and local in order to describe how 21st century higher education institutions are strongly engagedin local, national, and global dimensions of activity.

High Educ (2013) 65:291–308 295

123

Quantitative strand

We collected the quantitative data from a total of 77 stakeholders (see Table 1) using 10

structured survey items to analyze their overall perception of the internationalization policy

of Korean higher education. The items focused on policy awareness and the abovemen-

tioned four policy values: propriety, effectiveness, diversity, and engagement. The ques-

tionnaire was provided in both English and Korean and was employed prior to the

qualitative data collection to minimize response bias (Jenkins 2001).

We measured propriety by focusing on the goals, strategy, and method of the inter-

nationalization policy. We clarified effectiveness with two relevant standards, outcome and

contribution, by evaluating the degree to which stakeholders perceive the policy outcomes

and contributions to Korean higher education. Diversity was assessed by focusing on the

degree to which the internationalization policy is both culturally unique and distinctive

between domestic universities. Inclusiveness and responsiveness were determined by the

degree to which stakeholders are involved in the policy process and the degree to which the

policy process is responsive to the needs of stakeholders respectively.

Qualitative strand

We conducted open-ended one-on-one interviews with survey participants who agreed to

this aspect of the study. Our questions aimed to have the interviewees freely speak about

internationalization policy. The interviews were conducted based on guidelines suggested

by Creswell (2007) and Patton (1990). Interviews lasted between 45 min and an hour. The

default language for the interviews was English, but the interviewees were allowed to

respond in both English and Korean. 48 out of the 77 survey participants voluntarily signed

the certificate of informed consent, which was also provided in English and Korean.

The authors and two Asian American research assistants handled the interviews. The

authors and one assistant are bilingual in English and Korean. The interviews were all

recorded and field notes were taken. The interviews were transcribed and then used as a

resource to validate, confirm, and corroborate the quantitative findings.

The sampling strategy and procedures

In order to yield a sample that allows meaningful comparisons between stakeholders’

perceptions, we employed a mixed methods sampling. This type of sampling technique

combines probability and purposive sampling to generate datasets that include deep and

broad information (Teddlie and Yu 2007).

In detail, 48 faculty members and students were randomly sampled from two networks.

We contacted the academic and administrative departments of Korean universities ranked

Table 1 Demographics of the sample

Stakeholder Total (%)

Faculty members HE policy experts Students

National 11 (10) 29 (4) 14 (10) 54 (70.1)

Foreigner 8 (8) – 15 (15) 23 (29.9)

Total (%) 19 (24.9) 29 (37.7) 29 (37.7) 77 (100.0)

296 High Educ (2013) 65:291–308

123

in the top 10 of highly internationalized universities by Korea Joong Ang Daily.5 Of these

top ten, seven allowed us to visit their campuses. Two professional organizations were also

contacted due to their active involvement in internationalization policy.

We also purposively sampled 29 personnel from three authority bodies for educational

policy research/administration: MEST, the Korean Educational Development Institute

(KEDI), and the Korean Council for University Education (KCUE). The purposive sam-

pling relied upon unique sampling and snowball sampling. A unique sampling selects one

that uniquely fits to the research interest of the study (Patton 1990); therefore we selected

the sites associated with internationalization policy for Korean higher education. For

snowball sampling suggested by Miles and Huberman (1994), we asked policy experts to

refer us to other policy experts in order to identify participants with rich information.

The interviewees were classified into three distinct groups—faculty, higher education

(HE) policy experts, and students. Faculty included both Korean nationals and foreigners

affiliated with the universities. HE policy experts are professionals who work for higher

education policy with or without governmental authorization. Students represent both

Korean nationals and foreigners who are officially enrolled in the universities. Foreign

faculty and students of the study represented Cambodia, China, England, Georgia,

Germany, India, Russia, Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, and the United States.

Data analysis procedures

Based on the 5 Likert-scale from 1 for strongly disagree to 5 for strongly agree, the

analysis of variance was conducted using PASW Statistics 18.0 to examine the stake-

holders’ perceptions of Korea’s higher education internationalization policy. The reliability

coefficient by Cronbach’s Alpha was .929, which indicates that our study is highly

acceptable to support the consistency of measurement (McMillan and Schumacher 2001).

