Copy but Not Paste

Abstract

Crossborder curriculum partnerships, entailing the transposition of an entire curriculum and the related degree(s) from “home” to “host” institution, are a rather new phenomenon in internationalization in education. The literature describes successful and unsuccessful partnerships, but critical factors for the success or failure of sustainable partnerships remain to be identified. We conducted a narrative literature review to find such factors. Using an iterative approach, we analyzed 39 articles retrieved from Web of Science, Google Scholar, ERIC, PubMed, and PsycInfo and meeting the inclusion criteria. We developed a framework of 13 factors in four domains: students, teachers, curriculum, and soft and hard project management. Simply copy-pasting a curriculum is generally considered to be destined for failure. To overcome challenges, partners should take preventive and affirmative measures across multiple domains. The findings may provide guidance to those considering or engaged in designing, developing, managing, and reviewing a crossborder partnership.

Keywords

crossborder education transnational education offshore education international education curriculum development narrative review

Implementing and delivering a curriculum outside its country of origin is an internationalization strategy that is gaining increasing popularity among higher education institutions. In the 1980s, internationalization consisted mainly of students, followed by faculty, crossing borders in search of high-quality educational experiences. In the next internationalization wave in the late 1990s, it was not only students and faculty but also courses, materials, and even complete curricula that moved across borders (Lane, 2011), and this trend is continuing today driven by the steep rise in global demand for high-quality education. Bohm, Davis, Meares, and Pearce (2002) predict a fourfold increase in the number of students pursuing an international higher education degree from 1.8 million students in 2000 to 7.2 million in 2025. Some of these students will be international (exchange) students, taking courses in Western countries, but a significant proportion will prefer to remain in their home country. This offers an opportunity for established academic institutions to expand and internationalize their curricula, which is especially attractive in times of dwindling government funding (Altbach & Knight, 2007) and explains why, recently, many institutions have taken the step of exporting their curriculum (Naidoo, 2009).

Delivery of a curriculum outside national borders has different shapes. In literature, concepts and definitions are not used uniformly, similar meaning is given to different terms such as “offshore education,” “borderless education,” “transnational education,” and “crossborder education” and different meaning to similar terms (Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development [OECD], 2004, 2005; OECD & International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, 2007; UNESCO & Council of Europe, 2001; van der Wende, 2003). We will follow the definition by Knight (2006a) and use the term “crossborder,” which emphasizes the crossing of national jurisdictional borders by teachers, students, curricula, institutions and/or course materials, we extended this term to crossborder curriculum partnership (CCP) to highlight our focus on partnerships set up to transpose the curriculum of the “home” institution to the “host” institution (located in different countries).

CCPs can be established through formal delivery agreements or by establishing a branch of the home institution in the host country (Knight, 2006a; Miller-Idriss & Hanauer, 2011; Verbik, Rumbley, & Altbach, 2006). The terms host and home institution reflect the different relationships of the partner institutions to the curriculum: The curriculum of the home institution is in some way transposed to the host institution (Coleman, 2003). CCPs may differ in legal aspects and the division of responsibilities between partners, but they generally share the following elements: (a) the host institution is largely responsible for the recruitment of (often local) students and staff, (b) while the home institution provides the educational program, and (c) is responsible for quality assurance. The overall objective of CCPs is to provide the same educational experience to students in both institutions and in most cases to confer a similar degree on completion of the curriculum.

CCPs can be an attractive option for students who are looking for a foreign qualification but—for cultural, financial, or other reasons—prefer to stay in their country of residence. Host countries benefit from CCPs because they contribute to the internationalization and modernization of the higher education sector, facilitate education and training of a skilled workforce, retain students and enhance a country’s geopolitical status. The benefits to home institutions include financial gains, enhancement of institutional profile, expansion of the student base, and enhanced opportunities for student and staff mobility, development of new curricula, research and development, and strategic network building (McBurnie & Pollock, 2000; Wilkins & Huisman, 2012). Student exchange between institutions also offers opportunities to develop student’s intercultural competences and skills. Transposing a curriculum in its entirety to a context for which it was not designed and where it is to be delivered by staff that was not involved in its construction is a delicate process, to say the least. Students and faculty of the host institution are inevitably less familiar with the curriculum and the educational approach than their counterparts at the home institution, and this complicates the implementation and delivery of the curriculum. Lane, Brown, and Pearcey (2004, p. 59) call for “institutional research to aid institutional decision makers in understanding the important factors associated with operating a postsecondary campus in an environment outside the country of institutional origin.” To contribute to this research, we conducted a literature review to identify factors that appear to play a crucial role in the success and failure of sustainable CCPs.

Method

We conducted a structured narrative review of the literature, assuming that this would enable us to generate a comprehensive inventory of factors impacting the sustainability of CCPs. Using the search terms “transnational education,” “cross(-)border education,” “offshore education,” and “borderless education,” we searched all publications in Web of Science, Google Scholar, ERIC, PubMed, and PsycInfo published before January 2013. In PubMed and PsycInfo, we searched “any field”; in ERIC and Web of Science, we searched titles, abstracts, and key terms; and in Google Scholar, we searched titles. The searches were limited to publications in English and Dutch. To identify any studies not turned up by the initial search, we searched the references of the articles retrieved by the initial search. Using a convergent search strategy, we initially included all types of publications on CCPs in any discipline and any geographical location, and then gradually narrowed the search to journal articles on factors contributing to success and failure of sustainable CCPs in which it is the stated intention of both partners to deliver the same educational experience and educational outcomes to students at the host and home institution. In the final review, we included only articles published in peer-reviewed journals dealing with crossborder delivery of full curricula, which meant exclusion of articles addressing capacity development partnerships, joint degree partnerships, and government policy to promote or regulate CCP at a national level.

