New science of eLearning in the making – Inter-independence Collaborative Strategy for Higher Education

Abstract

Due to the accelerating developments of globalization, digital information and communication technologies… the nature, mission, and academic identity of higher education have been changed. As a result,  a new form of higher education has emerged. That is  “transnational higher education (TNHE)”. However, in addition to the direct influence of  info – global advances on TNHE, additional  internal factors such as economic and academic concerns are interring the scene,  governing consequently with other factors, the goals, processes, resources, and directions which TNHE is apt to pursue. Moreover, TNHE is facing as any forming science, several challenges related to: incongruent missions and / or priorities, problem of accreditation, insufficient resources, inappropriate methods of teaching and learning, mismanagement, lenient governance and regulations, and biased attitudes.

To counteract above shortcomings and contributing to the advancement of TNHE , this article is introducing two working principles: inter-independence and collaboration. And then produced two operational mechanisms: the first, a strategic  inter-independence collaborative model by which each TNHE partner could achieve its academic and professional needs, and the second, a quality  audit / evaluation framework that could help each TNHE institution focusing on achieving its priority  goals.

Key Terms: Transnational Higher Education, Inter-independence, Collaboration, Inter-independence Collaboration, Inter-independence Collaborative Strategies, Inter-independence Collaboration Model, Information Age, Globalization.

Introduction

Man, who had limited his schooling from the era of Plato to needs within confined borders on earth, had entered by the mid-nineties of the twentieth century the cyberspace age. As a result, the psycho-social, economic, physical and educational means and priorities for a productive schooling seem to have  changed. The reason beyond this shift in schooling priorities stems from the fact that the cognitive as well as the behavioral fields in which man operates have extended to infinity (Hamdan1987).

Information and communication technologies (ICT) are altering who we are, how we think, what we believe, and how we behave. The human race is in essence developing a new humanity. By digital ICT means, it becomes possible to communicate, interact, and learn- receive information instantly (Hamdan2007; Papp and Alberts1997; Stewart1997; Kupfer1997). ICTs are enabling humans and institutions to go cyber space, thus changing profoundly many facets of doing things, including the ways of Transnational Higher Education TNHE (International Research Center 2006; Kok 2006; O’Donoghue  and Others 2000).

Globalizing ICTs, have caused a massive flow of information and innovation throughout the globe.  They, the two together are seen by this Writer, to represent a decisive operational factor of current TNHE. In fact, the streaming of human resources, programs, skills, expertise, academic and professional exchange across the world, indicate the decisive role of Globalizing ICTs for the advancement of TNHE (Answers Corporation1997; Burbules and Torres 2000; Cogburn 2012; UNESCO2007).

It follows therefore, that continuing schooling within restricted classroom walls or specific school or local borders means simply gearing priorities of educational system backward to outdated conventional knowledge, preparing generations at best to live the persisting past, since isolated educational institutions can’t empower learners to develop themselves for living the open Space Age as much as to be attached to memories, folklores and obsolete epistemology (Hamdan1992).

Further, While institutions could keep their individual identities, academic integrity and the independence of in-house decision making, they could at the same time initiate new interactive relationships that are professional, equitable, productive, and responsive to institutional needs. These intents and processes resemble what this writer calls here inter-independence collaboration.

Transnational Higher Education Based Inter-independence Collaboration- A New science of eLearning is in the making

Transnational (cross-border) Higher Education “TNHE” is generally  practiced in three forms: student /academic mobility, program mobility, and institution mobility (Naidoo 2006 in Yi Cao2011).

TNHE came strongly to the fore of educational scene twenty years ago due to the pressures of globalization and constant demands of info technologies and knowledge economy that urged international States to launch a series of educational plans since the mid-1990s, to: 

– create new valuable markets by expanding education into new geographies.  

 – promote reform and quality of TNHE,

– boost Global academic rankings,

– get economic revenue by globalizing the business of higher education,

– be recognized as exporters of higher education research and services (KPMG International Cooperative2012; Mok,2009):.

In fact, expanding direct governmental backing and financial support to foreign higher education institutions in forms of tax deduction benefits, educational grants and land concessions, are expected to reinforce more collaborative transnational initiatives and as well encouraging civic society gurus to empower universities to address sustainable development challenges of the twenty-first century (Koehn 2012).