Based on factor analysis, the 10 variables were loaded on one factor with loadings higher

than .640, which implies that these variables share the same feature(s) (Miller et al. 2002).

In this case, internationalization policy can be regarded as the common denominator that

underlies the associations between the variables. The extracted factor accounted for

61.24 % of the variance of the relationship between the variables.

We analyzed interview transcripts and notes through abstract coding. The codes were

reduced to identify salient issues. We then attempted to build a logical chain of evidence by

examining relationships among the issues. Creswell (2007) described this analysis pro-

cedure as a spiral model in which reading/memoing, interpreting/classifying/describing,

and visualizing/representing of the data are sequenced in order. The qualitative findings

were compared to the quantitative findings in an attempt to understand what the numeric

results imply by using the four policy values as a merging device.

Findings

In order to determine the reliability of the stakeholders’ responses we first examined the

degree of their awareness of Korea’s higher education internationalization policy. Indeed,

5 Since 1994, the commercially-produced university ranking system by Korea Joong Ang Daily has rankedKorean universities based on four main evaluation criteria: educational environment, teaching and research,social reputation, and internationalization. The annual report of university rankings has greatly impacted thestakeholders of higher education as well as overall society in Korea (Lee and Choi 2008).

High Educ (2013) 65:291–308 297

123

if they are not well aware, their responses would not be valid and reliable. Based on

Table 2, we assumed that they responded with a reasonable amount of understanding and

knowledge of the internationalization policy.

Combined with the numeric results, the qualitative findings suggest that the stake-

holders’ awareness includes three overlapping factors. First, their perspective is based on

the unavoidable dominance of competitiveness (some may argue neo-liberalism). Second,

most of the stakeholders roughly equated internationalization of Korean higher education

with Americanization. We found that the tendency to regard English as lingua francainfluences this perception. Third, most of the Korean national stakeholders looked at

internationalization as a quantitatively measurable outcome, which is in line with the

national government policy.

Propriety

Overall the stakeholders perceived the internationalization policy as moderately appro-

priate in terms of goal, strategy, and method (Table 3).

However, the perception of HE policy experts was significantly critical of the policy

propriety when compared to the counterparts. In addition, foreign faculty members per-

ceived the policy propriety less positively than Korean faculty in terms of goals and

methods.

Goal

HE policy experts were somewhat critical of the goal setting. In that, they believed that the

government was not very successful in establishing a balanced goal between competi-

tiveness and cooperation (the two ends of internationalization) and paying attention to both

core and peripheral countries. As a prime example, an educational policy researcher

advised us that the government needs to put more weight on cooperation rather than

competitiveness in order to create a true global standard for Korean higher education.

Although Korean national faculty perceived the policy goal as appropriate, foreign

faculty were less positive. A foreign professor used the term ‘‘mental’’ in evaluating the

propriety of the policy goal:

The critical part is mental internationalization. I wouldn’t say the internationalization

of Korean higher education is totally at the surface level, but the government is just

thinking mechanically about this.

He criticized the tendency that the government defines the internationalization policy

goal in quantitative manner (i.e., number of foreign professors and students, EMI courses,

Table 2 Awareness of the internationalization policy

Stakeholder M (SD) F Post hoc comparison

Faculty members 4.53 (.772) 6.051** –

HE policy experts 3.59 (1.119) Faculty**

Students 3.90 (.772) –

Total (N = 77) 3.94 (.978)

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001, and Likert-type scale from 1 for not at all to 5 for definitely yes

298 High Educ (2013) 65:291–308

123

and publications in leading international journals). In a related vein, a Korean national

professor contended that Korean universities are not yet ready to think of internationali-

zation in qualitative manner. However, she believes that the quantitative policy approach

will eventually lead the quality improvement of Korean higher education by which

competitiveness and cooperation are well balanced.

