COMPARING SELECTED HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEMS IN ASIA

141215 CHE 00 Prelim.indd 1 16/12/2014 10:32 AM 16/12/2014 10:32 AM Sarjit Kaur Shukran Abdul Rahman Koo Yew Lie Maskanah Mohammad Lotfie Hafiz Zakariya This publication is based on a research commissioned by the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia to the National Higher Education Research Institute (IPPTN) 141215 CHE 00 Prelim.indd 3 16/12/2014 02:31 PM This book COMPARING SELECTED HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEMS IN ASIA is jointly published by Institut Terjemahan & Buku Malaysia Berhad and The National Higher Education Research Institute. Published by: INSTITUT TERJEMAHAN & BUKU MALAYSIA BERHAD (Company No.: 276206-D) Wisma ITBM, No. 2, Jalan 2/27E Seksyen 10, Wangsa Maju 53300 Kuala Lumpur Malaysia Tel.: 603-4145 1800 Fax: 603-4142 0753 E-mail: publishing@itbm.com.my Website: www.itbm.com.my First Published in 2014 Publication © Institut Terjemahan & Buku Malaysia Berhad Text © National Higher Education Research Institute All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except brief extracts for the purpose of review, without the prior permission in writing of the publisher and copyright owner from Institut Terjemahan & Buku Malaysia (formerly known as Institut Terjemahan Negara Malaysia Berhad), Wisma ITBM, No. 2, Jalan 2/27E, Seksyen 10, Wangsa Maju, 53300 Kuala Lumpur. It is advisable also to consult the publisher if in any doubt as to the legality of any copying which is to be undertaken. National Library of Malaysia Cataloguing-in-Publication Data Sarjit Kaur Comparing selected higher education systems in Asia / Sarjit Kaur, Shukran Abdul Rahman, Koo Yew Lie, Maskanah Mohammad Lotfie & Hafiz Zakariya. ISBN 978-967-430-527-7 1. Education, higher--research--Asia. 2. Education and state--research-Asia. I. Sarjit Kaur. II. Shukran Abdul Rahman. III. Koo Yew Lie. IV. Maskanah Mohammad Lotfie V. Hafiz Zakariya. 378.59 Printed in Malaysia by: Percetakan Haji Jantan Sdn. Bhd. No. 12 Jalan 4/118C Desa Tun Razak 56000 Cheras Kuala Lumpur 141215 CHE 00 Prelim.indd 4 16/12/2014 02:31 PM CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS PREFACE INTRODUCTION vii vii ix xi xiii CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION 1.0 General Demography of Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam and Australia 1.1 Historical Development of Higher Education 1.1.1 Malaysia 1.1.2 Thailand 1.1.3 Vietnam 1.1.4 Australia 1.2 Current Higher Education System 1.2.1 Malaysia 1.2.2 Thailand 1.2.3 Vietnam 1.2.4 Australia 1.3 Media Roles References 1 1 6 6 8 8 9 10 10 12 12 14 16 17 CHAPTER 2: POLICY DEVELOPMENT 2.0 Introduction 2.1 Access and Equity 2.2 Quality Assurance 2.3 Community Engagement 2.4 Research and Development References 21 21 21 24 27 30 33 141215 CHE 00 Prelim.indd 5 16/12/2014 10:32 AM Contents CHAPTER 3: STRUCTURE OF HIGHER EDUCATION 3.0 Introduction 3.1 Governance 3.1.1 Categorisation of Higher Education Institutions 3.1.2 Stakeholder Guidance and Governance 3.2 Funding/Financing 3.3 Privatisation 3.4 Teaching and Learning References 35 35 36 36 37 41 43 44 46 CHAPTER 4: INTERNATIONALISATION 4.0 Introduction 4.1 Provision for International Students: Rationales 4.1.1 Strategies in Attracting International Students: Resources and Support Structures 4.2 Qualification and Recognition 4.2.1 Regional Quality Assurance System (Regional Harmonisation) 4.3 Curriculum Development 4.4 Summary References 49 49 49 52 57 58 61 63 64 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION 5.0 Introduction 5.1 Policy Initiatives (Short Term) 5.2 Policy Initiatives (Long Term) 5.3 Implications for Malaysian Higher Education: The Way Forward 5.3.1 Policy Development 5.3.2 Structure of Higher Education 5.3.3 Internationalisation 5.4 Conclusion 67 67 67 69 69 69 70 71 73 vi 141215 CHE 00 Prelim.indd 6 16/12/2014 10:32 AM Contents LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Current public expenditure on tertiary education by level xv Table 2: A Comparative Study of Selected Higher Education Systems in Asia (The Methodological Framework) xvii Table 3: Country Population by the year 2011 2 Table 4: Labour Force Participation figures in Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam and Australia in 2011 (estimated) 5 Table 5: Enrolment of differently-abled students into public institutes of higher learning in 2008 and 2009 24 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Methodological Approach of the Study Figure 2: Unemployment Levels and Trends of Various Countries, 2007/2009 Figure 3: Total number of higher education institutions in Thailand, 2010 xxii 6 23 vii 141215 CHE 00 Prelim.indd 7 16/12/2014 10:32 AM 141215 CHE 00 Prelim.indd 8 16/12/2014 10:32 AM ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The editors are sincerely grateful to the Ministry of Higher Education (MoHE) for providing funding support for this research study. The financial allocation provided through the