To achieve optimized consequences of these info-global factors and to neutralize their possible negative side effects, TNHE institutions need to adopt two operational principles: the first is inter-independence which enables them individually and as joint venture groups to interact with a sense of responsibility toward one another, and the second is collaboration which allows each partner to maintain equitable agreed upon needs.

For TNHE as recognized a new schooling trend has transformed the concept and practice of local isolated higher education institutions to global collaborating learning- teaching networks in which “learners are located in a country different from the one where the awarding institution is based” (Vignoli 2004).

Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, China, India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, Australia, and UAE, among others, are notable cases in which the states have explicitly declared intentions to make their territories regional hubs of such new type of education. Thus leading to dramatic developments of today’s TNHE as part of the states’ coping strategies (Ka Ho Mok 2009). In fact, “One in five TNHE branch campuses in the world is hosted by the UAE”,  and China doubled student enrollment from five million post-secondary students in mid-1990s to more than 34 million in 2010 (Koehn 2012).

Consequently, TNHE institutions are established with no apparent limitations; special governance laws are introduced; distinctive methods of learning, instruction, assessment, human and professional communication techniques are formed and practiced; TNHE graduate study programs are offered; new terms such as: transnational education, “glocals”,  eStudent,  education mobility, and internationalization were coined; specific types of  literature and research have emerged; and specialized forums and conferences are convened (Choudaha2012; Connelly and Others 2010; Coverdale-Jones 2012; Drew  and Others 2008; Naidoo2009; Mok 2009; Ong and Chan 2012;The University of Nottingham 2013; Wilkins and Balakrishnan 2013;  Yonezawa2009; Yoshino 2004).. hence, a new educational science: Transnational Education, is borne 

However, TNHE  as  any newly forming science, and in lieu of its highly compelling  pace of developments,  is facing several technical and practical problems; and understanding of its real status on the ground is still incomprehensible due to lacking  of systematic study statistics (Naidoo 2009).New and more detailed governance and regulatory regimes for steering the growing number of TNE providers and programs are still urgently needed. 

For example, the Sino-UK TNE partnership was initiated without specific organizing formula but personal connections. Thus, a need was observed to work out a precise form of partnership and its associated financial implications for both parties, while cultural diversities and differences in educational tradition, curriculum challenges, communication style and organizational practices are among factors affecting the operation of a TNE partnership over time. Changes in macro-economic factors such as exchange rate can also lead to termination of a TNE project ( Zhuang 2009; Wenying2007)

Quality Assurance issues to regulate effectively TNHE, to ensure its quality, to promote mutual recognition of academic / professional degrees or qualifications, have all become the concern of governments and international organizations. More work is evidently needed to improve current external quality assurance systems in regard of quality audit, professional accreditation and mutual recognition of academic and professional attributes (Social Science Paper 2012). The last part of this paper is dealing with issue.

Moreover, economic preference in terms of generating revenue over other human and academic merits that determine the cause of collaborating TNHE institutions, has added immensely to its persisting problems.  Hence, it is essentially expected from TNHE providers to adopt strategies which ultimately differ from the business model to reflect the intrinsic value of higher education whose main goal is to serve the human cause (Altbach 2010).

The Concepts and Roles of inter-independence and collaboration in TNHE

To negate above shortcomings or at least to ease their negative effects on TNHE institutions, two philosophical organizational principles are proposed for partnership: inter-independence and collaboration.

The concept of inter-independence was firstly coined by this Writer in a work published in Arabic at 1987 and  then in English at 1992.With inter-independence, the organization may appear more aware of its strengths, limits and needs and those of others. it is expected while  maintaining a highly integrative own profile and mutually exclusive identity, tends without apparent reservations to share own qualities and shortcomings for the sake of achieving better independence which is free of dismay, threat, or uncertainty.

Working with the concept of inter-independence is expected to maintain an educational process by which every organization can maintain equitable relations with others, and explore its uniqueness then  develop it and share it without the sense of being hopeless or the risk of being overtaken, subdued, or offended by others.

Collaboration on another hand, is a behavioral paradigm, and a well-defined relationship performed by two or more higher education institutions (or individuals) to achieve mutual strategic goals (ETC- Education Transition Choices1997).

