An Outline of Approaches

used by the authorities of

different countries in
managing the quality
assurance of distance
learning programmes:
Can a viable strategy based on
distance learning be formulated to
make Malaysia a competitive
education hub?

By: Dr. CHOW Yong Neng

SEG International Bhd
yn.chow@gmail.com
 -2-

Executive Summary
There is a need to have a more precise definition of distance learning
in the Malaysian context. The Quality Assurance Agency (UK)’s
definition of distance learning which encompasses a broad spectrum
of delivery modes employed by the various British institutions for
overseas academic delivery should be adopted in Malaysia. A revision
of thinking should be considered when we evaluate a programme from
the point of view of the ‘outputs’ (which is the learning experience and
opportunities) and delivery in a holistic manner rather than basing
our judgement solely on the definition of the delivery mode of a
programme.

The QAA (UK) and the AUQA (Australia) both, in their different ways,
make the universities in their respective countries accountable for the
quality and delivery of programmes overseas. Malaysia perhaps could
leverage on the work of these agencies in streamlining the work of
regulating the delivery of foreign programmes in Malaysia.

The Singapore’s authorities have devised a relatively straightforward

and comparatively transparent quality assurance system that has
fostered the growth of the private higher education industry in the
past few years which saw 770 programmes being approved to be
offered there. Despite the initial hiccups, the Hong Kong’s quality
agency, HKCAA managed to register 403 programmes delivered in the
private sector and 573 programmes in the quasi-public sector. These
factors perhaps confer great competitive advantages to Singapore and
to a lesser extent, Hong Kong.
 -3-

Like Hong Kong, the Malaysian qualifications framework should be

complemented by a revision of the present rigid regulation and
recognition criteria of the various authorities. This should address the
problems of the present system of recognition of qualifications and
allow diverse entry and exit points as well as different pathways to
achieve recognised qualifications that will foster lifelong learning.

The Singapore’s approach in handling the recognition of foreign

qualifications by emphasising on the quality of the awarding
institutions overseas and delivery quality by distance learning
deserves considerations for adoption in Malaysia.

The imminent threat and impact to the higher education sector of

Malaysia by the World Trade Organisation’s General Agreement on
Trade in Services require that the country take stock of the current
situation and make the necessary streamlining of the various
processes to enhance the competitiveness of its higher education
industry to further seize the opportunities and counter the threats of
globalisation.
 -4-

1. Definition of Distance Learning

The best definition of distance learning perhaps is given by the

Quality Assurance Agency (QAA)1 of the UK,
“distance learning has been taken to mean a way of
providing higher education that involves the transfer to
the student’s location of the materials that form the main
basis of study, rather than the student moving to the
location of the resource provider”.
However, distance learning is a generic term used to describe a
wide range of delivery methodology for tertiary institutions to
provide distance delivery of their programmes. The QAA
further elaborated on 4 dimensions of distance learning:

• Materials-based learning:
Refers to all the learning resource materials made available
to the students studying at a distance and can be in printed,
audio-visual, other media format, materials on the World
Wide Web, and computer-based materials.
• Programme components delivered by travelling teachers:
Refers to staff of the providing institution travelling on a
periodic basis to the location of the student to deliver
components of the programme. The delivery can be done on
a scheduled basis or concentrated in a period of intensive
contact hours.
• Learning supported locally:
 -5-

Refers to the providing institution employing suitably

qualified local academics to provide local support for
students in the programme.
• Learning supported from the providing institution remotely
from the student:
Refers to defined support and specified components of
teaching provided remotely for individual distant students
by an academic of the providing institution. The
communication between the academic and the student in
this case could range from postal correspondence, audio
or video cassette, telephone, fax, email and via an e-
learning portal.

Most distance learning programmes will rely on more than one

or even all of the 4 dimensions in their delivery by the providing
institution. Hence the term ‘distance learning’ could in fact
encompass nearly all the offshore activities of universities.

Perhaps the most obvious distance learning model in Malaysia

and it is the one that come to mind of most Malaysians is the
University Sains Malaysia model whereby students congregate
at learning centres across the country to receive scheduled
lectures broadcast from Penang. With the explanation given by
the QAA guideline on the dimensions of distance learning, it is
obvious that the USM model is just one of the possible ways for
distance learning to be delivered.
 -6-

David Buckingham and Nicola Channon of the QAA concluded

that
“The conventional categorisations of off-campus
provision [into franchise, validation or distance learning] do not
help students. What is important to students is that the
material delivered to them, the assessments against
which they are judged and the support that they receive
as learners are of assured quality and secure standards.
The important part for students is that they are getting
good learning opportunities in a form that suits their
needs and that they are able to achieve the standards
expected of an UK award.”2

Hence, a revision of the thinking in terms of classification of

programmes in Malaysia may be timely. It may be best that we
evaluate a programme from the point of view of ‘outputs’ (which
is the learning experience and opportunities) and delivery in a
holistic manner rather than basing our judgement solely on the
loose definition of the delivery of the programme. A distance
learning programme may provide better if not equal learning
experience to a student compared to a conventional full face-to-
face delivered programme.
 -7-

2. Monitoring of the Quality of programmes and their

delivery by home countries
With the tremendous financial implications to the higher
education industry of offshore delivery of programmes, both the
QAA of the UK and the Australian University Quality Agency
(AUQA) have taken great interest in the activities of their
respective universities overseas. While the approaches of both
QAA (UK) and AUQA (Australia) are somewhat different, with
the QAA publishing guidelines for distance delivery of
programmes and carrying quality audit on British universities’
overseas activities1 and the AUQA adopting a less stringent but
yet effective approach of verifications of quality practices by
Australian universities3, nevertheless, countries like Malaysia,
Singapore and Hong Kong which are ‘net-importers’ of such
educational products should find it reassuring that the
regulatory authorities of these countries are taking
responsibilities for monitoring the overseas activities of their
respective universities.