National Higher Education Research Institute (IPPTN) provided the means to engage with global scholars and researchers from Australia, Thailand and Vietnam to discuss higher education developments and make this joint publication possible with ITBM and ITPPN. We take this opportunity to offer our sincere thanks to Professor Simon Marginson and Professor Morshidi Sirat for providing guidance on the methodological framework of this study. We would like to especially thank the following authors for their diligence and insightful contributions in attending research project meetings and preparing the country reports: Professor Dr. Peter Kell, Ms. Robyn Philips and Dr. Lynn Hoare (Australia), Dr. Chantavit Sujatanond (Thailand) and Dr. Ho Thanh My Phuong (Vietnam). We wish to reply our special thanks to Dr. Chantavit Sujatanond (Special Advisor, SEAMEORIHED, Thailand) for her kind assistance in organising one of our research project meetings in Bangkok. We also thank various staff at IPPTN for their contribution to this project and for their valuable technical support in this project. Special thanks also go to the Project Research Officer, Ms Saidatul Natrah, for her help in managing the project. Lastly, we thank the reviewers for their comments and suggestions as these have certainly helped to enchance the quality of the book. 141215 CHE 00 Prelim.indd 9 16/12/2014 10:32 AM 141215 CHE 00 Prelim.indd 10 16/12/2014 10:32 AM PREFACE With the continuing emphasis placed on higher education institutions in many countries to produce knowledge workers for the next generation, there has been a continuous demand to strengthen the provision and delivery of higher education systems. This has resulted in an extraordinary expansion and intensification of internet use – “between the end of 2000 and 2008, worldwide internet users increased from 361 million to 1,581 million” (Internetworldstats, 2009; cited in Marginson, 2010: 23). The expansion of higher education in most countries has been characterised by the trends of internationalisation (international/intercultural dimension into teaching, research and community service) and the growth of market-driven activities fuelled by increased demand for higher education worldwide. Today’s interconnected global knowledge intensive economy in advancing dynamism for the advancement of science and technology has affected the manner in which universities view quality concerns in the higher education sector (Kaur, Morshidi Sirat and Tierney, 2010). With mass expansion of higher education, it is not uncommon for knowledge economies to learn from each other’s successes in today’s dynamic higher education contexts. Without a doubt, this has been one of the most important social transformations of the 21 st century. Notwithstanding such rapid transformations, higher education experts stress the need to assess the links between this expansion and inequality in the national context. Regardless of other developments, many educators concur that when access to higher education expands, all social classes benefit. While some countries experiment by having greater diversifications, others have increased privatisation initiatives in a bid to better balance issues of inequality. 141215 CHE 00 Prelim.indd 11 16/12/2014 10:32 AM 141215 CHE 00 Prelim.indd 12 16/12/2014 10:32 AM INTRODUCTION Many higher education systems globally operate within the backdrop of the following commonalities: massification of higher education systems, declining public funding, commercialisation of higher education activities and increasing competition among universities on national, regional and international levels (Kaur, Morshidi Sirat and Tierney, 2010). With growing competition in the global higher education marketplace, there are clear signs that both developed and developing nations are looking at conceptual frameworks for comparative analysis of higher education systems in the region in streamlining and enabling more effective provision of quality higher education in serving global, national and local aims. In some cases, such comparisons encourage the possibility of collaboration and knowledge sharing in the domains of governance, administration, teaching and learning, as well as research, innovation and commercialisation activities. Marginson (2010: 24) acknowledges the fact that today’s rapidly growing knowledge economy has given rise to a “global culture of comparison in higher education and research”. Its primary function is to provide information about research performance rankings and the secondary function of the comparative data is normative (to create global standards and encourage homogeneity). Undoubtedly, such comparative and interrelated concerns often take into consideration each country’s unique needs and histories in addressing access and equity concerns. The OECD (2008c) states that in today’s globalised contexts, knowledge-inflected innovation has become central to industry and economic competitiveness and that “basic research is seen as an