For collaboration to succeed however, it calls for a relationship built upon commitments to: the concept of mutual relationships and goals, a sense of shared ownership, jointly developed tasks and joint responsibilities, mutual authority and accountability for success, and sharing of resources and rewards (Bishop1993).

Further, a real feeling of mutual trust among partners of TNHE should be available to motivate working together without too many risks. THE collaborating institutions by utilizing the philosophy, working principles and techniques of inter-independence, will help them in neutralizing emerging risks and balancing them against academic and professional vulnerabilities (Ruohomaa and Kutvonen 2008).

Proposed Systemic strategic Model for Inter-independence Collaboration of TNHE TNHE has conventionally handled issues of students’ learning and academic programs. It is strongly advocated by this Writer however, that the mission of Inter-independence collaboration of TNHE institutions should be extended to all other factors and processes, since educational institutions  are in reality Gestalt operating systems built upon “inputs- processes- outputs”. Hence, students’ learning and academic programs are not operating in isolation of other components of the TNHE  system. Rather, they are affecting and being affected by all factors within the system. 

Thus, TNHE institutions, in order to be effectively responsive in their inter-independence collaboration strategies and succeeding consequently in their learning – teaching missions, are required to customize, transform, or develop their human, academic, professional, educational, psychological, physical, regulatory laws, and other support services, whenever deciding to initiate the transnational collaborated efforts. Needless to indicate that without this Gestalt systemic operational approach, TNHE may turn into a “trial- error” risky endeavor, failing students as well institutions whenever any shortcoming may emerge.

The strategic Systemic Model of Inter-independence Collaboration is depicted in the following diagram.

Figure
1: A Proposed Strategic Systemic Model for Inter-independence
Collaboration in Transnational Higher Education (developed by
Author)

Structure of the Systemic Model

The model in figure 1, is composed of three major elements-inputs, processes and outputs, which are briefly illustrated as follows:

A. Inputs of the Systemic Model which form the academic and professional identity of higher education institution (HEI). These are sorted in three categories, briefed as follows (inputs are based on a comprehensive review of several university sites):

1-Private / confidential elements which the HEI keeps as a special concern that are rarely shared with outsiders, except in extremely emergent cases. Examples of these elements are the following:              

– Faculty and Staff Personal Information-Students’ personal and academic records 

-Human resources records 

– University Financial Records 

– Organizational security practices and controls, and 

– classified information.

2- Academic/ Professional elements which represent the core of Institutional every day Inter-independence collaboration. A sample of these:

– Instructors – academic and professional qualifications  

– Study plans and programs

– Curricula and academic content

– Instruction and methods

– Learning techniques and alternatives

– Assessment and evaluation

– Degrees and accreditation

3- Alternative/ Support Services. These represent all the factors and activities which help in transforming above academic /professional elements from paper or online documents into real actions with more concrete effective results. Collaborating institutions share and improve these elements when educational and management contexts and operations call for more development and better outcomes. A sample of alternative/ support services is in the following:

 – Faculty & Staff services, e.g. Alumni Association, Office of Development, and Office of faculty affairs.

-.Physical support services. e.g. University enterprises, Facilities, University affairs office, mental health advisory services, The counseling services, and Student health services.

– Academic support  services. e.g. Library services, Undergraduate study support technology services. 

– Technical support and services

-Education support services. e.g. Campus programs, Outreach programs, Parents role related services.

B. Processes of the Systemic Model

Inter-independence Collaboration institutions inquire their own needs, searching for more effective achievements, locating willing parties, designing joint plans and efforts to achieve priorities, initiating mutual exchange of experiences and knowledge, and accomplishing collaborative missions as stated. They adopt here three tasks:

1- Keep confidentially their private identity elements, or sharing them and developing when deem essential.

2 -Adapt & share academic and professional elements, collaborate with other fellow institutions and develop thoroughly as much as possible.

3- Adapt & share support services elements, collaborate with other fellow institutions to develop for more improvements.

C. Outputs of the Systemic Model

Inter-independence collaboration empowers TNHE institutions to develop their academic as well professional knowledge and operations services, and to achieve effectiveness in their delegated responsibilities by:

– Exploring, testing, and refining own purposes, strategies, and actions in light of priority outcomes.

– Seek ultimate corporate updating of private identity elements whenever needed, confirm thorough development of academic and professional elements, and maintain corporate improvement of support services for better productivity.