2.1 The QAA’s Case in the UK:

With the proliferation of open learning and distance learning
programmes from British institutions and more importantly
with the internationalisation of the activities of many British
universities, the Quality Assurance Agency of the UK has
published a guideline on the quality assurance of distance
learning in 1999. This forms the terms of reference for all
offshore activities of British universities. This guideline also
form the basis in which many British universities carry out the
 -8-

delivery of their programmes overseas regardless of whether the

programme is defined as in distance learning mode or
otherwise.

Six aspects of distance learning are covered in this guideline:

1. System Design – the development of an integrated
approach
One of the precepts for this guideline is copied below,
″Higher education by distance learning should be
underpinned by principles relevant generally to higher
education. An institution intending to offer distance
learning programmes of study should design and manage
its operations in a way that applies those principles and, at
the same time, take full account of considerations specific
to teaching its students at a distance.”

2. The establishment of academic standards and quality in

programme design, approval and review procedures:
The programme designed for distance learning must
provide the same academic standard as those delivered on
campus and the learning opportunity and learning
experience for the students studying in distance learning
mode must be comparable to those delivered on campus
and provide the students with a fair and reasonable
chance of achieving the academic standards required for
successful completion. The distance learning programme
should acquire the necessary approval which include an
element of scrutiny external to the institution.
 -9-

3. The assurance of quality and standards in the

management of programme delivery:
The providing institution is responsible for managing the
delivery of its distance learning programme. Learning via
distance learning mode should be treated as an activity
involving all participants in the system.

4. Student development and support:

“…a providing institution should give explicit attention to
its responsibility for supporting and promoting
autonomous learning and enabling learners to take
personal control of their own development. An institution
should set realistic aims, devise practical methods of
achieving them, and monitor its practice.”

5. Student communication and representation:

Full information about the nature and expectation of the
distance learning programme must be given to all
students. The providing institution needs to ensure that
effective dissemination of this information to students is
carried out and that appropriate student representation,
feedback and communication are achieved.

6. Student assessment:
The providing institution needs to demonstrate that the
summative and formative assessments for programmes
studied at a distance are appropriate for the mode of study
 - 10 -

with assessment procedures in accord with the

requirement to safeguard academic standards and that it
has direct control over the assessment processes.

From these six guidelines, we can conclude that the QAA has
charged all British universities with the full responsibilities and
accountabilities of the delivery of distance learning
programmes. In the Malaysian context, all British universities’
offshore activities in Malaysia, especially in the delivery of
programmes are under the scrutiny of the QAA. Therefore, in
view of this, it may seem to be a duplicating of efforts in many
aspects of the activities of Lembaga Akreditasi Negara (LAN)
with regards to the evaluation of British programmes delivered
locally by Institusi Pengajian Tinggi Swasta (IPTS) that
collaborate with their British partners. We can perhaps
consider the scrutiny of the activities of British universities in
Malaysia by the QAA an adequate quality assurance practice and
perhaps the Ministry of Higher Education could contemplate
adopting the QAA’s finding or engaging the QAA in such quality
assurance process to achieve a streamlining of the quality
assurance workload of the industry.

2.2 The case of the Australian Universities Quality Agency

(AUQA):
Unlike the approach used by the QAA of the UK, the AUQA does
not provide any specific guidelines for Australian universities in
their pursuit of offshore academic activities and delivery of
programmes. It does however, carry out routine audit on
 - 11 -

overseas activities of Australian universities based on the

following principles3:
1. The scope for audit being the university’s stated goals and
objectives.
2. There is no comparison between institutions or about the
adherence to a common set of standards.
3. The audit is based on an institution’s self review (which is the
approach to quality assurance practices in Australia).
4. There is no rigid performance portfolio template to adhere to
and each institution is recognised for its own distinctiveness.
5. Audit costs need to be kept to a minimum but not at the
expense of the integrity of the audit.

The AUQA uses seven tests to determine if an audit visit to an

Australian institution’s overseas activities is required, these are:
1. What are the numbers of staff and students per overseas
venue? If the number is large and can affect the institution’s
financial position, the audit panel may elect to visit the site.
2. What is the significance of the overseas activities to the
institution’s strategies?
If the overseas activities are subject to great growth potential,
the audit panel will pay special attention to it.
3. What is the likelihood and consequences of things going
wrong with the overseas activities?
How stable is the operation? Risks on political and policy
changes etc.
4. How experienced is the institution in handling overseas
students and overseas operations?
 - 12 -

What are the risks to the students in the overseas operations

from the point of view of the institution’s ability to cope with
its roles and responsibilities?
5. What is the number and location of the overseas venues in
which the institution has operation?
The larger the distribution the practicability of the audit
exercise and the accuracy of the sampling (if carried out) will
need to be evaluated.
6. What is the effect of the accreditation requirements of the
host country on the operation of the institution’s overseas
activities?
Can the AUQA utilise the outcomes of the accreditation
process for its audit purposes?
7. Is it necessary for the audit panel to visit the overseas
site(s)?
Can the audit panel obtain all the necessary information
without the need of a field visit?