increasingly important element in policy discussions of industry innovation” (Marginson, 2010: 27). The need to engage in research that compares higher education systems of several countries in the Asian region further establishes the significance of this academic field of study. It will examine higher education provision in each country by using data, insights and blueprints drawn and developed from the practices and contextual situations in various other countries. Arguably, programmes and academic courses in different countries are not all that dissimilar around the globe and relevant studies are regularly published in scholarly journals such as Comparative Education, International Review of Education, International Journal of Educational Development, Comparative 141215 CHE 00 Prelim.indd 13 16/12/2014 10:32 AM Introduction Education Review and Current Issues in Comparative Education. In a similar vein, many similar research projects are increasingly being conducted and supported by UNESCO and the national ministries of several countries. Within the backdrop of current global challenges, the higher education scenario in many countries has seen the rapid expansion in student numbers and related constraints have crept in to further challenge existing infrastructure and frameworks of higher education systems. Such pressing concerns set the scene for examining crucial higher education concerns within the parameters of an international-comparative perspective. Aligning towards such imperatives helps higher education systems to draw on the experience of countries in the region to show how aspects of management and governance systems work or how national blueprints shape and pave the future scenario planning of higher education systems. Adopting or adapting strategies from other higher education systems may help under-performing economies to fast track developments in enhancing capacity in human capital development [for instance, this has been initiated by Malaysia with the CLMV (Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar and Vietnam) countries since 2008]. Other relevant domains can also be considered in helping to shape corresponding developmental efforts taken by higher education systems in strengthening their universities. Such comparisons would yield valuable observations in the variations that exist in higher education systems in offering (what seems to be today’s catch phrase) ‘world class’ higher education. The need for a comparative study of selected higher education systems in the region can showcase relevant components and characteristics of these systems and provide a basis of comparison of each country’s national and global higher education concerns. In order to do justice to the rapidly intensifying global interconnectedness of the practice of higher education as a field of study, there are calls for more information sharing and understanding of regional higher education systems. Changes in higher education systems in the Asia Pacific continue to garner interest among nations and institutions in North America and Western Europe (Marginson, Kaur & Sawir, 2011). The higher education scene in many countries has witnessed similar patterns: expansion of the system, diversification of provision of services and resource base and changes in economic rationality of investing in higher education (Varghese, 2007). It is reported that globally, the percentage of the age cohort enrolled in tertiary education has grown exponentially from 19 per cent in 2000 to 26 per cent in 2007, with the most dramatic gains in upper middle and upper income countries. In addition, there are some 150.6 million tertiary students globally, roughly a 53 per cent increase since 2000 (Altbach, Reisberg and Rumbley, 2009). Likewise, the effects of globalisation in affecting higher education systems are manifested in the realities of today’s increasingly integrated world economy, new information and communication technology (ICT), the emergence of an international knowledge network, the role of the English language and other factors beyond the control of academic institutions (Altbach, Reisberg and Rumbley, 2009). In many Southeast Asian countries, higher education increasingly serves as a major driver of economic growth, enabling developing countries to make good progress towards achieving developed country status. In analysing public expenditure on tertiary education among higher education systems in Southeast Asia, one will observe that percentages are generally low, compared with high human development countries. Such comparisons allow researchers to examine relative differences on public expenditure on tertiary education among Southeast Asian countries. While Malaysia spends a higher percentage (35 percent) of its public education budget on higher education, other countries in the region are only able to allocate smaller percentages of their public education budget on the tertiary sector. xiv 141215 CHE 00 Prelim.indd 14 16/12/2014 10:32 AM Introduction Table 