Strategy

Although moderate to above average, the stakeholders’ perceptions revealed American-

ization and tokenism as major concerns for strategic propriety. Most stakeholders viewed

that Americanization is a dominant Korean national government strategy for internation-

alization policy. An American student illustrates this point:

I feel like Korea has strong ties with the US.… You can see the internationalization

policy of the Korean government is more Americanization within the culture here.

Regarding tokenism, several foreign and Korean national professors criticized the

perfunctory actions that the government takes to mechanically meet quantitative require-

ments for internationalization without earnest policy consideration. In regard to this issue,

a foreign professor complained that the internationalization policy encourages Korean

universities to hire foreigners not for the academic quality but mainly for the increased

number of foreign faculty on campus.

Table 3 Propriety of the internationalization policy (N = 77)

Factor Group of stakeholder M (SD) F Post hoc comparison

Goal Faculty 4.16 (1.015) 15.953*** HE policy experts***

HE policy experts 3.07 (.884) –

Students 4.17 (.602) HE policy experts***

Total (N = 77) 3.75 (.975)

Korean faculty 4.70 (.483) 8.559** n.a.

Foreign faculty 3.56 (1.130)

Total (n = 19) 4.16 (1.015)

Strategy Faculty 4.11 (1.100) 6.016** –

HE policy experts 3.24 (.912) Faculty**

Students 3.72 (.591) –

Total (N = 77) 3.64 (.916)

Method Faculty 3.79 (.918) 6.950** –

HE policy experts 2.79 (.902) Faculty**

Students 3.31 (.930) –

Total (N = 77) 3.23 (.985)

Korean faculty 4.20 (.632) 5.214* n.a.


Total (n = 19) 3.79 (.918)

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001, and Likert-type scale from 1 for strongly disagree to 5 for stronglyagree

High Educ (2013) 65:291–308 299

123

Method

With reference to methodological propriety, HE policy experts were relatively critical of

the government’s financial and political investment in developing world class universities.

The way that the government mainly supported historically established elite universities

led one educational policy researcher to comment that such approach may cause the

internationalization policy to be unequal in terms of opportunity for all universities.

In addition, the perception of the methodological propriety was significantly lower for

foreign faculty than Korean national faculty. The qualitative findings suggest that this is

possibly a result of the unfair treatment of foreign faculty. As one foreign professor

complained:

Even though my business card says I am an assistant professor, it is just an honorary

title because Koreans do not give foreigners professorship. They don’t give us tenure.

It is impossible for any foreigner to have tenure. There is no equal treatment.

Another foreign professor reported that the way that the government regulates Korean

universities is also problematic. His criticism runs counter to the opinion of high-ranking

government officials who assert that the government policy has been leaning towards

deregulation and institutional autonomy of Korean universities. Shin et al. (2007) found

that there exists a perceptible difference between the government and universities. While

the government officials believe that they have continued to secure institutional autonomy

for universities, universities still complain about excessive government intrusion into their

legitimate activities.

Effectiveness

The stakeholders evaluated the overall outcome and contribution of internationalization

policy to Korean higher education as moderate to slightly above-average. However, HE

policy experts’ perception of effectiveness was slightly under average (Table 4).

Outcome

HE policy experts appeared to be critical of the policy outcome as they held that Korean

universities focus mainly on exchange of personnel and programs. However, faculty and

students were relatively more positive about it.

For more effective outcome, several stakeholders suggested that the government should

make strenuous efforts in: (1) aggressive advertisement to recruit foreigners, (2) expansion

of EMI courses, and (3) network formation between Korean national and foreign students.

Contribution

Koreans and foreigners differently perceived the policy contribution to Korean higher

education at a statistically-significant level. While foreign students perceived it more

positively than Korean students, foreign faculty viewed contribution less positively than

Korean faculty.

In the interviews, Korean faculty recognized that the following accomplishments of the

government policy contributed to the internationalization of Korean universities: the

increased number of foreign faculty and students, EMI courses, and publications in leading

international journals. However, they drew a hard-and-fast line between the quantitative

300 High Educ (2013) 65:291–308

123

and qualitative contributions. Most of them were concerned about the government’s

obsession with the quantitative goals, which they believed would deteriorate the overall

quality of Korean higher education. That is, they contended that quantitative growth needs

to be accompanied with qualitative growth.

