Abstract
The articles in this Special Issue were presented originally at the International Conference on Higher Education Student Learning and Development in a Globalizing Time, at Tsinghua University, Beijing, People’s Republic of China, on 27-28 October 2013. This was an intriguing and stimulating meeting of senior and junior scholars from across the world and across China, and the articles in this and in the next issue of the International Journal of Chinese Education illustrate the breadth and the depth of the presentations and discussions that occurred.
Higher education is changing throughout the world. Like every type of change, there are some (countries, institutions, and people) who deny or resist the change, some who get left behind or dragged along late with the change, and some who seek to understand, embrace, and guide the change. The articles here are from scholars who are seeking to understand, embrace and guide the changing and complex nature of higher education in their own countries and throughout the world.
Whereas the authors’ perspectives are formed in part by their countries (Australia, Canada, China, Netherlands, United Kingdom), they all seek to include information from and comments on higher education throughout the world. Indeed, a major message from the articles is that higher education throughout the world shares particular problems, is engaged in reform and development of some sort, and is in need of reasonable research evidence on which to base policies to guide decisions at government, institution and individual levels. The articles in this Special Issue are a part of what is needed to move global higher education forward.
Jones provides a deep analysis of governance and quality, and the way in which a focus on student learning can bring together those aspects of higher education and improve this core objective of the university; he provides useful examples of what seems to work well in doing so. McConkey reinforces the need to bring things together through quality assessment and improvement by being open and forward looking and by aligning the engagement of people with the strategic direction of the university; he provides practical advice on quality assessment. Naidoo and Whitty also argue for alignment in finding the optimal balance of market demands and core academic values; they especially argue that this is done through students and academics becoming co-creators and collaborators within universities.
Coates and Mahat point to the value of and increased need for collaboration across countries, institutions and individuals in their focus on how to better understand and improve student engagement and outcomes; they provide a practical and potentially very effective model for collaboration in global higher education. Lu, Hu, Peng and Kang provide a detailed empirical analysis of the factors that shape the campus environment, student involvement and learning outcomes; they provide evidence-based advice and recommendations on how improve this mix of factors. Van der Wende reminds us of the core objective of the university and the real purpose of higher education in her emphasis on liberal arts education; she argues strongly that such education is needed throughout the world to extend and create knowledge, to meet and drive economic needs and growth, and to create socially and morally appropriate and effective individuals.
Taken together, the articles here remind us that higher education is about the creation, the integration, the communication, and the application of knowledge. And, as importantly, it is also about people working together in ways that are open to peer review, that are dynamic and creative, and that occur in the complexities and challenges of the world. The articles also remind us that, paradoxically perhaps, higher education can be highly conservative. However, this conservatism can ensure that change does not occur because of superficial fashion, but rather because it is based on genuine need, solid evidence, sensible policies, effective action, and improved outcomes. The articles in this Special Issue provide examples of such need, evidence, policies, action and outcomes that will benefit global higher education.
Jones cogently argues that governance and quality in higher education are examples of wicked problems in that they are typically understood and approached differently by various stakeholders, how to deal with them depends on how they are understood and approached, there is no definitive correct or incorrect solution to either, and they continue as problems because the circumstances and the stakeholders continue to change. This, however, is all the more reason to engage with, rather than to ignore, governance and quality, and Jones points to student learning as the key aspect that can focus and unite our contemporary understanding of and approach to governance and quality in universities. He uses examples from across the world, with a focus on Canada, to point to the changing nature of the role of the State in university governance (mostly with a move toward greater university autonomy in governance) and the changing nature of quality (mostly with a move toward a greater role of the State in university quality assurance). Jones highlights the issues associated with these trends, and provides examples of what has worked and what has not worked in Canada. He argues that focusing on the core objective of student learning reconciles as much as possible the apparent conflicts involved and is the productive way forward in terms of bringing the wicked problems of governance and quality together in universities.
McConkey provides a practice-based overview of people, processes and politics in higher education quality assurance throughout the world. Based on his experiences, he argues that whereas there is no single way to approach quality assurance, there are principles that need to be understood and applied in ways that are appropriate to the individuals, institutions and countries involved. McConkey asks what are some of the ways in which higher education institutions and individuals can engage successfully in quality assurance, and what are some of the problems to avoid? He addresses these questions in detailed ways, with practical comments on the information and preparation needed for quality assessment of a university, the issues associated with visiting and reporting on a quality assessment, and how universities may go about implementing and evaluating quality improvements. McConkey argues that the optimal approach to quality assurance is to engage in a way that is open and transparent and to involve independent peer review. He also argues that the optimal way to improve all aspects of higher education is to do so within continuous quality assurance that is constructively aligned with the strategic direction of the university, and that effectively engages all the individuals within the institution.