Concurrently with Rounds 1 and 2 (Figure 1), we conducted an iterative process aimed at identifying factors with relevance to success or failure of CCPs. Based on the articles that were read 13 factors were identified and grouped into four domains. Agreement on the factors and domains was reached by all the authors through discussion. The 13 factors were used to code sections of the articles that contained descriptions of one or more factors and/or suggestions for remedial steps to counteract negative effects. This process is summarized in the data abstraction form in the appendix, which lists the articles with research methods, geographical context, discipline, and main factors for success or failure.

Figure 1.

Review process.

Results

Search Results

Of the 751 publications resulting from the initial search, 681 did not meet the criteria, and the 70 remaining articles were reduced to 39 in the second round (Figure 1).

All studies used a qualitative approach but methods varied: document analysis, interviews, questionnaires, focus groups, literature reviews, and observations (see appendix).

From the analysis of the coding, we derived a framework of four domains encompassing the main factors for success and failure of sustainable CCPs (Figure 2). The first three domains relate to differences between host and home institution, which potentially impact curriculum implementation and delivery. These three domains are context sensitive, that is, their applicability differs across partnerships. The fourth domain is concerned with soft and hard project management (Crawford & Pollack, 2004) and relates to factors that must be managed properly for CCPs to be successful.

Figure 2.

Framework of factors influencing the success and failure of crossborder curriculum partnerships.

The essential factors for CCP were clustered into meaningful domains to structure the framework, but it should be noted that all factors and domains are strongly interconnected. As the scope of this article does not permit in-depth discussion of each factor, we provide references to relevant studies. We discuss the domains and the factors within them in the order in which they are presented in Figure 2. In addition, we present measures to avoid pitfalls and enhance the success of CCPs proposed in the articles reviewed.

Domain of the student

The student domain contains three factors that challenge the success of CCPs. Factor 1a (Figure 2) relates to differences between home and host institution with regard to students’ learning behaviors, which may interfere with the objective of comparable study experiences for all students. Briguglio (2000); Castle and Kelly (2004); Gregory and Wohlmuth (2002); Heffernan, Morrison, Basu, and Sweeney (2010); and Wilson (2002) report that the student-centered educational approach that is characteristic of many export curricula can be difficult to cope with for students of the host institution, due to the predominantly “spoon-fed” approach in secondary education. Chapman and Pyvis (2006) report that teachers at the home and host institution observed a “subtle cultural variation in [students’] style of learning and thinking” (p. 299), which became manifest in certain situations, for example, when students were expected to show active, self-directed study behavior. In a study on nursing programs, Wilson ascribes differences in classroom dynamics not to differences in learning behavior but to different feelings about prestige and hierarchical relationships within student groups. For example, students were less likely to participate in classroom discussions if they perceived a risk of losing face (Wilson, 2002). Pimpa’s (2009) study on a partnership between an Australian and a Thai institution makes a similar point and additionally emphasizes differences in communication patterns, motivation, and attitudes toward work.

Measures to address differences in learning behaviors are reported by Ziguras (2001) and Eldridge and Cranston (2009), who found that students, regardless of their prior learning behavior, were able to adapt to a different learning approach, especially if during the initial transition phase supportive measures were in place, such as study skill workshops, adaptation of learning tasks to the local context and interactive, supportive e-learning tools. A review on learning styles in CCP contexts by Eaves (2011) confirms these findings reporting tentative evidence for culture-specific learning styles, which appear to be adaptable between educational contexts.

Factor 1b (Figure 2) relates to different admission requirements, which can jeopardize the attainment of similar outcomes in both institutions. Assuring equivalence of entry levels is no sinecure, however, considering the likelihood of differences in secondary education systems between home and host country (Gregory & Wohlmuth, 2002). Moreover, in a comparative case study by Dunworth (2008), some interviewees talked about a tendency among host institution recruitment officers to give priority to admitting high numbers of students, yielding high income from tuition fees, over strict adherence to home institution entry criteria. The study reports tension between enrollment figures and educational standards.

Lane (2011) mentions that differences between entry levels could be overcome by introducing an (obligatory) preparatory year to bridge the gap between host country secondary education and home institution entry criteria. Castle and Kelly (2004) suggest that in the early years of the partnership, admission to the host institution might (partly) be managed by the home institution to institutionalize admission procedures that ensure equivalent entry levels. After some time, these procedures and the entry criteria should be evaluated and, if needed, adapted to meet the partnership objectives.

Factor 1c (Figure 2) concerns the risk of language differences between the partner institutions interfering with the equivalence of learning experiences and outcomes. As English is the first language of many home countries but a second language for students in the host institution, language problems can complicate learning. Similarly, for teaching staff at the host institution, English is often the second or third language (Dobos, 2011). Gregory and Wohlmuth (2002) report that adequate proficiency of English for daily usage did not automatically imply competence to use English academically, and Briguglio (2000) states that difficulties adapting to an unfamiliar learning methodology, which are frequently reported by students at host institutions, may have more to do with English proficiency than with learning and teaching styles.

A remedial approach proposed by Lane et al. (2004) and Gregory and Wohlmuth (2002) is to improve English language support by establishing language centers, providing tailor-made courses, actively encouraging students to enroll in various programs and targeting all cohorts instead of first-year students only. Briguglio (2000) takes this approach a step further by recommending that teaching staff should take on the double role of subject and language teacher.

Domain of the teacher

The two factors in the domain of the teacher relate to curriculum delivery and implementation challenges due to the requirement to provide similar learning experiences and outcomes to students at both institutions. Factor 2a is concerned with the need for teachers at the partner institutions to possess comparable content knowledge and didactic skills relevant to the delivery of the curriculum in question (McBurnie & Ziguras, 2007). Not surprisingly, this is a difficult requirement to meet as recruitment of host institution teachers is usually the province of the host institution. Coleman (2003) notes that most teachers at the host institution lack the required knowledge and experience to competently present the content and apply the methodology of the new curriculum, and bringing teachers up to par is an essential factor for the success of CCPs. A similar view is presented by Ziguras (2001): “Teachers’ reluctance to relinquish control of their teaching was seen as a major impediment to the introduction of new leaning approaches from the Australian home institution” (p. 15).