With the growth of transnational student population (i.e. those

students receiving education from Australian institutions but
located overseas) growing from 20% in 1994 to 34% in 2003
(and this figure is set to grow to 50% in 2025)4 , the AUQA will
pay significantly more attention to Australian distance learning
programmes and overseas activities.

3. How do the authorities in Singapore and Hong Kong

regulate the delivery of foreign programmes in their
countries?
 - 13 -

3.1 The Singapore’s case:

The Singapore Government adopts a very different approach to
the quality assurance of distance learning programmes delivered
by foreign universities5. In fact it treats all programmes from
foreign universities delivered in Singapore, regardless of the
mechanism of delivery as distance learning. The registration of
such programmes is on a programme by programme basis.
Significant emphasis is placed on the credibility of the foreign
institutions and the programmes offered with a relatively
minimal emphasis on the local partners. As such the approving
process is relatively swift. However, the Singaporean
government does require that distance learning programmes by
overseas institutions to be subjected to the same quality
assurance process as the on-campus programme in the home
country and the overseas institution and its local partner need
to demonstrate that the learning experience of students in
Singapore will be equivalent of their counterparts in the home
country.

1. All local organisations representing overseas educational

institutions offering their programmes of study in Singapore
must obtain the Ministry of Education’s permission to
conduct their activities on a programme-by-programme
basis.
 - 14 -

2. The overseas institution concern is fully responsible for every

aspect of the programme that it is offering in Singapore.

3. The local organisation provides support including physical

facilities, logistics, recruitments and programme
management.

4. The Ministry of Education in Singapore does not have a list of

accredited overseas universities and there is no central
authority to assess or to grant recognition for foreign degrees.
The position taken by the government is that the onus is on
the employers to determine if a candidate’s qualification is
suitable for employment6, 7.

5. An extensive list of the approved foreign degree programmes

shows that the number of such programmes allowed is very
huge8, with a total of 770 programmes having been approved
for delivery in Singapore, as shown in Tables 3.1 a - e. This
indirectly indicates that there is a relatively simple but
efficient process that the Singaporean Government has
adopted to handle this matter.

Table 3.1a: Number of Australian Institutions and Programmes approved to be

offered in Singapore
No. of No. of Total number of
Undergraduate Postgraduate programmes offered
Name of Institutions Programmes Programmes by institution
Australian Catholic University 1 1
Australian Institute of Music 1 1
Australian Maritime College 4 3 7
Australian National University 1 1
 - 15 -

Central Queensland University 8 4 12

Charles Sturt University 3 4 7
Curtin University of Technology 27 28 55
Deakin University 15 3 18
Edith Cowan University 15 5 20
Entrepreneurship Institute Australia 3 3 6
Flinders University of South Australia 1 8 9
Griffith University 2 2 4
James Cook University 13 8 21
KvB Institute of Technology 1 1
La Trobe University 9 5 14
Macquarie University 4 6 10
Mitchell College of Advanced Education 2 2
Monash University 15 12 27
Murdoch University 4 1 5
Open Learning Institute, TAFE Queensland 4 4
Queensland University of Technology 1 4 5
RMIT 10 8 18
Southern Cross University 6 9 15
Swinburne University of Technology 3 2 5
University of Adelaide 8 8
University of Ballarat 5 2 7
University of Canberra 3 5 8
University of Central Queensland 2 2
University of Melbourne 3 2 5
University of New England 2 4 6
University of New South Wales 12 12
University of Newcastle 9 6 15
University of Queensland 1 8 9
University of South Australia 8 11 19
University of Southern Queensland 16 5 21
University of Sydney 2 4 6
University of Tasmania 1 1
 - 16 -

(Cont. Table 3.1a)

University of Technology Sydney 1 2 3
University of the Sunshine Coast 1 1
University of Western Australia 1 5 6
University of Western Sydney 5 7 12
University of Wollongong 3 8 11
Victoria University 1 1
Victoria University of Technology 6 6

Number of Programmes 210 217

Table 3.1b: Number of US Institutions and Programmes approved to be

offered in Singapore
Name of Institutions
Aurora University
University of Central Michigan
University of Louisville
University of Massachusetts
University of San Francisco
University of Wisconsin-Stout
Upper Iowa University
Utah State University
Western Michigan University
Wheelock College
Wilmington College
Oklahoma City University
Ottawa University
Pennsylvania College of Optometry
Revans University
Rutgers University
Columbus State University
Cornerstone University
George Washington University
Golden Gate University
Salem International University
San Diego State University
South Eastern University
Southern Illinois University
State University of New York
California State University
Syracuse University
The City University of New York
Number of Programmes
No. of No. of Total number of
Undergraduate Postgraduate programmes offered
Programmes Programmes by institution
1 1
1 1
2 2
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
2 2
1 1
2 2
1 3 4
1 1
1 1 2
1 2 3
2 2
1 1
2 2
2 2
4 4
3 1 4
2 2
1 1
1 1
3 4 7
2 2
1 1
3 3
14 42
 - 17 -