– Revising Inter-independence collaboration plans and processes according to observed quality of results, by means of auditing and assessment feedback.

Implementation Stages of Inter-independence Collaboration within the Systemic Model

Three consecutive Stages (Torbert & Others2010) are involved in the Systemic Model (figure1):

Stage 1: Individual Institution Perspective– analysis of status, priorities and needs, by means of:

– Observing ongoing actions and the effects, strengths and weaknesses in inputs, processes and outcomes, academic and professional satisfactions / dissatisfactions, and needs still to be realized.

– Proposing protective alternatives against becoming subsumed by ‘collaborative institutional group’, their norms or own personal ‘official stories’.

Stage 2: Collaborating Transnational Institutions Perspective – analysis of status, priorities and needs of collaborating institutions as individual units, inter-groups, and as a gestalt collaborating partnership, by means of:

* Initiating collaborative tasks as generated in Stage 1 which are (figure 1): 

– keep private elements, or share and develop as essential;

– share academic and professional elements, collaborate and develop thoroughly for more progress;

– share, collaborate, and develop selectively support services for institutional improvement.

* Encouraging mutual auditing of attributions and assessments in real practices, and generating mutual critical and constructive implications for collaboration and change.

* Proposing mutual protective alternatives against becoming limited by own institutional perspective, or become overwhelmed in unproven assumptions and norms.

Stage 3:  Collaborative Data Perspective–Steering the future of institutional Inter-independence collaboration, by means of:

– Using collaborative generated data to establish ‘objective’ perspectives that are highly strategic, rational and more productive for all partners.

– Protecting collaborative partners, individually and as a group against becoming overly subjected by their own proclaimed prejudices. 

Observed Barriers to Effective Systemic Inter-independence Collaboration

Torbert and Others (2010) stated in this regard seven barriers, appear as follows: 

1- Chauvinism: some higher education institutions are observed in  need to be seen as source of knowledge and competence; ignoring consequently the academic as well professional priorities  and conditions of other member institutions, and the educational values imbedded in the concept of inter-independence collaboration.

2- Close- mindedness: when having fixated mind.. Being locked onto a particular issue, perspective, methodology, a specific time schedule or a way of collaboration.

3- Academic nagging: appears in showing-off a personal or academic view, persisting subjectively on talking or asking for specific idea or demand, debating a point endlessly, and seeming unsatisfied regardless of authentic facts or the logic involved in the situation.

An authentic example of above three barriers

The  Author of this article had experienced the above three barriers during the academic year 2005-2006 as professor and head of the psychology and education department (PED) at a private university in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). 

Briefly, the real story happened as follows: the University Administration asked the Head of (PED) to develop a master’s degree program in educational administration and supervision (EAS) directed to serve teachers, supervisors, and principals of the (UAE) Ministry of Education  schools who are eligible to study the EAS graduate program..

The accreditation system adopted by the (UAE) Ministry of Higher Education requires referring the new programs to a critical review by an academic committee of two “experts” from a western country such as USA. So, two academicians (man and a woman) were invited from two American universities on the expense of the University who owned the graduate program. 

The two external examiners and this Writer as the designer of the program and head of the (PED) had long sessions discussing along two days every detail of the program. Then the committee met separately with faculty members of the program. At the end of the appraisal week, the reviewers suddenly pressed  for the issue of English language as a first medium of instruction of the (EAS) program. Needless to point out that reversing the role of English as a second language to the first one for a graduate program dedicated to Arab trainees with Arabic cultural and educational backgrounds; belonging to Arab schools, students, local environments, values, traditions, and history; teaching and supervising Arab pupils, curricula and activities in Arabic; fostering strategic goals to better future for Arab generations.. Seemed extremely abnormal, chauvinistic, close- minded, and academic nagging!

It was felt at the time that those academicians appeared overwhelmed by a sense ofmilitary psychology assuming they are invading an underdeveloped, helpless, low- quality higher education institution (which is in reality not the case). Their proposal was resisted by this Writer since Arabic was seen a sovereign identity issue. And at last, the program was failed!  as an example of inter-independent collaboration.  

* Self-depreciation: some collaborating parties seem lacking professional confidence, feeling somewhat inferior or incapable of contributing anything of value. Hence resist revealing their own vulnerability, insecure academic status, or receiving judgments.