The internationalization policy contributes to building a university environment where

foreign students feel comfortable to stay and study. EMI policy has undoubtedly played a

role. Several foreign students said that the English-friendly environment allows Korean

universities to be internationally recognized.

On the other hand, the perceptions of Korean students can be summed up in two issues:

exaggeration and reverse effect. For example, a Korean student claimed:

According to Korea Joong Ang Daily my university was ranked within the top three

of highly-internationalized universities [in Korea]. In my personal opinion, my

university wouldn’t go so far as to be there. Frankly speaking, the university

relentlessly pushes for internationalization. Because of that, students are already

struggling to live up to the expectation of the university.

Regarding the reverse effect, Korean students believed that EMI policy raises specific

issues concerned with the ineffective and inefficient communication between domestic

students and Korean instructors in EMI class. A Korean professor stated:

Korean is way better than English as a language medium for Korean university

education. It is just a tragedy that we have to use English instead of own language for

instruction. It seems like Korean universities exist only for English education. Do

you think that a university that provides a lot of lectures in English looks better? The

fact is that the university is losing a lot of others [aspects that are] very important for

Korean higher education.

In fact, Korean students’ EMI class satisfaction was not very high. They reported that

Korean professors are academically qualified, but the issue is not their qualification but

Table 4 Effectiveness of the internationalization policy (N = 77)


Outcome Faculty 4.00 (.816) 11.912*** HE policy experts***

HE policy experts 2.69 (1.004) –

Students 3.59 (1.018) HE policy experts**

Total (N = 77) 3.35 (1.097)

Contribution Faculty 4.21 (1.134) 12.140*** HE policy experts***


Students 3.90 (.772) HE policy experts**

Total (N = 77) 3.62 (1.064)

Korean faculty 4.70 (.483) 4.751* n.a.


Total (n = 19) 4.21 (1.134)

Korean students 3.57 (.646) 5.586* n.a.

Foreign students 4.20 (.775)

Total (n = 29) 3.90 (.772)


High Educ (2013) 65:291–308 301

123

their English speaking proficiency. In the end, several students believed that EMI policy

might cause Korean universities to gradually lose their integrity and value (i.e., quality).

Diversity

The overall perception of the internationalization policy was moderate in terms of diver-

sity. However, HE policy experts were deeply worried that diversity is not fully reflected in

the government policy. In addition, Korean and foreign students showed different per-

ceptions of diversity issues (Table 5).

Cultural diversity

Most of foreign students agreed on the positive cultural potentiality of Korean higher

education and anticipated that the internationalization policy will promote Korean cultural

uniqueness and multicultural integration. Korean students however were anxious and

bemoaned that Korean universities have lost their cultural uniqueness and thus have

become indistinguishable from universities in other countries as a result of global

homogenization.

Distinctiveness

All of the universities that we visited accommodated the government policy and therefore

their internationalization programs were quite similar. In this sense, most Korean students

agreed that Korean universities need individual distinctiveness. A Korean professor also

emphasized that the government needs to understand how diversity is important for

internationalizing campuses. On the other hand, two foreign students at a university located

outside of Seoul foreign students perceived their campus as institutionally distinctive in

that uniquely-designed instructional programs are offered for their learning experience.

Table 5 Diversity of the internationalization policy (N = 77)


Cultural diversity Faculty 4.06 (.938) 16.516*** HE policy experts***


Students 3.46 (.999) HE policy experts**

Total (N = 77) 3.25 (1.079)

Korean students 3.00 (.961) 7.498* n.a.


Total (n = 29) 3.46 (.999)

Distinctiveness Faculty 3.89 (.875) 16.581*** HE policy experts***


Students 3.48 (.986) HE policy experts***

Total (N = 77) 3.19 (1.089)

Korean students 2.93 (.917) 11.858** n.a.


Total (n = 29) 3.48 (.986)


302 High Educ (2013) 65:291–308

123

Engagement

Overall the stakeholders perceived that the internationalization policy has moderately

responded to their needs and encouraged their involvement. HE policy experts however

remained rather critical (Table 6).