Studies by Heffernan and Poole (2005), Lim (2010), Shams and Huisman (2012), and L. Smith (2009) emphasize the importance of a sound faculty development induction program to minimize differences in didactic skills and content knowledge. Dobos (2011) recommends extra support and peer-to-peer mentoring to help faculty transition from their original teaching philosophy to the one required for the new curriculum. To strengthen host teachers’ competence, Shams and Huisman propose frequent visits from staff of the home institution to teach at the host institution and act as a role model for local staff. A more radical solution proposed by Dunworth (2008) and Dobos is that, if feasible, the home institution should recruit at least part of the host institution’s teaching staff to safeguard quality and at the same time educate the host institution’s recruitment officers in selecting suitable staff members.

Factor 2b (Figure 2) relates to difference between staff members’ feelings of ownership of the programme. In a study of host teachers’ experiences of a CCP, Dobos (2011) cites teachers’ perceptions, such as “just follow the syllabus” and “we are just here to follow the home institution.” Similar moods are reported in a study by L. Smith (2009). Such feelings are to be expected when the need for the host institution to create new materials is limited because the program is adopted from the home institution.

Domain of the curriculum

The focus of the curriculum-related domain is educational materials. Factor 3a (Figure 2) relates to adaptation of educational materials due to contextual differences. Although materials should be similar, some degree of adaptation to the local context may be inevitable and even desirable (Bolton & Nie, 2010; Dobos, 2011; Gregory & Wohlmuth, 2002; McBurnie, 2000; Vinen & Selvarajah, 2008). McBurnie (2000) observes that in most host countries, education serves not only an educational but also a nation-building goal, which is reflected in courses on national values and ethics. In most CCPs, the nation-building curricular component is represented by flanked courses and activities as add-ons to the curriculum of the home institution. In addition, legal and ethical elements of the home curriculum that are not relevant to the host country should be replaced by elements fitting the local context (Bolton & Nie, 2010). The same holds for certain cases, assignments, and recommended readings that are specifically oriented to (professional) practice in the home country (Gregory & Wohlmuth, 2002).

Factor 3b (Figure 2) relates to assessment. If host and home institution aim to provide students with similar learning experiences leading to similar degrees, it is crucial to ensure comparability of assessment programs (Coleman, 2003). Eldridge and Cranston (2009) and Miliszewska and Sztendur (2011) testify that assessment is an obstacle to sustained crossborder partnerships, especially when host institution teachers have to use unfamiliar assessment instruments and grading and standard setting procedures. To address this problem, the host institution can be made responsible for assessment (Castle & Kelly, 2004; Miliszewska & Sztendur, 2011). Partner institutions should aim for a delicate balance between comparable assessment rules and procedures on one hand and small adaptations, on the other, to ensure acceptance and fit within the host context (Shams & Huisman, 2012).

Factor 3c (Figure 2) relates to learning resources and student support systems. Coleman (2003), Stella (2006), Castle and Kelly (2004), and Wilson (2002) report a lack or limited availability of educational resources and student support systems, such as libraries, access to online resources and student counselors, particularly in young host institutions. Paucity of resources and support in privately funded host institutions may be related to cost considerations or host institutions placing less value on support structures compared with the home institution (Dunworth, 2008).

To address this challenge, Coleman (2003) recommends that the details of these services be described meticulously and comprehensively when the partnership contract is drafted. Gregory and Wohlmuth (2002) propose practical short-term measures, such as smart use of e-learning techniques and negotiating with publishers for online access to literature for students in the host institution (Castle & Kelly, 2004).

Factor 3d represents curriculum delivery problems due to host and home countries being located in different time zones and having different working weeks. Studies by Dunworth (2008), Lane et al. (2004), and Lim (2010) point at the importance of on-time material exchange, synchronization of assessment papers, and immediate support. A nice illustration coming from Lane (2011) are home institution IT administrators, who schedule an update in the middle of the night to minimize impact on users. However, the middle of the night in the home country maybe the middle of the day in the host country and thus cause severe disruption in services.

Domain of project management

The domain of project management is divided into soft and hard project management, with soft management relating to communication and personal relationships and teacher commitment, whereas hard management is concerned with rules, regulations, documentation, and record keeping.

Many studies have addressed communication and personal relationships (Factor 4a, Figure 2). In an investigation of 10 CCPs, Heffernan and Poole (2004, 2005) identified effective, interculturally sensitive communication as one of the critical factors. Similarly, case studies by Eldridge and Cranston (2009) and Shanahan and McParlane (2005) show that effective communication creates and boosts trust between partner institutions. Sidhu (2009), Stella (2006), and Olcott (2009) confirm this and point out that this applies at the level of teachers, project managers, and higher management. Effective communication also means using new technological tools to deal with time zone differences (Dobos, 2011).

Project managers should pay careful attention to relationships with teaching staff, because the relationship between the teachers of the partner institutions is inherently unequal (Dobos, 2011; Dunn & Wallace, 2006; Seah & Edwards, 2006; K. Smith, 2009; L. Smith, 2009). Shams and Huisman (2012) show that staff of the host institution tend to feel inferior, as illustrated by Dobos (2011), “We (the teachers of the host institution) do not feel professional equals . . . , we have a master-slave relationship, which is not good” (p. 27). Such feelings can be exacerbated by a negative attitude and behavior of home institution staff, who may consider crossborder commercial activities anathema and irreconcilable with the academic notion of free, publicly funded higher education (Coleman, 2003; Shanahan & McParlane, 2005). Differing attitudes to CCP can also be a source of conflict among staff within the home institution, and studies also report that home institution staff are not uniformly familiar, confident, or experienced to work with international colleagues and students. Dunn and Wallace (2006) conclude that many universities do not have effective programs to induct and develop academic teaching in CCPs. Chapman and Pyvis (2006), Coleman (2003), Seah and Edwards (2006), and L. Smith (2009) recommend offering faculty a preparatory course to stimulate reflection and discussion, supported by a mentoring system for experienced and novice home staff.