1 below shows expenditure on tertiary education in five Southeast Asian countries: Table 1: Public expenditure on tertiary education by level Country Public education budget expended on tertiary sector (percent) Indonesia Malaysia Philippines Thailand Vietnam 19 35 14 20 – Source: UNDP (2007, p. 266–267) Similar variations can also be seen when comparing key human development indicators (HDI) such as life expectancy at birth, education index and GDP per capita. Detailing such comparisons may explain other factors that hinder progress in the tertiary sector (for instance, severe effects of the regional financial crisis of the late 1990s which affected debt levels of some economies in the region). Additionally, it is worthy to observe issues of access and equity in higher education among higher education systems in contextualising demographic pressures on higher education as well as changing governance regimes, limited infrastructure, the rise of global English, the capacity of transnational education and the rise of private higher education (Welch, 2010). Objective of the Study This research study was commissioned by the Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education to the National Higher Education Research Institute (IPTTN) between the years 2011–2012. The main objective of this study was to undertake a comparative study of four higher education systems (namely Malaysia, Australia, Thailand and Vietnam) by examining the similarities and differences of each system in the following aspects: i. Overview of higher education ii. Policy development iii. Structure of higher education iv. Internationalisation These systems can benefit from a structured study that examines similarities and differences in each higher education system. For instance, education is Australia’s third largest export sector (representing AUD$13.7 billion industry), just behind coal and iron ore. While Australia’s successes in offering quality higher education and attracting large numbers of international students to its shores are well documented (as a major student-importing country attracting 6 per cent of all international students globally), less is known about higher education systems in the region. Undoubtedly, higher education systems in Southeast Asia have been generally under-studied within the global context. Countries like Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam offer a rich array of histories and cultures within their multicultural dimension (languages spoken, religious groups, economic and political developments). In these diverse countries, each government see universities xv 141215 CHE 00 Prelim.indd 15 16/12/2014 10:32 AM Introduction “not merely as institutions of national and international prestige but crucially as springboards to economic development, in concert with key industries such as information technology, engineering and science” (Welch, 2010: 149). Study Framework The project’s first research workshop was held on 5–6 December 2010 and it was attended by the Malaysian team members and appointed country coordinators from Thailand, Vietnam and Australia. Professor Simon Marginson, the Project Consultant from the University of Melbourne, discussed considerations and pitfalls of comparative studies and presented useful pointers on the direction and scope of key questions that should be considered in preparing country reports to facilitate comparative analyses. Professor Morshidi Sirat (then the Director of IPPTN) also attended the workshop in his role as the Project Coordinator. The Project Leader (Associate Professor Dr. Sarjit Kaur) led the discussion by presenting a background of related issues in comparative higher education in relation to the scope of the present research study. Following this, there were presentations by the country coordinators from Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia and Australia, each providing an overview of their individual country’s higher education systems. The workshop also focused on finalising the methodological framework that would be used in the comparative study. After engaging in thought provoking discussions during the workshop, a framework of content for each country report (chapter organisation) incorporating several key questions was agreed upon with input from the Project Consultant (refer to Table 2). The study adopted the approach of commissioning papers (from invited authors/research team members in Malaysia, Australia, Thailand and Vietnam), as well as focused research project meetings with members of the research team that provided the following information on the selected higher education systems: (i) An overview of the higher education system (Introduction of country’s higher education system, information on the education population, general demography of higher education, contextualisation of higher education (trace historical development), description of current (postcolonial) higher education system and flow and media roles) (ii) Higher Education Policies