Table 3.1c: Number of UK Institutions and Programmes approved to be

offered in Singapore
Name of Institutions
Bolton Institute
Bournemouth University
Brunel University
Coventry University
Cranfield School of Management
De Montfort University
Henley Management College
Heriot-Watt University
Imperial College London
Institute of Financial Management
Leeds Metropolitan University
Liverpool John Moores University
Loughborough University
Middlesex University
Northumbria University
Nottingham Trent University
Open College
Open University
Oxford Brookes University
Queen Margaret University College
Roehampton University
Royal Holloway College
Sheffield Hallam University
South Bank University
Thames Valley University
University College Chester
University of Bath
University of Birmingham
University of Bradford
University of Cambridge Local
Examination Syndicate
University of Durham
University of Huddersfield
University of Hull
University of Keele
University of Leeds
University of Leicester
University of Lincolnshire &
Humberside
University of Liverpool
University of London
Total number of
No. of No. of programmes
Undergraduate Postgraduate offered by
Programmes Programmes institution
1 1
2 2
2 2
1 1
1 1
3 3
3 3
6 3 9
1 1
1 1
3 3
3 2 5
2 2
7 7
3 6 9
1 4 5
1 1
21 1 22
1 1
2 4 6
1 1
1 1
4 4
2 2
2 2 4
1 1
1 1
2 2
3 5 8
7 7
1 1
10 1 11
7 7
1 1
4 4
12 12
1 1
1 1
1 2 3
 - 18 -

(Cont. Table 3.1.c)

University of Luton 2 2
University of Manchester 2 2
University of Manchester Institute of
Science & Technology 1 2 3
University of Nottingham 2 2
University of Portsmouth 2 2
University of Salford 1 1
University of Sheffield 2 2
University of Stirling 2 3 5
University of Strathclyde 6 6
University of Sunderland 7 4 11
University of Surrey 6 6
University of Wales 7 8 15
University of Westminster 2 2
University of Wolverhampton 4 4
University of East London 2 2
University of Glamorgan 1 1 2
Warwick University 1 1
Wolsey Hall 2 1 3

Number of Programmes 96 132

 - 19 -

Table 3.1d: Number of Institutions and Programmes from countries other than
Australia, UK & US approved to be offered in Singapore
No. of No. of Total number of
Undergraduate Postgraduate programmes offered
Name of Institutions Programmes Programmes by institution

Asia International Open University, Macau 1 2 3

Beijing Normal University 1 1
Beijing University, China 1 1 2
Capital Normal University, Beijing, China 1 1 2
Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of
Technology, New Zealand 1 1
East China Normal University, Shanghai,
China 1 1
European University, Switzerland 5 4 9
Fudan University, China 1 3 4
Helsinki School of Econmics & Business
Administration, Finland 1 1
Jinan University, China 1 1
KS Graduate Business School (The
Federal University of Applied Sciences,
Berne, Switzerland) 1 2 3
Lincoln University, New Zealand 1 1
Maastricht School of Management 1 1
Marketing Development Institute,
Switzerland 1 1
Multimedia University, Malaysia 1 1
Nanjing University, China 1 2 3
National University of Ireland 4 5 9
Preston University, Pakistan 2 2
Royal Roads University, Canada 1 1
RVB International Institute for
Management, Netherlands 2 2
Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China 1 2 3
Soochow University, China 1 1
Southwest China Normal University 1 1
Taiwan National Chi Nan University 1 1
Universitas 21 Global 1 1
University of La Rochelle, France 1 1
Victoria University Europe, Switzerland 1 1 2

Number of Programmes 22 37
 - 20 -

Table 3.1e: Summary Information on the Number of Institutions

& Foreign Programmes in Singapore

Total Number
Number of Undergraduate Postgraduate of
Country Institutions programmes programmes Programmes
Australia 44 210 217 427
UK 57 96 132 228
US 28 14 42 56
Others 27 22 37 59

Total 156 342 428 770

The data presented in Tables 3.1 a – e were compiled from

information published by the Ministry of Education,
Singapore8. There are 156 institutions (the bulk of which,
over 82% came from the UK, Australia and USA) that are
approved by the Singapore authorities to offer 342
undergraduate and 428 postgraduate programmes in
Singapore. It is interesting to note that the Multimedia
University (Malaysia) has also been approved to deliver its
MBA programme in Singapore. Just below 56% of the
programmes approved are at postgraduate level.

6. The Singapore Government is very strict on the offer of post

secondary courses like certificates courses (LCCI, NCC,
ACCA, SAT etc)9. These programmes can only be offered by
registered private schools which register the said
programmes with the Ministry of Education. The teaching
staff of these private schools are also well regulated. But the
regulation for offering distance education programmes at
degree level and beyond is relatively straight forward. There
 - 21 -

is no separate category for ‘Colleges’ in the Singapore system,

an establishment can either be a school or a university.

