Five Good Things About Transnational Ed

A recent column in The Tribune of India stated the prevailing bias against transnational education clearly and unequivocally: " ... hardly any top ranking university of the USA, the UK, Australia or New Zealand has shown interest in India. Only those universities with very low rankings in their own country and those which are badly in need of foreign students have made inroads into developing countries like India. It is estimated that out of the 50 foreign universities competing to woo Indian students, none have a good standing in their own education system."

I suspect that the statement is true, and I hope that the situation is changing.

There are reasons for even the most prestigious and financially well-endowed universities to establish branch campuses and other forms of commercial presence off-shore. Here are a few:

1) Transnational programs can provide virtual diversity

Transnational programs can be integrated with programs at the main campus of a university. For example, faculty members can teach the same course simultaneously on-campus and, through technology, to students at a branch campus. Both groups of students may be required to post weekly to an online discussion forum. Why not mix main campus and branch campus students in the discussion forums? This would provide the benefit of multiple perspectives and potentially increased student-to-student interaction.

2) Transnational programs can create different teaching experiences for faculty

There are several teaching models in transnational ed, but the best ones combine technology-based formats (real-time and asynchronous) with some face-to-face interaction. These different formats create an impetus for looking at teaching style and materials through new eyes, for new purposes. With the proper support, the effect could be invigorating, something like a sabbatical without taking a year off.

3) Transnational programs can be a platform for a wide range of research opportunities

Exploring the teaching of a particular subject to cohorts from different cultures is just one obvious possibility. Students in transnational programs are not like international students who come to the main campus -- they haven't been taken out of their culture.

4) Transnational programs can be an effective recruitment vehicle

Branch campuses open the door for more students, as well as different types of students, to travel abroad for study at the main campus for some portion of their degree programs. Most students in developing nations are unable to attend top-rated foreign universities simply because they are unable to afford the expense of travelling and living in another country. With transnational programs some of these students will demonstrate superior ability to do university-level work in a branch campus for two years, and then be able to attend the main campus for the remaining two years with a student job or financial aid.

5) Transnational programs drive universities to experiment with instructional technology

Degree programs delivered internationally will require a fast learning curve on the part of the degree granting institution. International delivery will almost certainly lead to techniques and applications that can benefit students at the main campus, as well as off-campus students in the university's home state.

Too Much Technology for Western Governors University -- Or Not Enough?

They say all publicity is good publicity.

So, once again, it's good news for e-learning under the headline: Online U Programs Under Fire.

This time the beneficiary of the good publicity is Western Governors University (WGU), a target of online learning critics since its inception. For years, WGU was prominent in the e-learning Field of Dreams derby: What if you build it and no one comes? Well, the students are finally coming, with over 1000 registered at this time. In addition, WGU is now accredited by four regional accrediting agencies. Sounds good. Where's the fire coming from?

Oddly enough, the current source of heat is close to home -- not a national or regional accrediting agency, but the Educator Development Advisory Committee (EDAC) from WGU's home state of Utah. EDAC passes judgment on Teacher Licensure programs in Utah, and so far the committee has not determined that three of WGU's degree programs are acceptable for teacher licensing.

According to a recent article in the Salt Lake Tribune, WGU officials feel that: "the committee might simply have an aversion to the university's innovative use of technology to replace traditional classroom instruction."

Not so claims a Committee member, citing lack of local learner support instead: "In Utah, we expect a certain amount of clinical supervision ... There just isn't any in their program."

Does this mean a classroom component is irreplaceable? Not necessarily. There are a number of programs offering various forms of supervision at a distance, through the use of technology. Here is an example of a teacher certification program in Special Education and Rehabilitation which includes clinical supervision of teachers in rural areas through interactive audio and video. Supervision and distance education are not incompatible, and face-to-face is not synonymous with "classroom." Technology can enable face-to-face interaction.

Maybe WGU's problem is not too much technology -- but not enough of it. There is a lesson here for Transnational Ed programs as well. There are low-cost ways to foster real-time face-to-face interaction between students and remote faculty without relying solely on travel.

U21 Global: A Few Easy Questions

This wouldn't be much of a Transnational Ed blog without some mention of the Universitas 21 international consortium of universities, with Thomson Learning as the commercial partner, finally opening its virtual doors. It happened the week before last, but I don't feel that it's too late to make a comment since the whole affair has been strangely under-reported, or under-analyzed anyway. Maybe that's because, after six years of press releases about nothing, any Wow! factor has long since dissipated.