and Reforms (policy development, structure of higher education and internationalisation) (Exploring paths of governance configurations, structure and mechanism of policies and reforms in the higher education system (provision, regulation and ownership of higher education institutions, access and equity concerns, quality assurance, funding/ financing, privatisation, R&D, governance, teaching and learning, internationalisation activities, community engagement) to facilitate growth in the main domains of university functions such as teaching-learning, research, development and innovation, leadership and community engagement etc.) xvi 141215 CHE 00 Prelim.indd 16 16/12/2014 10:32 AM Table 2: A Comparative Study of Selected Higher Education Systems in Asia (The Methodological Framework). 1 Content Overview of Higher Education a. General demography of higher education (provide relevant statistics in the form of tables/figures) b. Contextualisation of higher education (trace historical development) c. Description of current (postcolonial) higher education system and flow *The approach, and thus content required for this chapter is flexible. Hence, other important factors may be included according to region/country. 2 Policy Development 16/12/2014 10:32 AM Policy development on the following factors: a. Access and equity – equality issues, enrolment and admission procedures and requirements, enrolment rates among rural and handicapped students, policy and provision to improve the disadvantaged community’s access to higher education, and open and distance learning b. Quality assurance – process and system, accreditation system, governing body, universities’ capacity and criteria, and transparency c. Structural reforms – recent initiatives such as teaching-learning reforms at national and institutional level, and recent changes such as the changes in attributes needed in graduates in this modern age) Key Questions ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Does higher education have significant support from the community (parties apart from the government)? What are the primary roles expected of higher education other than training individuals for the labour market (what other “public goods” is higher education expected to provide? What is the media culture in relation to higher education (intelligent/shallow? supportive/critical?)? What significant changes, if any, took place after independence that helped shape the current direction of higher education? Is input regularly taken from higher education sources or those outside the said field, and can such input influence strategies and priorities? How much autonomy and capacity is held by the higher education ministry within the government (in terms of finance, human resource, academic, governance and other factors)? Who decides on research priorities and how are they administered? What is the time frame of mainstream funding for higher education to enable stable internal planning (one year or more)? To what extent does the government become involved in managing the relationship between higher education and the labour market? To what extent is output (e.g., research and publications, and university ranking) reflective of the percentage of the budget allocated for higher education? 1412 15 CHE 0 0 Preli m.ind d 1 7 Chapter 16/12/2014 10:32 AM Cont. Table 2 Chapter Content Key Questions d. Community engagement – elements to encourage community engagement; higher education institutions responsiveness to student career and needs, and the government; higher education institutions facilities and staff service availability to public; and examples of good practice (best practices) e. Research, development and innovation – relevance to industry needs, collaborations between higher education and the industry, funding issues, type of decision making for grant allocation, quality assurance in research, technology used in higher education, mechanisms to encourage technology advancement, and links between research and technology advancement Othersf. Structure of Higher Education Structure of higher education on the following factors: Governance. – type, regulation, stakeholder guidance, academic self governance, managerial self governance, transparency, and education curriculum Funding/financingb. – extent of autonomy, source of funding, budgeting system, competition for grant allocation, governing body and transparency Privatisationc. – maturity of current system, current policy, reforms in policy and efforts to progress ● ● ● ● Does the higher education ministry have the scope to take financial initiatives? How much genuine scope for initiative do institutions have (e.g. can they start new programmes)? This will be an indication of the structural flexibility of the higher education system. How are the executive leaders (i.e., the Vice-Chancellor, Deputy Vice-Chancellor, senior management) selected and prepared? What is the structure of the governing body (how is membership gained)? 