7. Registration for a distance learning programme in Singapore

is a relatively straightforward affair and the decision process
by the Ministry of Education is very transparent in nature
and timeframe of 2 months or less is the norm to secure
approval.
 - 22 -

3.2 The Hong Kong’s approach:

Hong Kong’s higher education sector is governed by the Non-
local Higher and Professional Education (Regulation)
Ordinance since June 1997, a self-funding government agency,
Hong Kong Council for Academic Accreditation (HKCAA) plays
the role of an accreditation and registration agency for Hong
Kong10. All foreign programmes must be registered by the
HKCAA. There are two main criteria which a non-local higher
academic or professional courses must fulfil for registration:
• The foreign institution offering a programme in Hong Kong
that leads to a higher academic qualification must be a
recognised institution in the home country. The programme
that is offered in Hong Kong must be of comparable standard
to a similar programme offered on-campus.
• A programme that leads to a foreign professional
qualification must be recognised by the relevant professional
body in the home country.

However, the HKCAA does not apply the ordinance universally

to all providers in the territory as the local public institutions
(e.g. Baptist University or Open University of Hong Kong)
collaborating with foreign universities to offer the latter’s
programmes may be exempted from registration provided the 2
criteria above can be demonstrated by the parties involved.
These programmes will be listed in the ‘list of exempted
courses’.
 - 23 -

Registration of foreign programmes offered by private

institutions is mandatory11. The fees charged by HKCAA is
substantial for the initial registration (over HK$33,000 per
programme) and subsequent annual fees (HK$18,200) for those
in the ‘list of registered courses’ as compared to those in the ‘list
of exempted courses’. The financial burden for the private
higher education industry to be compliant is huge12.
Nevertheless, as shown in Tables 3.2 a to e (the data presented
were compiled from the published lists in the Hong Kong
Government website)13, 14, there are 403 programmes registered
as of 31st August 2004 in the ‘list of registered courses’ by private
providers13. With a much reduced fees of HK$115 for
registration and annual fees of HK$605, the public institutions
of higher learning have registered 573 programmes as of 31st
August 200411, 14
. 192 institutions are represented in Hong
Kong’s higher education scene, with UK, Australia and the US
accounting for close to 78% of all the institutions with approved
programmes in Hong Kong. There numbers are almost the
same for undergraduate and postgraduate programmes
approved.

Like LAN, the registration process in Hong Kong is a lengthy

affair which takes 12 to 18 months on average to complete. The
two-tier system of exempted and non-exempted programmes
even if the same programme is provided by a public and private
institutions respectively is causing dissatisfactions among the
private players in the market in Hong Kong.
 - 24 -

Surprisingly, the HKCAA and the Ordinance do not regulate the

operation of what is termed “Pure Distance Learning”
programmes where the programmes are conducted “solely
through the delivery of mail, transmission of information by
means of telecommunications (e.g. TV, radio or computer
network), or sale of materials in commercial outlets, etc., but
without the institutions, professional bodies or their agents
being physically present in Hong Kong to deliver any lectures,
tutorials or examinations, etc” are exempted from the need to
register. But such operators are encouraged to register their
programmes. Hence many programmes that can be delivered
via e-learning will, technically, do not require registration in
Hong Kong, as long as the examination can be carried out
online.
 - 25 -

Table 3.2a: Number of Australian Institutions and Programmes approved to be offered in Hong Kong

Non-Local List Local List Total

Under- Under-
graduate Post-graduate graduate Post-graduate number of
Name of Institutions programmes programmes programmes programmes programmes
Adelaide University 1 1
Australian Catholic University 1 1 2
Australian Grad. School of
Management 2 2
Australian Institute of Export 1 1
Bond University 1 1
Central Queensland University 4 2 6
Charles Sturt University 6 8 1 4 19
CPA Australia 1 1
Curtin University of Technology 6 2 9 9 26
Deakin University 2 4 1 7
Edith Cowan University 2 1 7 10
Flinders University 1 1 2
Griffith University 1 3 4
La Trobe University 1 1 2
Macquarie University 13 13
Melbourne Institute of Finance
and Management 1 1
Monash University 1 7 12 20
Murdoch University 1 1 2
Queensland University of
Technology 1 1 2
RMIT 8 7 1 16
Royal Brisbane International
College 2 2
Southern Cross University 3 4 7
Swinburne University of
Technology 1 1 2
The University of Ballarat 6 3 9
The University of Melbourne 2 2
The University of New England 8 7 15
The University of New South
Wales 1 4 5
The University of Newcastle 7 7
The University of Sydney 1 1
The University of Western
Australia 1 1 3 5
University of Canberra 1 2 3
University of South Australia 5 9 3 17
University of Southern
Queensland 9 2 1 12
University of Technology Sydney 2 6 8
University of Victoria 5 3 2 11 21
 - 26 -

(Cont. Table 3.2a)

University of Western Sydney 1 2 1 8 12
University of Wollongong 1 2 4 8 15
West Coast College of TAFE 4 4
Western Sydney Institute of
TAFE 1 1

Number of programmes 71 83 52 80
 - 27 -

Table 3.2b: Number of US Institutions and Programmes approved to be offered in Hong Kong