There were no perceptible differences in regards to engagement between Koreans and

foreigners. Inclusiveness obtained a relatively low mean score, which implies that the

stakeholders want the government to more actively and responsibly guarantee public

participation in the internationalization policy process.

Responsiveness

To actively respond, a HE policy expert advised that the government needs to invite or

coordinate partnerships between multiple stakeholders of Korean higher education—for

instance, consumers, providers, industries, governmental authorities (including local ones),

and NGOs. In addition, a few participants indicated that the government should be con-

cerned with discrimination against domestic students due to the current excessive emphasis

on internationalization. In this regard, a foreign professor confessed:

[The] Korean government and universities need a constant adjustment to the needs of

the stakeholders. As they are more focused on foreign students, they must ask

themselves ‘‘do we under-serve our Korean students?’’ As I am going to teach

[foreign students], I am asking myself ‘‘am I not doing as much as I could do for

local Koreans?’’ Balancing all those things is needed.

A Korean student also felt a sense of deprivation because his university continues to

increase investment in foreign students. He concluded that it could gradually encroach

upon the interests of deserving and qualified Korean students because the budget is always

tight.

Inclusiveness

Most foreign students and faculty reported that they are generally aware of the interna-

tionalization policy but do not know the details because their accessibility to the policy

process is circumscribed at the institutional and national level. For instance, some foreign

Table 6 Engagement of the internationalization policy (N = 77)


Responsiveness Faculty 4.00 (.882) 8.022** –

HE policy experts 3.00 (.886) Faculty***

Students 3.45 (.783) –

Total (N = 77) 3.42 (.923)

Inclusiveness Faculty 3.58 (1.121) 6.002** HE policy experts**


Students 3.41 (.867) HE policy experts*

Total (N = 77) 3.19 (1.001)


High Educ (2013) 65:291–308 303

123

professors complained that Korean professors do not allow them to be part of the decision-

making process.

Foreign students realized that one of the major causes for their indifference towards the

policy is related to limited interactions between foreign and Korean students. A Tanzanian

student diagnosed that there obviously exists a language barrier between Korean and

foreign students, and a Korean student also accepted that the social attitude of Korean

students toward foreigners may prohibit friendship from building. He stated that Korean

students are not altogether hostile towards foreign students, yet they are not welcoming

towards foreigners either. Two foreign professors agreed that Korean students have very

much of the ‘‘peninsular mind,’’ which causes them to be automatically negative about and

protective against international relationships.

In addition, there is a separation physically constructed by the university. A foreign

student from the US pointed out:

We are on the east side of campus, [Koreans] are down toward center or back side of

campus. If you are extroverted type, you would probably go out on your own and try

to talk to Korean people on campus. And if you are not, you are at a disadvantage.

As a result, foreign students tend to be with foreign students and Korean students with

Korean students. It slows down their friendship formation and sharing of the interna-

tionalization issues. In fact, most leading Korean universities have constructed campuses

that physically and emotionally separate domestic and foreign students (Rhee 2006).

Concluding remarks and suggestions for future internationalization policy research

We delved into stakeholders’ perceptions of internationalization policy for Korean higher

education based on the four policy values framework. According to the findings, the

stakeholders perceived that the internationalization policy of the government to date has

contributed to the internationalization of Korean universities by and large in terms of the

quantitative growth. Their views however signaled that the government should consider the

quality and identity of Korean higher education institutions when designing and imple-

menting internationalization policy.

In detail, quality and quantity have collided in terms of propriety and effectiveness of

the internationalization policy. Although most stakeholders admitted that the quantitative

accomplishments have been a strong and efficient driving force for Korean higher edu-

cation internationalization, Koreans, in particular, believed that the internationalization

policy has surrendered the quality of university in favor of the number of foreigners, EMI

courses, and publications in English (i.e., quantity).

In addition, we identified cultural and institutional identity as a sensitive issue in

evaluating the diversity and engagement of the internationalization policy. Koreans

deemed that the policy inclination toward Americanization has driven Korean universities

to lose their institutional and national identity. In fact, Korean higher education tends to

define internationalization as a process of constructing a world-class higher education

system via exchange of personnel and programs (Choi 2008) but rarely regards it as a

comprehensive endeavor to expand and integrate multicultural awareness into the insti-

tutional mission and policy framework.