Measures to promote successful relationships and communication are proposed in several studies. Dunworth (2008) demonstrates the importance of an intangible click between the partners at levels of higher and project management. If such a click is present, the relationship should be cherished and revitalized by frequent visits and, if absent, Heffernan and Poole (2004) recommend replacing key personnel at an early stage. Effective behavior to create and maintain a sustainable relationship consists in “doing the little things” and acknowledging that any problem is a joint problem (Gregory & Wohlmuth, 2002). According to Heffernan and Poole, Dobos (2011), and L. Smith (2009), effective communication in CCPs can be maintained by a small, decentralized, dedicated project management group consisting of a key manager, a senior staff, and an external consultant, who meet regularly at fixed times. Castle and Kelly (2004) note that this is a good way to avoid time-consuming committee decision making, which is only detrimental to the dynamics of curriculum delivery and day-to-day management.

Factor 4b entails commitment in the home institution. Sidhu (2009), Lane (2011), Shanahan and McParlane (2005), Heffernan and Poole (2004), and Olcott (2009) show that partnerships can deteriorate when staff at the home institution do not endorse the importance of the partnership, feeling that partnership endeavors distract them from other, more important tasks, such as research. Sidhu shows how promises made at top management level, such as sending in home institution staff, proved impossible to fulfill at a later stage and eventually resulted in the termination of activities.

The third factor in this domain (Factor 4c) concerns hard project management and relates to technical aspects, such as procedures, formal agreements, and other tools, which can be considered prerequisite for successful collaboration. We labeled this factor “contract and business approach.” When contracts are not drawn up carefully and in sufficient detail, many partnerships struggle or fail entirely due to disagreements about responsibilities and key roles (McBurnie, 2000). As partnerships mature, collaboration becomes more complex and forecasts of the past may not be borne out by actual events (Vinen & Selvarajah, 2008). Examples are lower enrollment rates than expected, insufficient administrative support staff, recruitment problems, visit and flight arrangements, minute taking, visa issues, scheduling of academic calendars, and synchronization of activities (Dobos, 2011; Dunworth, 2008; Vinen & Selvarajah, 2008). Issues like these, and many others, can jeopardize the quality and sustainability of partnerships.

Davies (2001) sees the solution in meticulous attention to contract details. Other authors highlight characteristics of carefully drawn up CCP contracts: (a) they identify the key roles and responsibilities (Heffernan & Poole, 2004; McBurnie, 2000); (b) they address the interests of all the stakeholders (Bolton & Nie, 2010; Heffernan & Poole, 2004); (c) they integrate financial and educational objectives (Heffernan & Poole, 2004); and (d) they clearly state the type and issue of the degree for students of the host institution (Gregory & Wohlmuth, 2002).

Sidhu (2009) and Wilkins and Huisman (2012) attribute partnership problems also to the fact that many universities have not (yet) developed a business oriented mind-set. Lane (2011) suggests that a host institution should invest time and effort in getting acquainted with their potential partner from a legal and financial perspective and also with the context of their future operations. As goals, principles, values, and interests are important factors in making rational decisions concerning the appropriate mode and partner, these concepts should be clearly defined by both parties before entering into a partnership (Dunworth, 2008). Bolton and Nie (2010) additionally stress the importance of an overall view of the consequences of the partnership. Based on experiences of Monash University, one of the biggest providers of crossborder education from Australia with various types of delivery agreements with partners all over the world, McBurnie and Pollock (2000) emphasize the importance of scenario planning, marketing research, and mapping stakeholders’ risks and opportunities. A sound and professional risk analysis and risk management plan is advocated by Shanahan and McParlane (2005), while Vinen and Selvarajah (2008) recommend that home institutions should put into place a systematic and strategic planning process.

The major challenge to both partners, the degree granting home institution in particular, is quality assurance of the program (Factor 4d) as this is crucial to the program’s perceived academic integrity (Lane et al., 2004; McBurnie & Pollock, 2000). Coleman (2003) points out that the overall objective of quality assurance in curriculum partnerships is to generate information about the similarity of educational experiences for all students, urging that CCPs be “monitored as rigorously and comprehensively as regular home university operations” (Coleman, 2003, p. 373). Castle and Kelly (2004), Dunworth (2008), and Shams and Huisman (2012) recommend setting up a proper system of internal quality assurance modeled on the system established at the home institution and ensuring frequent and transparent evaluations. Evaluation outcomes should be discussed among partners and used to sustain a continuous cycle of quality improvement. Apart from an adequate internal quality system, Lim (2010) advocates external review of the crossborder program and strict adherence to the host country’s national accreditation requirements.

Discussion and Conclusion

CCPs are to a certain extent paradoxical arrangements, with institutions which differ hugely in various domains striving to offer students equivalent learning experiences and degrees. Based on our literature review, we developed a framework that may offer guidance on managing these differences and challenges to achieve successful partnerships. We would like to stress that almost all included articles describe partnerships in an early development stage, which is characterized by a junior–senior institutional relationship. By time, these CCPs will evolve into more balanced partnerships.

With respect to students, the framework recommends investing efforts to bring the host institution up to par with the home institution in terms of students’ learning behavior, prior knowledge, and language proficiency. Some relevant procedural measures are available around the world, such as intensive language courses, a preparatory year, and comparable admission criteria. Nevertheless, it is evident that there are no quick fixes to resolve differences in learning behaviors, particularly when cultural differences are involved. It should be noted also that there is an ongoing debate about whether it is even necessary for the host institution to aim for full conformity of learning behaviors and teaching styles with those of the home institution (Chan, 2011; Lien, 2008; Nguyen, Elliott, Terlouw, & Pilot, 2009; Pimpa, 2009; van der Wende, 2003; Wang, 2008). Regardless of the outcome of this debate, creating awareness among teachers and project leaders of differences in learning behaviors, and considering them in setting partnership objectives may well be prerequisite for successful CCPs.

