Advertisement

Germany’s Road Towards Transnational Provision of Higher Education and Its Footprint in China and Turkey

Chapter
  • 138 Downloads
Part of the Global Germany in Transnational Dialogues book series (GGTD)

Abstract

The development of German activities in the transnational provision of higher education has been subject to specific national conditions, which also influence the prevailing modes of engagement chosen by German universities in Transnational Education (TNE) or International Programme and Provider Mobility (IPPM). The chapter begins with a discussion of terminology with reference to the conditions for German TNE-IPPM activity. The main motivations and drivers which have shaped the development and profile of Germany as a provider of TNE-IPPM are outlined, followed by an overview of the scope, geographical distribution and general profile of German TNE-IPPM provision. The chapter then discusses two aspects which feature prominently in the overall picture: The involvement of German higher education institutions (HEI) in the establishment and running of new universities abroad operating on German models of higher education, and the large share of universities of applied science (UAS) in the overall German TNE-IPPM activity. Concluding the chapter, both aspects are further explored in two case studies of China and Turkey which address the German TNE-IPPM engagement in China and Turkey against the backdrop of these countries’ strategies to develop and internationalise their higher education sectors.

References

  1. Australian Government—Department of Education. Data on the Offshore Delivery of Australian Courses. Delivery of Australian Higher Education Courses Offshore. 2017 Excel File. https://internationaleducation.gov.au/research/offshoreeducationdata/pages/transnational-education-data.aspx.
  2. Council of Europe. 2002. Code of Good Practice in the Provision of Transnational Education.Google Scholar
  3. DAAD. 2014. Transnational Education in Germany: DAAD Position Paper.Google Scholar
  4. DAAD. 2017. China: Daten & Analysen zum Hochschul- und Wissenschaftsstandort. https://www.daad.de/medien/der-daad/analysen-studien/bildungssystemanalyse/china_daad_bsa.pdf. Accessed 30 July 2019.
  5. DAAD and HRK. 2014. Code of Conduct for German Higher Education Projects Abroad.Google Scholar
  6. DAAD and DZHW. 2016. Wissenschaft weltoffen: Facts and Figures on the International Nature of Studies and Research in Germany.Google Scholar
  7. DAAD and DZHW. 2019. Wissenschaft weltoffen: Facts and Figures on the International Nature of Studies and Research in Germany.Google Scholar
  8. DAAD, AvH and HRK. 2019. Internationalität an deutschen Hochschulen: Erhebung von Profildaten 2018.Google Scholar
  9. Erguvan, Deniz. 2015. Transnational Education in Turkey. Journal of Educational and Social Research. 5 (1): 227–240.Google Scholar
  10. Goldberger, Josef. 2017. Chinas Hochschulen im Weltbildungssystem: Analyse von Internationalisierungsstrategien und -absichten anhand von drei Fallbeispielen. PhD diss., Humboldt Universität Berlin.  https://doi.org/10.18452/18179.
  11. Healey, Nigel. 2015. Towards a Risk-Based Typology of Transnational Education. Higher Education 69 (1): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hochschulrektorenkonferenz. https://www.internationale-hochschulkooperationen.de/staaten.html. Accessed 27 June 2019.
  13. ICEF Monitor. 2018. China Announces the Closure of More Than 200 TNE Programmes. https://monitor.icef.com/2018/07/china-announces-closure-200-tne-programmes/. Accessed 30 July 2019.
  14. Knight, Jane. 2005. Borderless, Offshore, Transnational and Cross-Border Education: Definition and Data Dilemmas. In The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.Google Scholar
  15. Knight, Jane. 2016. Transnational Education Remodeled: Toward a Common TNE Framework and Definitions. Journal of Studies in International Education 20 (1): 34–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Knight, Jane and Mc Namara, John. 2017. Transnational Education: A Classification Framework and Date Collection Guidelines for International Programme and Provider Mobility (IPPM).Google Scholar
  17. Nguluma, Hamadi Fadhil, Osman Titrek, and Zehra Kotaoglu. 2019. Implementation of Turkish Foreign Policies and Government Support as Driving Forces of Promoting International Students. International Journal on Lifelong Education and Leadership. 5 (1): 40.Google Scholar
  18. Quality Assurance Agency (QAA). 2017. Country Report: The People’s Republic of China. https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/international/country-report-china-2017.pdf?sfvrsn=12c9f781_10. Accessed 30 July 2019.
  19. Schmidt-Dörr, Thomas. 2015. Peking: Neue Strukturen für das Hochschulsystem. In 2014: Berichte der Außenstellen des Deutschen Akademischen Austauschdienstes, ed. DAAD, 90–98.Google Scholar
  20. Study in Turkey. 2019. https://www.studyinturkey.gov.tr/StudyinTurkey/_PartStatistic. Accessed July 2019.
  21. Universities UK International. 2018. The Scale of UK Higher Education Transnational Education 2016–17. Trend Analysis of HESA Data.Google Scholar
  22. Wintermantel, Margret. 2015. Internationalisierung durch strategische Kooperationen - Investitionen in die Zukunft. Speech, Saarbrücken, 16 September, 2015. Presentation Slides.Google Scholar
  23. Wissenschaftsrat. 2017. Bestandsaufnahme und Empfehlungen zu studiengangsbezogenen Kooperationen: Franchise-, Validierungs- und Anrechnungsmodelle.Google Scholar
  24. YÖK. 2017. Yükseköğretimde uluslararasilmaşma strateji belgesi, 2018–2022. Document on the Internationalisation Strategy of Higher Education, 2018–2022. p. 21f. www.yok.gov.tr/Documents/AnaSayfa/Yuksekogretimde_Uluslararasilasma_Strateji_Belgesi_2018_2022.pdf. Accessed 22 June 2019.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Deutscher Akademischer AustauschdienstBonnGermany

Personalised recommendations