* Behavior- rushing as institutional collaboration is resulted from short-sighted work plans, speedy decisions, and careless performance. 

* Day- dreaming: collaborating member institutions appear here absent- minded, task- disoriented, inattentive, uninterested, occupied by other things than collaboration, or listening without hearing. Hence the mission of inter-independent collaboration could not be realized.

* Withdrawal opposition by means of ignoring collaboration without vocalizing, negligent performance, procrastination of assignments or tasks.

Proposed Brief Meta Audit and Evaluation Frameworks for Quality Assurance of TNHE

Three meta  audit and evaluation frameworks are offered, they are briefly as follows:

A-  Inter-institutional Meta Audit and Evaluation Framework

TNE collaborating institutions that form in reality a regional or international league, could set up an internal quality assurance agency, a tribunal, or a steering committee, to:

– handle auditing and quality issues related to processes and outcomes of inter-independent collaboration partnerships, 

– handle auditing and quality issues of inter-institutional and regional accreditation, academic and professional qualifications of graduates.

– help in setting up quality standards, practices and inter-relations needed by individual members to improve their “TNE” missions.

– serve as a liaison body who helps in settling disagreements that could emerge between collaborating institutions. However, this agency is expected further to fulfill the following specific tasks (Bennett and Others 2004): 

*”Monitoring the activities of imported transnational education providers;

* Liaising with providers (and countries of origin) when problems arise;

* Reporting bogus institutions to appropriate national and international authorities;

* Seeking bilateral solutions to TNE problems;

* Providing advice and information to the public associated with imported TNE”.

B- External Meta Audit and Evaluation Framework

This framework focuses primarily on institutional quality accreditation, and usually is administered by professional governmental local agencies, and/or regional and international accreditation associations. These official affiliations provide “TNE” institutions with the following services (Bennett and Others2004):

* Establish, or encourage the establishment of a comprehensive, fair and transparent system of registration or licensing for cross-border higher education providers wishing to operate in their territory.

* Establish, or encourage the establishment of a comprehensive capacity for reliable quality assurance and accreditation of cross-border higher education provision which involve both sending and receiving countries.

* Consult and coordinate amongst the various competent bodies for quality assurance and accreditation both nationally and internationally.

Moreover, Baird added for issues of recognition and accreditation of programs, degrees, and “TNE” institutions, the following tasks:

* Provide accurate, reliable and easily accessible information in regard to criteria and standards for registration, licensure, quality assurance and accreditation ofcross-border higher education, their consequences on the funding of students, institutions or programs, and their voluntary or mandatory nature.

* Contribute to efforts to improve the accessibility at the international level of up-to date, accurate and comprehensive information on recognized higher education institutions /providers.

* Consider becoming party to and contribute to the development and /or updating of the appropriate UNESCO regional conventions on recognition of qualifications and establish national information centers as stipulated by the conventions.

* develop or encourage bilateral or multilateral recognition agreements, facilitating the recognition or equivalence of each country’s qualifications based on the procedures and criteria included in mutual agreements (Baird 2006).

A Proposed Brief Meta Audit and Evaluation Framework

In a competitive open market for higher education, coupled with the profound effects of globalization, communication and information technologies, source countries have an interest in ensuring that the standards of their transnational programs at least maintain those of programs offered at parallel professional facilities (Baird, 2006).

For “HEI” institutions, to insure tentatively a quality Inter-independence collaboration with fellow partners, they could build own mutual endeavors on two criteria: priority needs and mission standards. Each institution should know exactly what it needs the most (a sample is in above auditing form) , and the operational attributes and outcomes that should be observed at each formative stage of inter-independence collaboration, and then the mechanisms and steps by which each collaborating partner will be held accountable.

Comparing intended inputs and processes with observed outcomes, will simply reveal the minus and plus differences (as indicated in above form) which in turn will lead to required auditing and accountability sessions necessary for maintaining more quality inter-independence collaboration.