Continuous support for faculty of the host institution is considered advisable to help them overcome didactic differences, and this can be achieved by a continuous, well-planned intensive faculty development program tailored to the needs of the partnership. It may be more problematic, however, to find ways to generate a feeling of ownership of the curriculum among host institution teachers, as absence of such feelings may constitute a barrier to staff commitment to the program, which in turn can negatively impact on the quality of curriculum delivery. We found no articles that proposed ways to address this issue. On one hand, one might hypothesize that it is a threat to the sustainability of the program when staff are demotivated because they have to use foreign learning materials, but on the other hand, one might hypothesize that working with foreign, Western study materials can be inspirational as it offers a completely new experience.

In most cases, learning and assessment materials must be adapted to the local professional context of the host institution. These modifications should strike a balance between acceptability within the host institution and adherence to partnership objectives. This raises the question of who should be responsible for making and implementing these adjustments. The literature on this issue does not deal with this topic in-depth and most articles do not go beyond stating that the “curriculum should be adapted” (Coleman, 2003; Heffernan et al., 2010; Shams & Huisman, 2012). An interesting solution described by Vinen and Selvarajah (2008) is establishing a course advisory committee comprised of teaching staff from both institutions and other stakeholders. The main function of this committee was to evaluate the design and preparation of all course materials and review changes in course delivery. This might be an appropriate procedure to assure a sustainable and broadly supported local adaptation of the program as well as adherence to the partnership’s objective of offering students a comparable degree.

The success of CCPs depends on managing both the partnership and differences in context between host and home institution. The literature shows that most partnerships deteriorate due to mistrust and disturbed relationships, suggesting that top priority should be given, especially within the home institution, to steering, monitoring, and watching interactions and personal collaboration at all levels. Several cases showed that the input of project managers and academic leaders was crucial, as failure or success of the partnership seemed to depend on their attitude and culturally sensitive communication competence (Heffernan & Poole, 2004, 2005; Olcott, 2009; Vinen & Selvarajah, 2008). This applies not only to interaction with the partner institution but also to interaction within the home organization to generate and boost commitment among staff.

Despite general acknowledgment that institutions need to adopt a more businesslike approach, especially when planning, negotiating, and drafting a CCP contract, most of the articles addressing this issue described that the majority of institutions still have a long way to go to achieve this, although fast gains might be made by using tools derived from the business world.

Attention to internal quality assurance is generally considered vital because the reputation of the home institution depends on it and it can help to distinguish between rogue providers of CCPs. On a national level, assuring quality should be on top of the research agenda. Currently, there is a debate in the literature about which agencies should accredit, monitor, and register crossborder programs and how this should be done (Knight, 2006b; Stella, 2006; Ziguras & McBurnie, 2011). Home country accreditation agencies do not have a formal framework for assessing CCPs, and in host countries, quality assurance frameworks are (as yet) non-existent or do not extend to foreign education providers. As a result, crossborder programs often lack a legislative quality assurance framework. To address this issue, codes of good practice have been developed to guide home institutions in how to set up and manage international collaborations in such a way as to ensure that academic standards and student experiences are not compromised (Smith, 2010). These codes address the roles and responsibilities of the degree awarding institution and the partner institution, issues of equivalence and opportunities for adaptation of curricula to meet global and local requirements. One study by McBurnie (2000) provides an informative description of a quality review process for an Australian exporter of higher education. It is interesting to note that this process assessed the host program on criteria that look for comparability, not similar outcomes (Stella, 2006). As this a not a clear-cut distinction, there is a need for good examples from case-based research to determine where the line is best drawn. A slightly different point of view is advocated by Pyvis (2011), who stresses that frameworks or codes should not be applied too rigidly, claiming that the relative quality of foreign programs should be judged by comparing them with other programs in the host country (rather than by comparing programs offered by the home institution through the host institution and at home).

Research on the effectiveness of CCPs deals with an educational context that is not homogeneous, but involves different types of educational providers, students, and partner institutions across many countries as well as a variety of program delivery models. In addition, the educational context is constantly evolving due to the emergence of new technologies leading to the introduction of new ways of teaching and learning (Miliszewska & Sztendur, 2011). Currently, CCPs are predominantly set up between conventional Australian, British, and U.S. home institutions and Asian Pacific, Middle Eastern, Eastern European, and Southern American host institutions (Fang, 2012; Knight, 2008; Lawton & Katsomitros, 2012; Wildavsky, 2010). This is reflected in the fact that of the 39 articles we reviewed 34 report studies of partnerships with at least one Australian home institution. However, the Observatory for Borderless Education reports that new trends such as South–South partnerships and intra-regional CCPs are emerging (Lawton & Katsomitros, 2012), indicating that the future landscape of CCPs will show more variation. In addition, the disappearance of traditional political, economic, and geographical boundaries makes way for multi-campus university models, such as New York University (Wildavsky, 2010), in which there is no distinction between home or host institutions but rather a network of global center for research and education. Future research might focus on how these new models can take shape. Also, to create a comprehensive and culturally sensitive picture of the CCP phenomenon, we recommend that case studies be conducted of CCPs that do not have a home institution of Australian origin. Moreover, the Australian predominance means that the findings of the present study may not generalize to other contexts.

