Fabrizio Trifirò: TNE trends, insights, and impact on UK and global education

As transnational education continues to evolve, the United Kingdom is poised to be at its forefront, navigating trends and developments that will shape its future in this dynamic field. With a longstanding reputation as a preferred destination for international students, the UK is strategically positioning itself to maintain its allure amid increasing global competition. 

The challenge lies in not only preserving its appeal but also adapting to the rise of online and remote learning. In this context, the UK is exploring ways to leverage digital platforms for TNE, raising questions about the role of digital education in the future of transnational learning.

The impact of distance education, particularly in the context of partnerships with Nigeria, is a critical area of examination. Questions surrounding accessibility, quality, and innovation in distance education are central to understanding the challenges and opportunities this mode of delivery presents.

Additionally, the UK higher education sector is actively addressing the growing demand for flexible TNE programs that cater to the diverse needs of international students.

In an exclusive interview with MSM Reporter, Fabrizio Trifirò — head of stakeholder engagement and international quality reviews at Ecctis and board member of the International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education — shared his direct insights into trends and challenges shaping the future of TNE. 

As a leader at the intersection of international quality reviews and stakeholder engagement, Trifirò influences policies and strategies contributing to the growth and sustainability of TNE globally.

What trends and developments do you foresee shaping the future of transnational education in the UK and in general?

TNE is an increasingly strategic aspect of UK higher education. It represents an important way for higher education providers to diversify internationalization activity, strengthen their international brand and reputation, and support international cooperation and student recruitment.

The UK International Education Strategy is overseen jointly by the Department of Education and the Department for Business and Trade. It places particular emphasis on growing UK TNE. The UK government has appointed an international education champion to support the implementation of the IES. This includes leading high-level policy engagement with key strategic countries to support TNE growth.

A recurrent theme in these high-level conversations with other countries is ensuring two-way mutually beneficial partnerships. This will likely be the key driving factor shaping the development of UK TNE going forward. We will increasingly see a move away from TNE being seen as a primarily transactional mode of delivery to TNE as a more strategic institutional activity aimed at responding to the specific needs and expectations of host locations and local partners, as well as adding value “back home.” 

This is also reflected in the new British Council TNE strategy, which emphasized the strategic aim to support TNE to contribute to the transformation of local education systems and contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

In this context, broader considerations of impact will likely play a key role, as well as alignment with international development agendas. And this I expect to apply to TNE in general, regardless of country of origin or delivery. One such important international agenda is the UNESCO 2030 agenda for sustainable development, which has a particular focus on fostering flexible learning pathways capable of widen access to education and support lifelong learning for all.

TNE can play a key role in supporting this progressive agenda in higher education, and this fact is recognized, for example, in the UNESCO Global Recognition Convention. In fact, the global convention places particular emphasis on the need for the international education community to recognize less traditional modes of teaching and learning such as TNE and online provision, as well as short courses and prior learning, which can play a critical role in supporting the widening access and lifelong learning agenda at a global level.

Another development which might play an increasing role in the international TNE landscape going forward is the establishment of dedicated education hubs to attract quality international education providers. Dubai, Qatar, Malaysia, South Korea, and Mauritius have led the way over the past 15 years or so, adopting different operating and financial models. More recently, we have seen dedicated education hubs being developed in China and India, with more countries such as Vietnam and Indonesia also considering the idea. 

Education hubs providing incentives to foreign providers, including through the provision of shared facilities and services, can play an important role in meeting local or regional demand for quality international education “closer to home,” as well as contributing to internationalizing local or regional education systems, and to the growth of local and regional economies.

Recently, I have been involved in the establishment of an initiative aimed at bringing together a number of international hubs to share experiences, lessons learned, and explore possible ways to cooperate across hubs with a view to adding value to their respective proposition to international providers and students. Initial conversations have taken place involving EduCity Iskandar, Uniciti Mauritius, and Incheon Global Campus, as well as the Hainan Pilot Education Zone. The establishment of an International Association of Education Hubs was discussed. It is very early days for this initiative, but it has the potential to spur innovative ways to offer TNE provision across hubs and to inform the development of new hubs.