Table 1: A Quality Audit and Assurance searching Grid for improving Transnational Higher Education (*S. S= support services)

References

o Altbach, Philip G. (2010). “Why Branch Campuses May Be Unsustainable.” International Higher Education 58 (Winter): 2-3. 

o Answers Corporation. Marek, (best answers, 1997). The effect of globalization. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/. 

o Baird, Jeanette, Editor (2006). Quality Audit and Assurance for Transnational Higher Education. Austria. Universities Quality Agency.www.auqa.edu.au/quality

o Bennett, Paul and Others( February 2004). Quality Assurance in Transnational Higher Education. ENQA, Workshop report 11. Helsinki, Finland, 2010.www.enqa.eu/…/ENQA

o Bishop, K. K. (1993). Family/Professional Collaboration for Children with Special Health Needs and Their Families (Monograph), Burlington, Vermont: Department of Social Work, University of Vermont.

o Burbules , Nicholas C. and Torres, Carlos Alberto (2000). Globalization and Education: An Introduction. Published In, Nicholas Burbules and Carlos Torres, eds. Globalization and Education: Critical Perspectives. 012http://faculty.education.illinois.edu/ global.html.

o Cogburn, Derrick L.  GLOBALIZATION, KNOWLEDGE, EDUCATION AND TRAININGIN in THE INFORMATION AGE.http://www.unesco.org/http:// .Retrieved July 13, 2012.

o Connelly, Stephen. And Others (2010). A Transnationality Index for Higher Education 

Institutions. 

o Choudaha, Rahul (2012) . The rise of ‘glocal’ students and transnational education. Thursday 21 June 2012. HigherEducation Networkhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/higher-education-network/blog/2012/jun/21/opportunities-in-transnational-education

o Coverdale-Jones, Tricia (2012). International Approaches to Transnational Higher Education (TNHE). 12,（2012）http://www.cshe.nagoya-u.ac.jp/publications/journal/no12/11.pdf

o Drew, Sue and Others (2008). Trans-national Education and Higher Education Institutions: Exploring Patterns of HE Institutional Activity. DIUS Research Report 08 07,  Sheffield Hallam University 2008

o ETC- Education Transition Choices (1997). Project of the Utah Parent Center. Interagency Collaboration and Transition. PACER Center, http://www.pacer.org/.

o Hamdan ,M. Z. (1987). Clinical Schooling-Toward an approach for the education of personal inter-independence”. Damascus: Modern Education house, (in Arabic).

o Hamdan ,M. Z. (1992). “Re-Schooling Society with a Clinical Approach for the Education of Global Inter-Independence”. Damascus- Syria: Modern Education house.

o Hamdan, M. Z. (July, 2007). The Rise and Fall of Conventional Schooling in Light of the Information Age. www.hamdaneducation.com

o Huang, F. (2006)Transnational Higher Education in Asia and the Pacific Region. RIHE International Publication Series No.10, March, 2006 science

o International Research Center (2006). Universal Service To Universal Access. 2006. www.Education in the information Age.com;  

o Ischinger, Barbara (2009). Higher Education to 2030, VOLUME 2: GLOBALISATION. CENTRE FOR EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND INNOVATION. OECD 2009

o Jokivirta, Lisa.  Foreign Higher Education Activity in Francophone Africa. WENR, Volume 19, Issue 2, April 2006

o Khan, F. (2011)Transnational Higher Education: Lessons from the Gulf States. UNESCO, ANQAHE, Abu Dhabi, Dec. 2011

o Kazuhiro, Su gimoto (2006). Australia’s Transnational Higher Education. In Huang, Futao. Transnational Higher Education in Asia and the Pacific  Region. RIHE International Publication Series No. 10. March, 2006.  RIHE International Publication Series No March, 

o Koehn, Peter H. (2012). Transnational Higher Education and Sustainable Development: current initiatives and future prospects, Policy Futures in Education, 10(3), 274-282. http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2012.10.3.274

o Kok .Jacobus C  (2006). The Information Age and a New Humanity: The Effects of IT on Whom We Believe We Are. Fourth International Conference on New Directions in the Humanities – 2006 info-H06@commongroundconferences.com

o Ong,Kok Chung and Chan, David K K (2012). Transnational Higher Education and Challenges for University Governance in China.Higher Education Policy (2012) 25, 151–170. doi:10.1057/hep.2012.2

o KPMG- Global. The growth of transnational education.http://www.kpmg.com/global/../ /growth-transnational-education.aspx

o McGraw-Hill Higher Education(2004).  Exchange theory, network theory. http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com;  and, Wikimedia (May 2012). Social exchange theory.Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.,  http://en.wikipedia.org/ Social_exchange_theory.