Furthermore, the findings suggest that there is a need for further research into the management and practical implementation of CCPs, especially in terms of their cross-cultural context. Issues that seem to be of particular importance in this respect are as follows: How to create teams of host and home teachers? How to deal with validity concerns when comparing similar assessments across cultures and languages? How to promote a sense of ownership among host institution staff? How to manage the acceptance of and competencies for a more student-centered approach among staff and students of host institutions? We would also recommend further research to explore the student perspective, because students’ input may be valuable in improving the delivery of crossborder curricula (Chapman & Pyvis, 2006; Miliszewska & Sztendur, 2011). Although over time CCPs are expected to evolve to a more balanced participation of both institutions, at present most CCPs are characterized by a dominant flow of information, expertise, and materials from the home to the host institution, with an inherent danger of neglecting or even ignoring the contextual factors. The overall conclusion of our study is that a blunt copying of curricula does not seem a wise nor feasible strategy. Although the curriculum aims to deliver a comparable educational quality to home and host students, its “copy” in the host institution needs thorough adaptation and a culturally sensitive implementation strategy before it can be adopted by the host institution and adopted in a different environment.

Footnotes

Appendix

Data Abstraction Form

No.	Source	Study design; population; participation rate	Home institution; host institution	Setting	Factors
1	Bolton and Nie (2010)	Essay	Australian home institution; Chinese host institution	Business and Management	4C
2	Briguglio (2000)	Case study, interview; 1 program; 18 with students and 23 with teachers	Australian home institution; in-campus students and offshore branches	Various	1A, 1B, 1C, 4C
3	Castle and Kelly (2004)	Case study, descriptive; 1 program	Australian home institutions; mainly Southeast Asian host institutions	Various	1B, 2A, 3B, 3C, 4D
4	Chapman and Pyvis (2006)	Case study, descriptive; 2 programs; 26 students	Australian home institution; Hong Kong host institution; Singapore host institution	Master degree	1A
5	Coleman (2003)	Case study, interviews among all levels home and host institution staff; 2 programs; 72 with students and 16 with staff	Australian home institutions; Indonesian and Malaysian host institution	Various	1A, 1C, 2A, 3B, 3C, 4A, 4C, 4D
6	Davies (2001)	Essay	Home institution perspective	Various	4C, 4C
7	Dobos (2011)	Case study, interviews; 1 program; 10 with host institution staff	Australian home institution; Malaysian host institution		2B, 3A, 3B 4A, 4C, 4D
8	Dunn and Wallace (2006)	Literature review of Australian articles addressing home institution teacher experiences and a survey among;9 Australian programs;61 academics teachers;	Australian home institutions; mainly Southeast Asian host institutions	Various	3A, 4C
9	Dunworth (2008)	Case study contrasting, interviews and desk research;3 programs;14 with stakeholders	Australian home institution; Indonesia and Mauritius	English language programs	1B, 1C, 2A, 2B, 3B, 4A, 4C
10	Eaves (2011)	Review on relationship between learning styles and crossborder education	Not applicable	Not applicable	1A
11	Eldridge and Cranston (2009)	Case study, interviews;12 programs;6 with home institution managers, 5 with host institution managers	Australian home institutions; Thais host institutions	Various	1A, 3B
12	Farrugia and Lane (2013)	Desk research on 45 mission statements on 165 branch campuses	Mainly United States and Australian; Various South East Asian host institutions	Various	3A
13	Feast and Bretag (2005)	Case study, focus groups;1 program;managers teachers	Australian home institution; South East Asian host institution	Undergraduate business courses	2B, 3B
14	Gregory and Wohlmuth (2002)	Case study, descriptive;1 program	U.S. institutions/South America	Library services	1A, 1B, 1C, 3A
15	Heffernan, Morrison, Basu, and Sweeney (2010)	Case study, questionnaire;1 program;181 home institution students and 251 host institution students	Australian home institution; Chinese host institution	Business program	1A
16	Heffernan and Poole (2004)	Literature review and case study, interviews;10 programs;38 with home program managers and 20 with host institution managers	Australian home institution; institution South East Asia	Various	4A, 4B, 4C
17	Heffernan and Poole (2005)	Literature review and case study, interviews;10 programs;38 with home program managers and 20 with host institution managers	Australian home institution; institution South-East Asia	Various	4A, 4B, 4C, 4D
18	Lane (2011)	Essay, descriptive based on data set on international Branch campuses from C-Bert	Australian home institution; Malaysian and Singapore	International branch campus	1A, 1B, 3A, 3C, 3D, 4A, 4B, 4D
19	Lane, Brown, and Pearcey (2004)	Essay. American perspective	Not applicable	Iinternational branch campus	4D
20	Lim (2010)	Case study, interviews;4 programs;25 with host institution managers and teachers	Australian home institution; Malaysian and Singapore host institution	Various	3B, 3D, 4D
21	McBurnie (2000)	Case study, descriptive	Australian home institution; Malaysia, Hong Kong, and Singapore host institution	Various	3A, 3C, 3D, 4A, 4D
22	McBurnie and Pollock (2000)	Case study;various programs;1 institution	Australian home institution; Asian South African host institutions	Various	4C, 4D
23	Miliszewska and Sztendur (2011)	Case study, questionnaire;8 programs;500 host institution students	Australian home institution; Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, and Vietnamese host institutions	Bachelor computer science	2A, 3A, 3B, 3C
24	Miliszewska and Sztendur (2012)	Case study, questionnaire;8 programs;500 host institution students	Australian home institution; Hong Kong, Malaysian, Singapore, and Vietnamese host institutions	Bachelor computer science	2A, 3B, 3C
25	Olcott (2009)	Essay	Home institution perspective	Not applicable	4B, 4C
26	Pimpa (2009)	Case study, focus groups and interviews;3 programs;2 focus groups with 26 students and 3 with host institution managers and 3 home teachers and 3 host institution teachers	Australian home institution; Thais host institution	MBA	1A, 1C, 3A
27	Pyvis (2011)	Case study, interviews with (higher) managers, and teachers at both institutions;1 program	Australian home institution; Chinese host institution	Bachelor of Business Administration	4D
28	Seah and Edwards (2006)	Case study, interviews;3 programs;10 with home institution teachers	Australian home institutions; mainly Southeast Asian host institutions	Various	4C
29	Shams and Huisman (2012)	Essay, literature review;home institution perspective	Global	Various	2A, 3A, 4C, 4D
30	Shanahan and McParlane (2005)	Case study;multiple programs	Australian home institution; Hong Kong host institution	Faculty of Education Health and Professional Studies	4A, 4B, 4C
31	Sidhu (2009)	Case study on two failed partnerships by interviews, document analysis, media reports from host and home perspective	Australian and U.S. home institution; Singapore host institution	Biomedical research and training of medical doctorates	4A, 4B, 4C
32	K. Smith (2009)	Literature review on faculty development and personal experience	Global	Various	4C
33	Smith (2010)	Desk research, textually orientated discourse analysis	American, U.K., and Australian home institution	Not applicable	3A, 3C
34	L. Smith (2009)	Case study, interviews;1 program;12 with host institution staff	Australian home institution; United Arabic Emirates		2A, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4C
35	Stella (2006)	Essay	Not applicable	Not applicable	3C, 4D
36	Vinen and Selvarajah (2008)	Case study, mixed methods;1 program;students and staff	Australian home institution; Vietnamese host institution	Master International Accounting	2A, 3A, 4C, 4D
37	Wilkins and Huisman (2012)	Literature review	Global	Various	4C
38	Wilson (2002)	Case study;5 programs	Australian home institution; Southeast Asian host institutions	Nursing	1A, 1C, 3A, 3C, 4A, 4C, 4D
39	Ziguras (2001)	Case study, policy review and interviews;5 programs;9 with host institution teachers and administrators	Australian home institution; Singapore, Malaysia, and Vietnamese host institution	Various	1A, 2A, 3A