In terms of TNE, which regions or countries do you consider to be the foremost markets for the UK? What strategies are in place to strengthen these relationships?

The UK International Education Strategy outlines five key strategic priority countries for TNE growth: India, Vietnam, Nigeria, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia. A second tier of strategic countries has also been identified for prioritization, which includes emerging markets such as Brazil and Mexico, and more established markets such as Pakistan, China and Hong Kong, and Europe. 

The latter has increased in importance as a destination for UK TNE post-Brexit as a way to reach students in Europe no longer willing or able to come to the UK to study. We can expect growth in these countries in the medium term as a result of strategic government and sector-wide engagement, led by the international education champion.  

Generally, we can expect to see TNE growth in countries and regions which will struggle to meet the increasing demand for quality higher education and where the local student population might not be able to afford to travel internationally to pursue their studies but could afford the cost of studying an international degree “at home” or closer to home, even if the price point might be higher than that of local higher education. Dedicated education hubs might be playing a catalyst role in this context.

Another development which might play an increasing role in the international TNE landscape going forward is the establishment of dedicated education hubs to attract quality international education providers. Dubai, Qatar, Malaysia, South Korea, and Mauritius have led the way over the past 15 years or so, adopting different operating and financial models. More recently, we have seen dedicated education hubs being developed in China and India, with more countries such as Vietnam and Indonesia also considering the idea. 

Nigeria has been identified as the second largest TNE market for UK partnerships in Africa, primarily through distance education. How do you see the impact of distance education on transnational education in terms of accessibility, quality, and innovation? What challenges and opportunities does this mode of delivery present?

Distance learning has a long history of reaching out to sectors of society that could not benefit from study programs offered in traditional in-person settings. In its international reach, distance learning — and what we are referring to is online learning really — has similar inherently progressive potential to in-person TNE as a means to widen access to quality international education to students who are unable or unwilling to travel internationally to pursue their studies.

This potential of online learning has become clearly visible to the international education community during the Covid pandemic. Suddenly, online learning came to be the only available mode of teaching and learning worldwide, and everyone had one way or another to reckon with the opportunities and challenges it presents.

As a consequence of the pandemic, education providers worldwide have been able to enhance the way in which they deliver online education, understanding what works better and what works less well. For example, there is much more to effective online learning than just a matter of digitalizing learning materials; that you have to think about how to keep students engaged, that you have to have ways to safeguard the integrity of assessments, as well as having to think about accessibility.

This has resulted in broader appreciation within the international education community that online learning can be of good quality, which importantly should help ease some of the traditional recognition challenges facing online education, challenges based on concerns about its quality vis-à-vis in-person modes of delivery. 

As a result of improved institutional capacity, both pedagogical and technical, improved confidence and trust toward this mode of delivery, and improved policy environments, we can therefore expect an increase in demand for online learning, as well as increased investment in online learning technology by education providers to meet increased demand and as a risk-mitigating strategy against any further pandemics or world crises.

Having said that, international online learning, that is online TNE, is still far from being universally recognized. Quality concerns are still common. But often, lack of recognition can be due to national policies regarding internationalization aimed at safeguarding or protecting national education systems, rather than straightforward concerns about quality. In fact, generally, international online degrees are not recognized, while national online degrees are recognized and incentivized.

Similar considerations apply to in-person TNE delivery which has also traditionally faced recognition hurdles and quality concerns. In-person TNE has started to be seen as a risk-mitigating strategy by many education providers in case of future global or national crises, or policies affecting international student mobility. And its benefits as a way to meet local demand for quality education and internationalize local education systems are increasingly being appreciated by several receiving countries which are developing legislation and frameworks to welcome and regulate in-bound TNE. 