With respect to the criticism of Americanization, it is apparent that the hegemony of

industrialized countries in the international order, given their hierarchical position and

English dominance, has inevitably influenced the way that the most stakeholders have

304 High Educ (2013) 65:291–308

123

portrayed the government’s internationalization policy as Americanizing Korean univer-

sities (Rhee 2006). Deem et al. (2008) argued that East Asian governments and universities

may have been simply copying western standards. However, these governments need to

distinguish the difference between policy learning and policy borrowing (Steiner-Khamsi

2010). For instance, regarding the EMI policy that triggered the Americanization argument

in this study, compulsory enforcement was problematic (Byun et al. 2010). EMI policy

becomes controversial in Korean higher education because Korean universities have pre-

tended not to see the inefficient and ineffective communication between Korean instructors

and domestic students. This has in turn forced government officials and university

administrators to distortedly correlate internationalization outcomes with the number of

EMI courses.

The way that the stakeholders in this study have perceived the internationalization

policy for Korean higher education suggests at least two critical implications for future

policy research. First, the internationalization of Korean higher education should seek a

balance between commonality of global society and uniqueness of Korean society. The

government then should spell out what ‘‘world-class Korean university’’ entails in the

glonacal context through policy learning. In so doing, the internationalization policy

should reflect local and national values in the process of international standardization. In

this regard, Chan and Lo (2008) suggested that the government and universities need to act

in a belief that ‘‘internationalization does not necessarily mean surrendering to the

homogenization of the international standard and giving up distinctive cultural frame-

work’’ (p. 646).

Second, this study witnessed that although quantity prevails at the present time,

academic and public attention leans toward the quality of Korean higher education

internationalization policy. Concerning this matter, the current government-led interna-

tionalization needs to be modified with the goal of improving the quality of Korean higher

education. However, this model may reinforce an interventionist higher education gover-

nance system which will then constrain Korean universities’ institutional autonomy and

uniqueness. This individuality is important in maintaining universities’ salient identities

(Kim 2008a). In this sense, internal self-governance and entrenched academic tradition

must be considered the keys to measure world-class traits of Korean universities (Ngok and

Guo 2008).

Nurturing a culture that can host a world class university is no less important than

supporting domestic institutions to make them world-class. To do so, the government

should relax the financial and administrative control over Korean universities and reshape

the government-university relations oriented to phasing in a mixture model of central-

ization and decentralization (Hawkins 2008). This will eventually lead both the govern-

ment and universities toward a distinctive path in establishing a new Korean higher

education governance model for internationalization.

References

Benjamin, R., Carroll, S., Jacobi, M., Krop, C., & Shires, M. (1993). The redesign of governance in highereducation. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Bennett, L. (2010). A framework for engaging leadership in higher education quality systems. In C. Nair, L.Webster, & P. Mertova (Eds.), Leadership and management of quality in higher education (pp. 55–71).Cambridge, UK: Chandos Publishing.

High Educ (2013) 65:291–308 305

123

Benneworth, P., & Jongbloed, B. (2010). Who matters to universities? A stakeholder perspective onhumanities, arts and social sciences valorization. Higher Education, 59, 567–588.

Burrows, J. (1999). Going beyond labels: A framework for profiling institutional stakeholders. Contem-porary Education, 70(4), 5–10.

Byun, K., & Kim, M. (2011). Shifting patterns of the government’s policies for the internationalization ofKorean higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 15(5), 467–486. doi:10.1177/1028315310375307.

Byun, K., Chu, H., Kim, M., Park, I., Kim, S., & Jung, J. (2010). English-medium teaching in Korean highereducation: Policy debates and reality. Higher Education, 62(4), 431–449. doi:10.1007/s10734-010-9397-4.

Cameron, K. (2005). Organization effectiveness: Its demise and re-emergence through positive organiza-tional scholarship. In K. Smith & M. Hitt (Eds.), Great minds in management: The process of theorydevelopment (pp. 394–429). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Chan, D., & Lo, W. (2008). University restructuring in East Asia: Trends, challenges and prospects. PolicyFutures in Education, 6(5), 641–652.