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Dominique G. J. Waterval is a PhD candidate at School of Health Professional Education, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, the Netherlands. He earned master’s degrees in economics (2002) and medical education (2012), both from Maastricht University. He is managing a medical curriculum partnership and his interests include crossborder implementation of student-centered programs, globalization of higher education, curriculum implementation, and governance.

Janneke M. Frambach is a PhD candidate at the School of Health Professions Education, Maastricht University. She owns a master’s in arts and sciences and a master’s in management degree. Her interests are cultural diversity and globalization in higher (medical) education, and the cross-cultural implementation of curricula.

Erik W. Driessen is an associate professor in medical education for the Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University. He is interested in evaluation and assessment. Especially topics like learning and assessment in the workplace, mentoring, and the use of portfolios for learning and assessment have his interest. Moreover, he is interested in education across different cultures. He publishes on these topics in different journals and books.

Albert J. J. A. Scherpbier is the dean of the Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University. He is a professor in quality improvement in medical education. His key interests in medical education are quality assurance, and professionalization of medical education. He is supervising a curriculum franchise partnership in the field of medical education.

References

Altbach

P. G.

Knight

(2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11, 290-305.

Bohm

Davis

Meares

Pearce

(2002). Global student mobility 2025: Forecasts of the global demand for higher education. Paper presented at the 16th Australian International Education Conference (30th Sept. – 4th Oct.), Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, September 2002.

Bolton

Nie

(2010). Creating value in transnational higher education: The role of stakeholder management. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9, 701-714.

Briguglio

(2000). Language and cultural issues for English-as-a-second/Foreign language students in transnational educational settings. Higher Education in Europe, 25, 425-434.

Castle

Kelly

(2004). International education: Quality assurance and standards in offshore teaching: Exemplars and problems. Quality in Higher Education, 10, 51-57.

Chan

B. T.-Y.

(2011). Postgraduate transnational education in nonbusiness subjects: Can it fit conceptualizations of curriculum internationalization? Journal of Studies in International Education, 15, 279-298.

Chapman

Pyvis

(2006). Dilemmas in the formation of student identity in offshore higher education: A case study in Hong Kong. Educational Review, 58, 291-302.

Coleman

(2003). Quality assurance in transnational education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7, 354-378.

Crawford

Pollack

(2004). Hard and soft projects: A framework for analysis. International Journal of Project Management, 22, 645-653.

10.

Davies

J. L.

(2001). A revolution in teaching and learning in higher education: The challenges and implications for the relatively traditional university. Higher Education in Europe, 26, 501-514.

11.

Dobos

(2011). “Serving two masters”—Academics’ perspectives on working at an offshore campus in Malaysia. Educational Review, 63, 19-35.

12.

Dunn

Wallace

(2006). Australian academics and transnational teaching: An exploratory study of their preparedness and experiences. Higher Education Research & Development, 25, 357-369.

13.

Dunworth

(2008). Ideas and realities: Investigating good practice in the management of transnational English language programmes for the higher education sector. Quality in Higher Education, 14, 95-107.

14.

Eaves

(2011). The relevance of learning styles for international pedagogy in higher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 17, 677-691.

15.

Eldridge

Cranston

(2009). Managing transnational education: Does national culture really matter? Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 31, 67-79.

16.

Fang

(2012). The development of transnational higher education in China: A comparative study of research universities and teaching universities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 16, 5-23.

17.

Farrugia

C. A.

Lane

J. E.

(2013). Legitimacy in cross-border higher education: Identifying stakeholders of international branch campuses. Journal of Studies in International Education, 17(4), 414-432.

18.

Feast

Bretag

(2005). Responding to crises in transnational education: New challenges for higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 24, 63-78.

19.

Gregory

V. L.

Wohlmuth

S. R.

(2002). Planning for the internationalization of a postgraduate professional degree programme in library and information science. Higher Education in Europe, 27, 261-268.

20.

Heffernan

Morrison

Basu

Sweeney

(2010). Cultural differences, learning styles and transnational education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 32, 27-39.

21.

Heffernan

Poole

(2004). “Catch me I’m falling”: Key factors in the deterioration of offshore education partnerships. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 26, 75-90.

22.

Heffernan

Poole

(2005). In search of “The Vibe”: Creating effective international education partnerships. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning, 50, 223-245.

23.

Knight

(2006a). Cross-border education: Conceptual confusion and data deficits. Perspectives in Education, 24, 15-27.