For example, the case of Indonesia, Vietnam, India, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia recently, as well as Nigeria, which has just published new Guidelines on TNE where it explicitly recognizes the role of TNE, and online learning, as a way to meet local demand that cannot be absorbed by the local system while helping halting brain drain and retaining talent locally. 

There are, however, certain models of TNE that face more challenges for recognition and acceptance than others. Specifically, in addition to online learning, collaborative partnerships with local providers do not hold local degree-awarding power. 

While this is an established model of delivery in the UK, with many existing universities having developed as validated colleges of other degree-awarding bodies in the past, internationally there is a varied appreciation for this model. The concern typically is about quality and standards when delivery takes place in colleges without the power to award higher education degrees. It is all about different views of quality and practices of quality assurance.

In your perspective, how has the landscape of quality assurance for UK TNE evolved over the years, and what are the driving forces behind these changes?

In a recent blog for the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI), I outlined the development of the UK TNE quality assurance landscape from a historical perspective. Essentially, I outline how the main driving force behind the different, succeeding, and developing approaches to quality assuring and regulating UK TNE has been that of safeguarding the reputation of UK HE and the interests of TNE students, even when UK quality assurance was primarily linked to accountability for public funding. UK providers have never been able to use public funding to support their TNE endeavors, and initially, this placed TNE somehow out of the scope of interest of the different national regulators.

As for the changes in the way through which UK TNE has been regulated and quality assured, these have pretty much followed changes in the approach to quality assurance and regulation adopted for UK provision in general. The main change recently is associated with the establishment of the Office for Students in England, which has taken over full responsibility for the quality assurance and regulation of HE in England, including TNE.

The OfS adopts an innovative approach to regulation, which is risk-based and metrics-driven, placing less emphasis on the internal processes adopted by providers, and more on the outcomes of their provision. For example, it looks at metrics such as student continuation, completion, progression into employment or further study, and satisfaction.

In the rest of the UK, the Quality Assurance Agency is still the body delegated by the national funding councils to provide reassurance about the quality and standards of HE, through enhancement-led approaches.

Regardless of the different approaches that have been adopted over the years, either UK-wide by the QAA in the past or now the OfS in England, the underpinning principle and expectation has always been that UK qualifications should meet expected quality and standards regardless of where or how these are delivered.

As a consequence of the pandemic, education providers worldwide have been able to enhance the way in which they deliver online education, understanding what works better and what works less well. For example, there is much more to effective online learning than just a matter of digitalizing learning materials; that you have to think about how to keep students engaged, that you have to have ways to safeguard the integrity of assessments, as well as having to think about accessibility.

What do you see as the key challenges for the quality assurance of TNE? How are international systems responding to these challenges?

One key challenge is the capacity of national systems to quality assure or regulate inbound or outbound TNE, and differences in approaches adopted. Not all countries have systems in place, often due to a lack of capacity. There are still significant quality assurance gaps internationally. And those countries that do have systems in place adopt very different approaches, which might lead not only to quality assurance and regulatory gaps but also quality assurance and regulatory overlaps. 

These challenges, as I have emphasized in previous publications and studies, call for international coordination between national quality assurance systems. It is a matter of national quality assurance and regulatory bodies appreciating that the quality assurance and regulation of TNE requires shared solutions and cooperation. Therefore, they  must engage in dialogue, share information, and cooperate as a way to address collectively quality assurance gaps and overlaps that, on the one hand, might affect the international confidence in the quality of TNE, and, on the other hand, might hinder the growth of quality TNE through unnecessary regulatory burden.

A particular challenge has to do with the interpretation and implementation of what can be regarded as the golden rule of quality assuring TNE, that is that TNE provision should be comparable to similar provision offered at the home campus of the TNE degree awarding body. Although uncontroversial at first, this rule is open to different understanding and views about what should remain comparable. In particular, there are two aspects whose compatibility is to consider, the standards of provision, that is the learning outcomes expected of students upon completion of their studies, and the quality of the student experience, that is the learning inputs supporting students in achieving the expected learning outcomes, such as the learning environment, including academic and extra-academic support services, etc.