Non-Local List Local List Total

Post- Post-
Undergraduate graduate Undergraduate graduate Number of
Name of Institutions programmes programmes programmes programmes programmes
American Gem Society 1 1
Association of Investment
Management and Research 2 2
Baruch College, City University of
New York 2 2
Bellevue Community College 2 2
Binghamton University 1 1
California State University,
Fullerton 1 1
California State University,
Hayward 1 1
Clark University 1 1
DePaul University 1 1 2
Educational Institute, The American
Hotel and Lodging Association 18 18
Indiana University Bloomington 2 2
Institute of Supply Management 2 2
Murray State University 1 1
National Association of State
Boards of Accountancy 1 1
Northwestern University 1 1
Ohio University 7 7
Ottawa University 1 1
RHODEC International 2 2
The George Washington University 1 1
The University of Alabama 1 1
The University of Iowa 1 1
The University of Louisiana at
Monroe 1 1
The University of Michigan-
Dearborn 1 1
Troy State University 1 1
University of California, Berkeley 2 2
University of Dubuque 1 1
University of Massachusetts
Dartmouth 1 1
University of Northern Iowa 1 1
University of Oklahoma 1 1
University of Wisconsin -
Milwaukee 1 1
Upper Iowa University 10 10
Utah State University 2 2
Walla Walla College 3 3
Weber State University 2 2
Western Michigan University 2 2
Number of programmes 27 13 14 26
 - 28 -

Table 3.2c: Number of UK Institutions and Programmes approved to be offered in Hong Kong

Non-Local List Local List Total

Post- Post-
Undergraduate graduate Undergraduate graduate Number of
Name of Institutions programmes programmes programmes programmes Programmes
ACCA 2 2
Associated Board of the Royal
Schools of Music 1 1
Birmingham College of Food,
Tourism, and Creative Studies 1 1
Bolton Institute 2 2
British Computer Society 1 1
Brunel University 1 1
Chartered Institute of Building 1 1
Chartered Management Institute 1 1
Coventry University 2 1 3
De Montfort University 2 2
Glasgow Caledonian University 2 2
Henley Management College 2 2 4
Heriot-Watt University 1 5 7 13
Institute of Administrative
Management 2 2
Institute of Environmental
Management and Assessment 2 2
International Compliance
Association 1 1
International Register of
Certificated Auditors 3 3
Kingston University 1 1
Leeds Metropolitan University 2 2
Liverpool John Moores University 3 3
Liverpool University 2 1 3
London Metropolitan University 1 1
Manchester Metropolitan University 1 1 2
Middlesex University 1 1 13 8 23
Napier University 9 7 16
Nottingham Trent University 1 1 2
Oxford Brookes University 2 1 5 8
Queen Mary, University of London 1 1
Sheffield Hallam University 2 11 1 6 20
Society of Trust and Estate
Practitioners 2 2
Staffordshire University 3 5 8
Thames Valley University 1 1
The Chartered Institute of
Marketing 2 1 3
The Chartered Institute of
Purchasing and Supply 1 1
 - 29 -

(Cont. of Table 3.2c)

The College of Estate Management 1 1 2
The Institute of Business
Administration and Management 2 4 6
The Open University 1 1
The Royal Institution of Chartered
Surveyors 1 1
The University of Birmingham 2 2 1 5
The University of Hull 5 5
The University of Lancaster 1 1
The University of Manchester 1 1
The University of Nottingham 2 4 6
The University of Reading 3 4 7
The University of York 3 3
Trinity College London 1 1
University of Bath 3 3
University of Bradford 1 1 2
University of Bristol 2 2
University of Cambridge Local
Examination Syndicate 4 4
University of Central England 1 1
University of Central Lanchashire 5 4 9
University of Durham 1 4 5
University of East Anglia 1 1
University of Exeter 2 2
University of Glamorgan 2 2
University of Greenwich 2 5 7
University of Huddersfield 4 4
University of Leicester 1 14 2 16 33
University of London 66 72 138
University of Manchester 1 1
University of Manchester Institute
of Science and Technology 2 2
University of Newcastle upon Tyne 2 2
University of North London 1 1
University of Northumbria 2 1 5 4 12
University of Portsmouth 3 3 9 15
University of Reading 1 1
University of Stirling 1 1
University of Strathclyde 1 3 2 6
University of Sunderland 2 2 6 10
University of Surrey 3 3 6
University of Ulster 2 16 18
University of Wales 3 2 2 7
University of Warwick 1 1 12 1 15
University of Wolverhampton 3 2 2 7

Number of Programmes 78 81 152 184

 - 30 -

Table 3.2d: Number of Institutions and Programmes from countries other than Australia, UK & US
approved to be offered in Hong Kong

Non-Local List Local List Total

Post- Post-
Undergraduate graduate Undergraduate graduate Number of
Name of Institutions programmes programmes programmes programmes programmes
Asia International Open University
(Macau) 4 2 6
Asia Pacific School of Management 1 1
Beijing Sport University 2 2
Beijing University 1 7 8
Beijing University of Chinese
Medicine 9 9
Beijing University of Languages 2 1 3
Benedictine College 3 3
British Columbia Institute of
Technology 1 1
Capital University of Economics
and Business (China) 2 2
Central Convervatory of Music,
PRC 1 1 2
Certified General Accountants
Association of Canada 1 2 3
Charles Darwin University 2 2
Chartered Management Institute 1 1
China Institute of Chinese
Medicine Research 1 2 3
China Institute of Sociology 1 1 2
China National Auditor and
Training Accreditation Board 1 1
China Pharmaceutical University 1 1
China University of Politics and
Law 2 2
Chingdu University of Chinese
Medicine 1 1
Dongbei University of Finance and
Economics 1 1 2
East China Normal University 4 4
Institute of Policy and
Management, China Academy of
Sciences 1 1
Jiangshi College of Chinese
Medicine 2 2
Jienan University 4 1 5
Massey University 3 1 4
Mohawk College of Applied Arts
and Technology 1 1
National University of Ireland 1 1 2
NCC Education Ltd 11 11
NIIT Limited 4 4
Philippine Woman's University 1 1
RenMin University, PRC 2 2
 - 31 -