24.

Knight

(2006b). Cross-border higher education: Issues and implications for quality assurance and accreditation. In Higher Education in the world 2007 - Accreditation for Quality Assurance - What is at stake? (pp. 134-146). Global University Network for Innovation (ed), Palgrave, London.

25.

Knight

(2008). Higher education in turmoil (Vol. 13). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Sense.

26.

Lane

J. E.

(2011). Global expansion of international branch campuses: Managerial and leadership challenges. New Directions for Higher Education, 2011(155), 5-17.

27.

Lane

J. E.

Brown

M. C.

II Pearcey

M. A.

(2004). Transnational campuses: Obstacles and opportunities for institutional research in the global education market. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2004(124), 49-62.

28.

Lawton

Katsomitros

(2012). International branch campuses: Data and developments. London: The observatory on borderless higher education. Retrieved from http://jsi.sagepub.com/content/17/4/414.refs?patientinform-links=yes&legid=spjsi;17/4/414

29.

Lien

(2008). Economic analysis of transnational education. Education Economics, 16, 149-166.

30.

Lim

F. C. B.

(2010). Do too many rights make a wrong? A qualitative study of the experiences of a sample of Malaysian and Singapore private higher education providers in transnational quality assurance. Quality in Higher Education, 16, 211-222.

31.

McBurnie

(2000). Quality matters in transnational education: Undergoing the GATE review process. An Australian-Asian Case Study. Journal of Studies in International Education, 4(1), 23-38.

32.

McBurnie

Pollock

(2000). Opportunity and risk in transnational education—Issues in planning for international campus development: An Australian perspective. Higher Education in Europe, 25, 333-343.

33.

McBurnie

Ziguras

(2007). Transnational education: Issues and trends in offshore higher education. London, UK: Routledge.

34.

Miliszewska

Sztendur

(2011). Critical success attributes of transnational IT education programmes: The client perspective. Journal of Information Technology Education, 10, 123-137.

35.

Miliszewska

Sztendur

E. M.

(2012). Australian transnational education programmes in South East Asia: Student satisfaction with the learning environment. Australian Universities’ Review, 54(2), 12-21.

36.

Miller-Idriss

Hanauer

(2011). Transnational higher education: Offshore campuses in the Middle East. Comparative Education, 47, 181-207.

37.

Naidoo

(2009). Transnational higher education: A stock take of current activity. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13, 310-330.

38.

Nguyen

P. M.

Elliott

J. G.

Terlouw

Pilot

(2009). Neocolonialism in education: Cooperative learning in an Asian context. Comparative Education, 45, 109-130.

39.

Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2004). Internationalisation and trade in higher education opportunities and challenges. Paris: Author.

40.

Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2005). Guidelines for quality provision in crossborder higher education. Paris: Author.

41.

Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development & International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank. (2007). Cross-border tertiary education a way towards capacity building. Paris: Author.

42.

Olcott

Jr. (2009). Global connections to global partnerships: Navigating the changing landscape of internationalism and cross-border higher education. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 57, 1-9.

43.

Pimpa

(2009). Learning problems in transnational business education and training: The case of the MBA in Thailand. International Journal of Training and Development, 13, 262-279.

44.

Pyvis

(2011). The need for context-sensitive measures of educational quality in transnational higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 16, 733-744.

45.

Seah

W. T.

Edwards

(2006). Flying in, flying out: Offshore teaching in higher education. Australian Journal of Education, 50, 297-311.

46.

Shams

Huisman

(2012). Managing offshore branch campuses: An analytical framework for institutional strategies. Journal of Studies in International Education, 16, 106-127.

47.

Shanahan

McParlane

(2005). Serendipity or strategy? An investigation into entrepreneurial transnational higher education and risk management. On the Horizon, 13, 220-228.

48.

Sidhu

(2009). The “brand name” research university goes global. Higher Education, 57, 125-140.

49.

Smith

(2009). Transnational teaching experiences: An under-explored territory for transformative professional development. International Journal for Academic Development, 14, 111-122.

50.

Smith

(2010). Assuring quality in transnational higher education: A matter of collaboration or control? Studies in Higher Education, 35, 793-806.

51.

Smith

(2009). Sinking in the Sand? Academic work in an offshore campus of an Australian University. Higher Education Research & Development, 28, 467-479.

52.

Stella

(2006). Quality assurance of cross-border higher education. Quality in Higher Education, 12, 257-276.

53.

UNESCO & Council of Europe. (2001). The UNESCO-CEPES/Council of Europe code of good practice for the provision of transnational education. Paris: UNESCO.

54.

van der Wende

M. C.

(2003). Globalisation and access to higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7, 193-206.

55.

Verbik

Rumbley

L. E.

Altbach

P. G.

(2006). The international branch campus—Models and trends. London, England: OBHE.

56.

Vinen

D. G.

Selvarajah

(2008). A framework for sustainability of an offshore education program: A systems based approach. Journal of International Business and Economics, 8(2), 160-169.

57.

Wang

(2008). Intercultural dialogue and understanding: Implications for teachers. In Dunn

Wallace

(Eds.), Teaching in transnational higher education: Enhancing learning for offshore international students (1st ed., pp. 57-66). New York, NY: Routledge.

58.

Wildavsky

(2010). The great brain race. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

59.

Wilkins

Huisman

(2012). The international branch campus as transnational strategy in higher education. Higher Education, 64, 627-645.

60.

Wilson

(2002). Transnational nursing programs: Models, advantages and challenges. Nurse Education Today, 22, 417-426.

61.

Ziguras

(2001). Educational technology in transnational higher education in South East Asia: The cultural politics of flexible learning. Educational Technology & Society, 4(4), 8-18.

62.

Ziguras

McBurnie

(2011). Transnational higher education in the Asia-Pacific Region: From distance education to the branch campus. Higher Education in the Asia-Pacific, 36, 105-122.