1412 15 CHE 0 0 Preli m.ind d 1 8 3 Cont. Table 2 Content Teachingd. -learning – culture, teacher-student issues, teacher-student ratio, learning facilities, details and figures of academic and non-academic staff, and the open and distance learning aspect Others. *After describing each factor, explain the needed changes and rationale for the said changes (analysis section). Key Questions ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 16/12/2014 10:32 AM 4 Internationalisation a. Provision for international students (country’s strategy in attracting international students – rationale, resources and support structures) b. Qualification and recognition (student mobility, credit transfer and accreditation) Teaching. ‑learning (curriculum innovation and staff development) ● ● ● ● What is the scope/nature for executive planning and strategy making at the institutional level (e.g. performance indicators, top-down, bottom-up, participatory and dissemination of information)? To what extent does the government provide direct higher education? To what extent is higher education provided through the public and private sector? To what extent does the student survey instrument influence university or national direction and policy? How are learning outcomes or graduate attributes articulated and differentiated in the higher education system? To what extent does the government take responsibility for the provision of lifelong learning? To what extent do higher education institutions (public, private and foreign providers) tackle the tensions between corporate social responsibility and providing quality higher education? Who controls the international relations of institutions? Are institutions under genuine pressure to become “world class”, and how this pressure is articulated (directly or via government)? What initiatives are being taken to improve quality human capital development? How successful are harmonisation activities (efforts at integrating with other higher education systems) to date? 1412 15 CHE 0 0 Preli m.ind d 1 9 Chapter Cont. Table 2 Chapter 5 Content Conclusion Summary. – discussion on strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT analysis) – impact on community and national development, competitiveness and sustainability Recommendationsb. Key Questions ● ● ● ● Is the higher education system open to healthy competition? What existing tensions hinder future progress? Who do we want to benchmark our systems against? Why? What is the best platform to stage future harmonisation strategies/initiatives? *Notes (important points regarding the framework) 16/12/2014 10:32 AM 1. 2. 3. 4. Definition of higher education refers to university education; Answers to key questions must include trends (statistics/figures/tables) and definition of terms; Statistics and data, whenever possible, may be presented in five or ten year periods (whichever is available based on country data); Significance of data and information used must be stipulated in the report; and role of the government (within the country’s political system) is deemed to be the determining influence in this study. 1412 15 CHE 0 0 Preli m.ind d 2 0 Points to take note regarding the above matrix and in preparation of the country report: Introduction Methodology Stage 1 ● The method through which this research project was envisioned and developed was through implementing regular project meetings with research team members in Penang to discuss the scope of the project in conceptualising a framework of comparative analysis of the selected higher education systems, develop a communication plan and identify/invite proposed authors/ research team members to write commissioned chapters. ● Such an approach is common in research projects involving academics, researchers and policy makers from the selected countries (Malaysia, Australia, Thailand and Vietnam). An initial meeting with research team members and partner associates from the selected countries helped to determine the direction of the research project and develop a focused perspective on the aims of the comparative study and its significance to the Asian region. Nevertheless, the idea of having project meetings and workshop sessions with team members and commissioned chapter writers was preceded by email communication which entailed discussions focusing on awareness and knowledge of the current perspectives on comparing higher education systems globally with a view towards generating meaningful issues and policy recommendations. Such focused project meetings did not only provide diverse ideas from member countries but also encouraged active engagement with current issues plaguing higher education systems in these selected countries, in that specific activities involved fact finding and brainstorming. ● Stage 2 The research team members and/or commissioned authors met in Penang to discuss the draft chapters in the country reports that were presented, gave feedback on the chapters and suggested timelines for further revisions/improvements. Stage 3 ● ● ● Research