(Cont. Table 3.2d)

Royal Roads University 1 1
Shanghai Economics University 3 3
Shenzhen University 1 1
Simon Fraser University 1 1
The University of Western Ontario 2 2
TsingHua University 4 2 6
University of Alberta 1 1
University of Calgary 1 1
University of Waterloo 1 1
University of Xiamen 4 4
Victoria University of Wellington 1 1
Zhong San University 1 1

Number of Programmes 39 11 37 28

Table 3.2e: Number of Institutions & Foreign Programmes ('Non-Local' & 'Local' Lists) in Hong Kong
Non-Local List Local List
Under- Post- Under- Post- Total
Number of graduate graduate graduate graduate Number of
Country Institutions programmes programmes programmes programmes Programmes
Australia 39 71 83 52 80 286
UK 75 78 81 152 184 495
US 35 27 13 14 26 80
Others 43 39 11 37 28 115

Total 192 215 188 255 318 976

Total number of programmes (Non-

Local List): 403
Total number of programmes (Local
List): 573

Total number of Undergraduate

Programmes: 470
Total number of Postgraduate
Programmes: 506
 - 32 -

The HKCAA, after conducting a self-review in 2003 has decided

to adopt revised criteria for quality assurance that are “more
output-focused and open-ended to accommodate all types of
provision” so as to promote a more diverse and dynamic
education and training market where “the value of quality
assurance is upheld and appreciated”15. Like Australia, New
Zealand and the UK, Hong Kong is setting up a quality
framework to address the inadequacies in the present system of
recognition of qualifications and to foster an environment
conducive to lifelong learning which will enable the
development of flexible and diverse progression pathways with
multiple entry and exit points.
 - 33 -

4. Current approach taken by Malaysia in dealing with

distance learning programmes
There is not any specifically clear policy being adopted by the
authorities (Jabatan Pendidikan Swasta, Kementerian
Pendidikan Tinggi and LAN) in dealing with distance learning
and distance learning programmes in Malaysia. Perhaps the
concept of distance learning and the models of distance learning
for most people are confined to the USM model or the
correspondence school’s model. There is, at present, no
guideline for the regulation, approval and accreditation of
overseas academic programmes that are delivered by distance
learning mode or supported distance learning mode (which,
according to the definition of the QAA, UK are encompassed by
the term ‘distance learning’). In fact Royal Professor Ungku A.
Aziz stated in 1992 that “Distance education is not always fully
understood by many key decision makers in Malaysia………It
may be superfluous to make the point that Malaysia already has
all the necessary technology for providing a distance education
system. All it lacks is the software and the political will to
realise it.”16

The impending, and timely implementation of the Malaysian

qualifications framework and the quest of the government to
promote lifelong learning will require that the present rigid
regulation and recognition criteria of the various authorities to
be reviewed, as in the case of Hong Kong15 whereby, like Hong
Kong, Malaysia should address the problems of the present
system of recognition of qualifications and allow diverse entry
 - 34 -

and exit points as well as different pathways to achieve

recognised qualifications to foster lifelong learning.
 - 35 -

5. Conclusion: Malaysia is fully capable of devising a

viable strategy based on distance learning models to
make her an attractive and competitive education hub.

In a recent list of Top 500 Universities in the world, published

by the Institute of Higher Education, Shanghai Jiao Tong
University, China17, none of the Malaysian public universities
had made it to the list (National University of Singapore and
Nanyang Technological University were placed at positions 101
& 302 respectively). In another ranking of top 100 universities
in the Asia Pacific Region published by the same source 18, again
none of the Malaysian public universities were listed.
Interestingly, Malaysia spends proportionately high amount of
our GDP on public higher education and was ranked 35 in a
survey of 129 countries (Singapore ranked 74 and Thailand
ranked 69)19. Against this backdrop, we can deduce that the
attractiveness of Malaysian higher education to foreign students
lies not in the local public or private institutions of higher
learning, but with the reputation and awards of the foreign
partner institutions that offer their off shore programmes in the
country in distance learning or supported distance learning or
fully franchised modes of delivery or the availability of
articulation routes to these foreign universities for Malaysian
programmes. To build up the reputation and hence the world’s
perception and ranking of our institutions of higher learning
will require a substantial period of time and efforts.
 - 36 -

Hence, to realise our country’s aspiration to be an education hub

of the region, we should leverage on the tremendous strengths
and expertise of the private higher education industry in the
provision of supported distance learning programmes from
overseas partner institutions. To foster such a strategy, there
must be a flexible and transparent regulatory framework to
accommodate such programmes. This is because of the fact that
existing rules and regulations governing quality assurance of
higher education programmes in the private sector are geared
towards full-time education and mainly target school leavers,
these are of course highly inadequate and inappropriate in
achieving the quality assurance goal for distance delivery of
programmes.