So many backgrounders have already been written about U21 Global that the world doesn't need another one. A bunch of brand name universities are teaming up with a huge publishing and info biz multinational corporation to offer an online MBA. That's pretty much the whole story so far.

Remaining unanswered for me, however, are just a few little questions:

1) What the heck are the universities actually contributing, besides money?

Universities have faculty, some of whom can teach. Universities are developing their own online courses and have invested in Course Management Systems. None of these resources and capabilities will be brought to bear on U21. All online course development, system management and student assessment is Thomson's. New faculty and adjuncts are being hired. The Universities are contributing their reputation to Thomson's content and its presentation.

Yes, I know, there's the U21pedagogica, (I'm not making this up). This oddly named entity functions as an academic Quality Assurance board -- it is the last (and only) academic line of defense against whatever Thomson cares to produce. Three university Presidents at a time control the board.

2) Does anyone really believe that U21pedagogica can be an independent QA force?

U21pedagogica is not owned by U21 Global; thus, it can provide QA services to U21 Global as a separate entity. U21pedagogica is, however, wholly owned by Universitas 21, which, with Thomson Learning, are co-owners of U21 Global. All U21 Global courses must be certified by U21pedgogica. None of that matters. What matters is that both sides have their money on the same side of the table. The internal QA police and the development staff are in business together no matter how they draw the chart.

I'm not saying there will be no conflict, it's not that simple. Their common interests will simply establish a very narrow set of parameters within which conflict will occur and be contained.

3) What about that $111 billion (US) market!

This one makes me laugh. You have to be in the right position to see it, reviewing multiple news sources on the U21 Global launch. Every one of them mindlessly repeating the precise figure of $111 billion (US). And not a penny more.

I do not know who made this estimate, and I made an admittedly modest effort to determine the source. As a result, I do not know what assumptions the estimate is based on. Nobody does. But everyone knows one thing -- it's a $111 billion (US) market!

U21 Global predicts registration of 5,000 students by 2004, which is coming up sooner than you'd think. I see that as about a $30 million (US) business with a high profit margin. On the other hand, I will be extremely surprised if they reach 20% of the predicted registration level with paying customers.

But even if they do -- U21 Global is only predicting $500 million (US) in revenues ten years down the road. I don't know what that will be in Profit, but let's say it's 20% -- which most companies will ever achieve in their dreams. A 20% Net yields $200 million (US), to be split between Thomson and Universitas 21, which means $100 million (US) divided 16 ways. There would be weighted shares no doubt, but still, the return is not staggering, plus it's a long way off.

We'll be watching.

Exporting Higher Education: A Four Dimensional Teaching Model

Commercial Presence through Franchising is a one-dimensional approach. The university provides a syllabus and lesson plans to be delivered by the local partner. It may be possible to extend a university's learning environment by combining multiple dimensions, including, but not limited to, local stand-ins. No one method can adequately reproduce the experience. Organizing several approaches, however, so that they systematically support and reinforce each other may be an acceptable way to implement Transnational Education.

1) Intensive Teaching: There are limits to the number of students who can travel abroad and study under American Professors on their home campuses. If American universities are going to compete successfully as Transnational providers, while insisting on direct unmediated faculty contact, they will need to do what some universities in Austrailia and UK have been doing for years -- send faculty to Asia for short-term engagements.

2) Instructional Technology: Current synchronous instructional options confound the traditional distance education categories. Since its inception, pure distance education has meant asynchronous interaction. Originally, the interaction was correspondance-based and its time frame was postal. Now, interaction is web-based and its time frame is instant. Face-to-face interaction is no longer the exclusive domain of campus-based teaching.

3) Local Facilitators: Using qualified local educators in a transnational teaching model is a problem when it represents the only means of instruction. There can be tremendous value in a local presence, however, if a balance of methods and a more facilitative role can be found.

4) Scholarly Research: Without a research component, Transnational Education would appear to be driven solely by commercial exigencies. A serious research agenda focusing on the use of instructional technologies and cross-cultural factors elevates the activity and converts it into a new kind of Laboratory School. For a university, applying qualitative and quantitative techniques to the study of transnational educational effectiveness helps fulfill the research mission. For private transnational providers, research might help fine-tune delivery systems and determine the most cost-effective configurations.