team members and/or commissioned authors met in another workshop to discuss submissions by commissioned chapter contributors/authors. The project team members discussed similarities and differences of selected higher education systems and synthesised findings in the preparation of the draft report. Following this, the Malaysian research team members met several times to discuss formatting of the final report, gave feedback on the content of each country report in terms of the scope of analysis, discussed policy recommendations proposed by team members and suggested deadlines for further revisions/improvements and final submission of report. This draft was then finalised, sent to be printed and disseminated to relevant organisations and institutions. xxi 141215 CHE 00 Prelim.indd 21 16/12/2014 10:32 AM Introduction Figure 1 illustrates the methodological approach that was employed in this study. Identifying and extending invitations to commissioned authors Workshop 1 Meeting with research team members in Penang Preparing templates for Scope of Comparative Study Key Activities • Intensive discussion of comparative higher education systems in Malaysia, Australia, Thailand and Vietnam • • Discussion of Methodology and Study Scope Fact finding and brainstorming Presenting findings at Workshops, Seminars and Conferences on Higher Education Final Report Workshop 2 Comparing data on Higher Education similarities and differences Draft Report Data analysis using Framework of Analysis Progress Report Figure 1: Methodological Approach of the Study The Research Team The research team comprised the Head of the Project (Associate Professor Dr. Sarjit Kaur, IPPTN & USM) and the Co-head (Associate Professor Dr. Shukran Abdul Rahman, IPPTN & IIUM) and the following team members: ● ● ● ● ● ● Professor Morshidi Sirat, Former Director, National Higher Education Research Institute, IPPTN (Project Coordinator). Professor Simon Marginson, Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne, Australia (Project Consultant). Ms Robyn Phillips, Director, Faculty of International Support Unit, University of Wollongong NSW, Australia (Country Coordinator). Professor Dr. Peter Kell, Charles Darwin University, Australia Dr. Ho Thanh My Phuong, Deputy Director, SEAMEO Regional Training Centre, Vietnam (Country Coordinator). Dr. Chantavit Sujatanond, Special Advisor, SEAMEO-RIHED Bangkok, Thailand (Country Coordinator). xxii 141215 CHE 00 Prelim.indd 22 16/12/2014 10:32 AM Introduction ● ● ● ● Dr. Maskanah Mohammad Lotfie, Assistant Professor, Department of English Language and Literature, International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM). Dr. Hafiz Zakariya, Associate Professor, Department of History and Civilisation, International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM) & IPPTN. Professor Dr. Koo Yew Lie, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) and Associate Research Fellow, IPPTN. Ms. Saidatul Natrah Mohd Ibrahim, Research Officer, IPPTN. Outcomes and Deliverables The study aimed to produce the following outcomes and deliverables: ● ● ● improved knowledge sharing between four higher education systems in Asia (Thailand, Vietnam, Australia and Malaysia). articulation of relevant policies and action plans to further strenghten the higher education system in Malaysia. Publication of findings on comparative higher education (research monograph, edited book and journal articles). References Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L. and Rumbley, L. E. 2009. Trends in Global Higher Education: Tracking an Academic Revolution. Report prepared for the UNESCO 2009 World Conference on Higher Education. Paris: UNESCO. Kaur, S., Morshidi Sirat and Tierney, W.G. 2010. Quality Assurance and University Rankings in Higher Education in the Asia Pacific: Challenges for Universities and Nations. Penang: USM Press and IPPTN. Marginson, S., 2010. The Global Knowledge Economy and the Culture of Comparison in Higher Education. In S. Kaur, Morshidi Sirat & W.G. Tierney (Eds.), Quality Assurance and University Rankings in Higher Education in the Asia Pacific: Challenges for Universities and Nations, (pp. 23–55). Penang: USM Press & IPPTN. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2008c. Tertiary Education for the Knowledge Society: OECD Thematic Review of Tertiary Education. Paris: OECD. United Nations Development Program (UNDP). 2007. Human Development Indicators 2007/2008. New York: UNDP. Varghese, N.V. 2007. Institutional Restructuring in Higher Education in Asia: Trends and Patterns. Paris: UNESCO. Welch, A. 2010. Measuring up? The Competitive Position of South East Asian Higher Education. In S. Kaur, Morshidi Sirat and W.G. Tierney (Eds.), Quality Assurance and University Rankings in Higher Education in the Asia Pacific: Challenges for Universities and Nations, (pp. 147–170). Penang: USM Press & IPPTN. xxiii 141215 CHE 00 Prelim.indd 23 16/12/2014 10:32 AM 141215 CHE 00 Prelim.indd 24 16/12/2014 10:32 AM View publication stats