In 1997, the UK government commissioned The National

Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, in the
introduction of the appendix of the report on ‘higher education
in other countries’, the chairman Sir Ron Dearing mentioned
that countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, Korea and Taiwan are
“likely to become major competitors [for the UK] over the next
twenty years”20. This report recognised the great potential of
Malaysia to be the education hub of the region. With the clear
understanding of the regulatory authorities of the concept of
distance delivery of programmes and the provision of a
streamlined regulatory framework that enhance distance
delivery of foreign programmes, Malaysian higher education
industry shall be in the most favourable position to help to
propel the country forward to achieve this aspiration. However,
 - 37 -

the Dearing Report20 also cited other countries in the region

which could be competitors to the UK and hence competitors to
Malaysia for a slice of this ever growing higher education
market.

Perhaps we could conclude by recommending that the

Government consider the followings in its quest to improve on
the quality assurance process for the country, in:
• Adopting the QAA (UK)’s definition of distance learning to
encompass a wide range of delivery modes by foreign
universities in Malaysia and perhaps adopt the Singaporean’s
definition of distance learning to include all foreign
programmes delivered in country.

• Adopting the Singapore’s approach in handling the

recognition of foreign qualifications by emphasising the
quality of the awarding institutions overseas, placing the
responsibilities (and hence accountabilities) for quality
assurance of the foreign programmes fully in the hands of the
foreign institutions.

• Formulating guidelines taking into account the experience

and practices in countries like the UK , Australia and Hong
Kong to devise best practices that are more transparent in the
regulation of foreign programmes delivered in Malaysia.

• Collaborating with accreditation agencies like the QAA (UK),

AUQA (Australia), and the Council of Higher Education
 - 38 -

Accreditation (CHEA) of the US in recognising the

accreditation accorded by these agencies in streamlining the
work of regulating the delivery of foreign programmes in
Malaysia.

• Utilising the quality assurance mechanisms and audit reports

of agencies like the QAA (UK) and AUQA (Australia) which
regulate the overseas activities of universities in those
countries, perhaps by contributing towards the efforts of
these agencies in assuring the quality of programmes from
their respective countries that are delivered in Malaysia.

Malaysia should bear in mind of its objective of achieving the

status of the education hub for the region and the severe
competition now faced by the industry from Singapore,
Thailand as well as the Philippines to enhance the reputation,
quality and competitiveness of the entire higher education
sector. The over-regulation and long period needed to get
approvals for programmes of the past few years had in fact
robbed the higher education industry of Malaysia of our
competitiveness and allowed our neighbours, Singapore in
particular to overtake us in the recruitment of foreign students
to study in the country. In addition, Kementerian Pengajian
Tinggi in particular and the Government in general should take
into considerations the likely impact of the World Trade
Organisation’s General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS)
on the industry and on our aspiration as the education hub of
the region21. The environment in Malaysia should be refined to
 - 39 -

prepare the higher education sector to further seize the

opportunities and counter the threats of globalisation.

Perhaps in our quest for ensuring quality delivery of

programmes from overseas, we have not realised that the most
important factor for ensuring quality is to ensure that the
learning experiences of learners in Malaysia should be
equivalent or as close as possible to those of their colleagues’
studying on campus overseas, as required by the HKCAA.

Reference List:
1
QAA Guidelines on the quality assurance of distance learning (http://www.qaa.ac.uk/public/dlg/contents.htm )
2
Higher quality 10 - Continuous improvement - July 2002 http://www.qaa.ac.uk/public/hq/hq10/hq10_part2.htm
3
http://www.auqa.edu.au/aboutauqa/policies/002/index.shtml
4
Proceedings of the Australian Universities Quality Forum, Melbourne 2003, “Australian Higher Education and
Quality: International Issues, Challenges and Opportunities
Ms Lindy Hyam, Chief Executive Officer, IDP Education Australia”, pg 22 -31.
5
http://www1.moe.edu.sg/privatesch/
6
http://www.moe.gov.sg/corporate/post_secondary_faq2.htm#q1
7
http://www.careers.gov.sg/entry2.htm
8
http://www1.moe.edu.sg/privatesch/Directory/DLP_1.htm
9
http://www1.moe.edu.sg/privatesch/
10
The regulation of non-local tertiary courses in Hong Kong, http://www.aare.edu.au/01pap/eva01481.htm
11
http://www.emb.gov.hk/index.aspx?nodeid=1248&langno=1
12
http://www.emb.gov.hk/filemanager/en/content_1262/ScheduleOfFees.pdf
13
http://www.emb.gov.hk/index.aspx?langno=1&nodeID=1438
14
http://www.emb.gov.hk/index.aspx?langno=1&nodeID=1247
15
Paper for the Legislative Council Panel on Manpower (18 March 2004) on the Establishment of a Qualifications
Framework and its associated Quality Assurance Mechanism;
http://www.emb.gov.hk/FileManager/EN/Content_181/panel%20paper%20(1803004e).pdf
16
http://mgv.mim.edu.my/MMR/9212/921205.Htm
17
http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2004/top500list.htm
18
http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2004/Top%20100%20Asia%20Pacific%20Universities.htm
19
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/edu_pub_spe_per_stu_ter_lev
20
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe/app5.htm & http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe/a5_001.htm
21
The impact of the GATS on Transnational Tertiary Education: comparing experiences of New Zealand, Australia,
Singapore and Malaysia; http://www.aare.edu.au/aer/online/30030f.pdf
(all the online references were accessed between September - October 2004)
Presentation made to Secretary General, Ministry of Higher Education &35 of his senior officers on 10 Nov 2004