Naidoo and Whitty argue that there needs to be a balance found in the move toward students as consumers. They point to the various public, private, and government issues in the UK, for instance, that have led to universities being influenced by market forces and to their viewing potential and actual students as consumers of higher education. Naidoo and Whitty summarize data on some of the positive (such as clearer course content and assessment) and negative (such as curriculum standardization across universities) aspects of the changing view of student engagement and the emphasis on improving the quality of higher education. They point also to the resistance shown by some elite universities to these forces, but point out how and why that resistance moved to reluctant and partial acceptance. Naidoo and Whitty draw on the work of Bourdieu, with its notions of field, capital, and habitus, to argue that a balance can and should be found for appropriate changes to occur within universities while core academic values are maintained. They present notions of co-creation and co-production that involve students and academics working together to ensure engagement of both parties, improved quality of learning and of teaching, and information being shared and knowledge developed in ways that both recognize tradition and extend frontiers.
Coates and Mahat provide a detailed analysis of contextual issues and collaborative approaches involved in assessing student engagement and outcomes, as well as provide a valuable summary of two large-scale case studies. The point to a range of issues associated with the focus on student engagement, including the cost and pricing of higher education, the emphasis on transparency, the approach of public and private universities, the different types and levels of universities within countries, the demands on and changes in curricula, the various and rapidly changing modes of delivery of information, and the different types of students involved in higher education. Their case studies of the Australian AUSSE and the OECD AHELO provide useful examples of how a focus on student engagement and outcomes can help us understand the change frontier of higher education, as well as understand some of the difficulties involved in large-scale data collection of this type. Coates and Mahat present a four-stage model of collaboration for further work, with those stages being establishing assessment partnerships, providing assessment tasks, developing shared processes, and sharing reporting and results. They also provide useful suggestions on how this collaborative model could be applied in China, and elsewhere, in their cogent argument for more peer review and collaboration.
Lu, Hu, Peng and Kang provide a detailed empirical study of the influence of undergraduate students’ academic involvement and learning environment on learning outcomes in their application of the Xi’an Jiaotong University Undergraduate Experience Survey. Through this work, they seek to address the questions of how to measure the learning environment, how to measures academic involvement, and what is the relationship between these two aspects and learning outcomes. Their work usefully points to some of the challenging conceptual, methodological, analytical and interpretational issues involved in seeking to answer these questions. The findings provided by Lu, Hu, Peng and Kang point to the key features of environmental support (including library, medical, accommodation), the quality of course (including teacher ability, materials provided, assessment type), the life on campus (including social experiences, sporting opportunities), and a sense of belonging (including identifying with the university). They highlight that when these features are in the right amount and the right combination, then learning outcomes can be very positive. Lu, Hu, Peng and Kang argue that the overall message is that to create positive learning outcomes, universities must establish a good learning environment, encourage good interactions between teachers and students inside and outside the classroom, ensure the intellectual skills of students are developed through creative ways, and facilitate a stimulating campus life for all.
Van der Wende makes a compelling case for a re-emphasis on liberal arts education in her analysis of how to create genuine global excellence in higher education. She points out that the notion of world-class universities, and the associated focus on rankings and ratings, has tended to overemphasize research and underemphasize undergraduate education. Van der Wende notes the conservative nostalgia for a (nonexistent) past of universities being separate from the needs of the world and indeed the needs of students, and argues that universities can and should define their own relevance by balancing research and meaningful education. She considers that an undergraduate education must be at the core of any world-class university, and that liberal arts education must be an essential part of that core. She provides examples of liberal arts education throughout the world, including China and the USA, and a detailed example of the cross-national, cross-cultural and cross-disciplinary provision of liberal arts education at Amsterdam University College in the Netherlands. Van der Wende sets out how epistemological concerns (big knowledge is at the interface of disciplines), economic matters (graduates must have 21st Century knowledge and skills), and social and moral issues (universities must educate the whole person) are the defining features of a liberal arts education as well as the approach that universities must take for global perspective and relevance.
The International Conference on Higher Education Student Learning and Development in a Globalizing Time, the meeting at which these articles were presented, was highly successful in at least three ways. It brought people together across time (different stages of their careers) and space (different countries; it allowed information to be shared openly and discussed freely formally (through presentations) and informally (through individual meetings); and, it encouraged friendships and collaborations to be formed for further work to be undertaken nationally (within China) and internationally (across many countries). I hope this Special Issue is interesting and stimulating for readers, and hope also that it leads to further friendships and activities in the interests of improving global higher education.