Choi, J. K. (2008). The concepts and rationale for the internationalization of Korean higher education: Acomparative study. Korean Journal of Religious Education, 28, 213–234. (In Korean).

Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Deem, R., Mok, K.-H., & Lucas, L. (2008). Transforming higher education in whose image? Exploring theconcept of the ‘world-class’ university in Europe and Asia. Higher Education Policy, 21, 83–97. doi:10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300179.

Denson, N., & Bowman, N. (2011). University diversity and preparation for a global society: The role ofdiversity in shaping intergroup attitudes and civic outcomes. Studies in Higher Education. doi:10.1080/03075079.2011.584971.

Drucker, P. (1973). Management: Tasks, responsibilities, practices. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Gress, D., & Ilon, L. (2009). Successful integration of foreign faculty into Korean universities: A proposed

framework. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 6(2), 183–204.Gross, P. (1973). A critical review of some basic considerations in post-secondary education evaluation.

Policy Sciences, 4, 171–195.Hawkins, J. (2008). Higher education transformation: Some trends in California and Asia. Policy Futures in

Education, 6(5), 532–544.Hersey, P., Blanchard, K., & Johnson, D. (2001). Management of organizational behavior: Leading human

resources (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Hien, P. D. (2010). A comparative study of research capabilities of East Asian countries and implications for

Vietnam. Higher Education, 60, 615–625. doi:10.1007/s10734-010-9319-5.House, E., & Howe, K. (1999). Values in evaluation and social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Hoy, W., & Miskel, C. (2008). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice (8th ed.). New

York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Jenkins, J. (2001). Rural adolescent perceptions of alcohol and other drug resistance. Child Study Journal,

31(4), 211–224.Jongbloed, B., Enders, J., & Salerno, C. (2008). Higher education and its communities: Interconnections,

interdependencies and a research agenda. Higher Education, 56, 303–324. doi:10.1007/s10734-008-9128-2.

Kahan, B., & Consulting, K. (2008). Excerpts from review of evaluation frameworks. The SaskatchewanMinistry of Education.

Kim, T. (2008a). Higher education reforms in South Korea: Public-private problems in internationalisingand incorporating universities. Policy Futures in Education, 6(5), 558–568.

Kim, Y. C. (2008b). Univeralization of tertiary education (understanding Korean educational policy volume2). Seoul, Korea: Korean Educational Development Institute.

Kim, K. S. (2010). Is Korean education a replica of American model: The twisted results of an encounterbetween indigenous forces and global models. Korean Journal of Comparative Education, 20(3),27–45.

Kim, S., & Lee, J. H. (2006). Changing facets of Korean higher education: Market competition and the roleof the state. Higher Education, 52, 557–587.

Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studiesin International Education, 8(1), 5–31. doi:10.1177/1028315303260832.

306 High Educ (2013) 65:291–308

123

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1028315310375307

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9397-4

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9397-4

http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300179

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.584971

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9319-5

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9128-2

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9128-2

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1028315303260832

Lee, J. H. (2005). Internationalization of Korean universities and development strategies. Unpublisheddocument of parliament inspection for government offices. (In Korean).

Lee, J. M., & Choi, J. Y. (2008). An analysis of limitations and alternatives to university ranking systemsbased on the conceptualization of university quality. The Journal of Educational Administration, 26(3),301–324. (In Korean).

Lunenburg, F., & Ornstein, A. (2008). Educational administration: Concepts & practices (5th ed.). Bel-mont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Marginson, S., & Rhoades, G. (2002). Beyond national states, markets and systems of higher education: Aglonacal agency heuristic. Higher Education, 43(3), 282–309.

McMillan, J., & Schumacher, S. (2001). Research in education: A conceptual introduction (5th ed.). NewYork: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

McNeill, D. (2008). South Korea seeks a new role as a higher-education hub. Chronicle of Higher Edu-cation, 54(28), A1.