o Mok, Ka Ho (2009). The Quest for Regional Hub of Education: Searching for New Governance and Regulatory Regimes in Singapore, Hong Kong and Malaysia.http://www.eastwestcenter.org/../resources/education/ed2020_docs/Ka_Ho_KL_Paper.doc

o Naidoo Vik (2009).Transnational Higher Education- A Stock Take of Current Activity. Journal of Studies in International Education. September 2009vol. 13 no. 3 310-330. http://jsi.sagepub.com/content/13/3/310.

o O’Donoghue, John.  and Others (2000). Technology in education – A study into the effects of information technology in education. www.auc.uow.edu.au/.

o Papp, Daniel S. and Alberts, David (1997). Preface: Technology and Change in Human Affairs. in David S. Alberts and Daniel S. Papp (Editor). CCRP Publication Series. 1997; 

o Kok. Jacobus C. (2006).The Information Age and a New Humanity: The Effects of IT on Whom We Believe We Are. Fourth International Conference on New Directions in the Humanities – 2006 Fourth International Conference on New Directions in the Humanities.

o Kupfer , Andrew. Chapter 5: Alone Together: Will Being Wired Set Us Free? In, David S. Alberts and Daniel S. Papp (Editor). CCRP Publication Series. 1997; 

o Ruohomaa, Sini. and Kutvonen, Lea (2008). Making multi-dimensional trust decisions on inter-enterprise collaborations.. Retrieved Aug. 2012, http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/

o Social Science Paper.  A Study on Quality Assurance System of UK Transnational Higher Education. Quality assurance of higher education, the United Kingdom, Transnational Higher Education, April 23rd, 2012. www.Intelex.com/quality_management

o Stewart, Thomas A. Chapter 1: Welcome to the Revolution. In, Edited by Papp and Alberts.. CCRP Publication Series. 1997;  

o The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education (2013). Australia & Pacific Rim, All Regions.

o The University of Nottingham (2013). The MA International Higher Education (IHE). Nottingham, Britain. http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/pgstudy/courses/

o Torbert, William & Others. Action Inquiry: Transforming Leadership in the Midst of Action. ALIA Institute – Shambhala Summer Institute, 2010.

o UNESCO (2007). The Impact of Globalization on Higher Education and Research in the Arab States. Regional Research Seminar, Rabat, Morocco, 25-26 May 2007.    

o Van  Damme , Dirk . (2001).Higher  Education in the  Age of  Globalization: The  need f or  a  new  regulatory  framework f or  recognition,  quality  assurance and  accreditation . Introductory  Paper for  the  UNESCO Expert Meeting. Paris, 10-11 September 2001

o Vignoli,Gabriel (2004). WHAT IS TRANSNATIONAL EDUCATION?www.cimea.it/.

o Wallace, Michelle and Dunn, Lee (Editors, 2008). Teaching in Transnational Higher Education: Enhancing Learning for Offshore International Students. Routledge (March 9, 2008)  

o Wenying “Nan” Sun, and Boncella, Robert J. (2007) Transnational Higher Education:

ISSUES EFFECTING JOINT DEGREE PROGRAMS AMONG US AND CHINESE SCHOOLS. Issues in Information Systems, Volume VIII, No. 1, 2007 68 Issues.http://iacis.org/iis/2007/Sun_Boncella.pdf

o Wilkins ,Stephen. Melodena Stephens Balakrishnan (2013). “Assessing student satisfaction in transnational higher education”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 27 Iss: 2, pp.143 – 156

o Yi Cao. Branch Campuses in Asia and the Pacific: Definitions, Challenges and Strategies. Comparative& International Higher Education 3 (2011)

o Yonezawa, A., Akiba, H. and Hirouchi, D. ( 2009).  Japanese University Leaders Perception of Internationalization. International Approaches to Transnational Higher Education (TNHE). Education, 40:973-81. jsi.sagepub.com/content/13/2/125.full.pdf

o  Yoshino, A. (2004). Cue the Praying Hands and Ill-informed Bow, Times. Higher Education Supplement. International Approaches to Transnational Higher Education (TNHE). Education, 40:973-81.

o Zhuang, Lee (2009). “The challenges facing Sino-UK transnational education: an institutional experience”. Journal of Knowledge-based Innovation in China, Vol. 1 Issue: 3, pp.243 – 255 

*****