McNeill, D. (2009). South Korea powers ahead with globalization plans. Chronicle of Higher Education,55(40), A1.

Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods (2nd ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Miller, R., Acton, C., Fullerton, D., & Maltby, J. (2002). SPSS for social scientists. New York, NY: PalgraveMacmillan.

Miner, J. (2005). Essential theories of motivation and leadership. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.Ministry of Education & Human Resource Development (2007). The 2007 strategic plans for interna-

tionalization of higher education. Unpublished government document (February 28). (In Korean).Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MEST) (2010). The 10 year general plan on financial

investment in higher education. Unpublished government document (November). (In Korean).Mitchell, R., Agle, B., & Wood, D. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience:

Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4),853–886.

Mok, K.-H. (2007). Questing for internationalization of universities in Asia: Critical reflections. Journal ofStudies in International Education, 11(3/4), 433–454. doi:10.1177/1028315306291945.

Mok, K-H., & Welch, A. (2003). Globalization, structural adjustment and educational reform. In K-H. Mok,& A. Welch (Eds.), Globalization and educational restructuring in the Asia Pacific region (pp. 1–31).Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Mok, K-H., Yoon, K., & Welch, A. (2003). Globalization’s challenges to higher education governance inSouth Korea. In K-H. Mok, & A. Welch (Eds.), Globalization and educational restructuring in theAsia Pacific region (pp. 58–78). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Ngok, K., & Guo, W. (2008). The quest for world class universities in China: Critical reflections. PolicyFutures in Education, 6(5), 545–557.

OECD. (2007). Higher education and regions: Globally competitive, locally engaged. Paris: OECDPublishing.

Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Premfors, R. (1982). Values and value tradeoffs in higher education policy. Policy Sciences, 14, 365–378.Rhee, B. S. (2006). A historical approach to unravel the current state of internationalization of higher

education in Korea. Ewha Journal of Educational Research, 37(3), 279–298. (In Korean).Shin, J. C. (2009). Building world-class research university: The Brain Korea 21 project. Higher Education,

58, 669–688. doi:10.1007/s10734-009-9219-8.Shin, H. S. (2011). Issues of university restructuring policy. A paper presented at the annual meeting of

Korean Association for Higher Education. Seoul, Korea, December 9. (In Korean).Shin, J. C., Kim, M. J., & Park, H. B. (2007). Perceptional differences between government and universities

on institutional autonomy. The Journal of Educational Administration, 25(3), 243–269. (In Korean).Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2010). Presidential address: The politics and economics of comparison. Comparative

Education Review, 54(3), 323–342.Stromquist, N. (2007). Internationalization as a response to globalization: Radical shifts in university

environments. Higher Education, 53, 81–105. doi:10.1007/s10734-005-1975-5.Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of Mixed

Methods Research, 1(1), 77–100. doi:10.1177/2345678906292430.Teichler, U. (2004). The changing debate on internationalization of higher education. Higher Education, 48,

5–26.van der Wende, M. (2001). Internationalisation policies: About new trends and contrasting paradigms.

Higher Education Policy, 14, 249–259.

High Educ (2013) 65:291–308 307

123

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1028315306291945

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9219-8

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-005-1975-5

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2345678906292430

Wang, Y. (2008). Internationalization in higher education in China: A practitioner’s reflection. HigherEducation Policy, 21, 505–517. doi:10.1057/hep.2008.22.

Weimer, D. (2009). Making educational research more policy-analytic. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider, & D.Plank (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 93–100). New York, NY: Routledge.

Yarbrough, D., Shulha, L., Hopson, R., & Caruthers, F. (2011). The program evaluation standards: A guidefor evaluators and evaluation users. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Yu, H. S., Choi, J. Y., Cho, Y. H., Shin, J. C., Kim, M. H., & Song, S. Y. (2006). Evaluating policyaccomplishments of major government funding projects for higher education reforms. Seoul, Korea:Korean Educational Development Institute. (In Korean).

308 High Educ (2013) 65:291–308

123

http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/hep.2008.22

mei 2015 source : perpustakaan utmportal.psz.utm.my/sdi_senat/images/dmdocuments/2015/05_mei...

Documents