While there is unanimous agreement internationally that the comparability of learning outcomes should be regarded as an uncompromisable expectation — in the sense that TNE students should be expected to have achieved the same level and set of competencies, knowledge, and skills at the end of their studies as students studying on similar programs at the home campus of the TNE degree-awarding body — when it comes to the learning input, there can be different views. To what extent should the student experience and learning environment in TNE operations be comparable to that of students studying at the home campus? Is strict comparability necessary, and is it even feasible? Should anything beyond and above what is required to allow students to succeed in their studies, that is to achieve the expected learning outcomes, be considered a matter of institutional and student choice, and thus student expectation?

Different views on this issue have to do with the recognition challenges facing TNE and online learning that I have mentioned earlier. The more one thinks that the student experience of TNE students should be as much comparable as possible to that of students at the home campus, the more one will be inclined to believe that TNE is inherently of a lesser quality than home campus traditional provision, leading to recognition challenges.

Over the past couple of years I have worked with international colleagues to develop an international quality benchmark scheme that aims to address the quality assurance gaps that exist internationally, based on the view that as long as students are sufficiently supported in achieving the expected learning outcomes, anything else goes with regard to learning inputs. This outcomes-oriented approach in my view would allow the international education community to overcome the recurring recognition challenges affecting TNE, leading to an international policy environment capable of fully unleashing the progressive potential of TNE.

[I]nternational online learning, that is online TNE, is still far from being universally recognized. Quality concerns are still common. But often, lack of recognition can be due to national policies regarding internationalization aimed at safeguarding or protecting national education systems, rather than straightforward concerns about quality.

Based on your extensive experience of studying and quality-assuring TNE, what would you recommend as the best practice for quality TNE?

I usually share the following top tips for TNE providers:

Know yourself. That is, have a clear strategy and prioritize. Know why you are doing TNE and why you are doing it in the way, where, and with whom you are doing it.

Get it right from the start. That is, undertake due diligence and thorough planning, thinking about risks across all domains, legal, regulatory, financial, academic, and reputational.

Know each other. That is, when entering into partnerships with other providers, foster reciprocal understanding from the start, and understand each other’s rationales, priorities, expectations, cultures of teaching and learning, and red lines.

This is related to managing each other’s expectations (and red lines). That is, set out clearly shared objectives and responsibilities, understanding what you want to achieve together, how, and who is going to do what as part of the partnership.

Cover geographical distance (in addition to cultural distance). That is, make sure that geographical distance won’t get in the way of regular communication, which is absolutely key to making sure that everything goes as planned and any issue is addressed promptly. This will require investing in IT technology to support seamless communication across distances, working at flexible hours, and some international travel as well. In-person engagement is key to fostering relationships of trust.

Be ready to navigate regulatory jungles. This has to do with the fact that, as I mentioned earlier, each country of delivery will have its distinct and different regulatory requirements. Providers must invest in understanding the local regulatory frameworks from the start, as part of their due diligence, and also making sure that they keep abreast of change.

Think about (g) localization. That is, duly consider the local context of delivery, beyond the regulatory environment, in terms of local education, training, skills, and industry/market needs. This will have implications on the content of your education offer and the way you go about delivering it, including through partnerships with local industry.

Manage and deliver on student expectations. That is, support student transition at both ends, making sure at entry point that students are fully informed about what they get into from the start, for example the nature of the learning environment, which won’t be exactly the same to that they would expect at the home campus of the TNE degree-awarding body. And making sure that their education and training needs are fully met at exit point, supporting their achievement of the expected competencies, knowledge and skills that will allow them to pursue a rewarding professional career.

Think TNE student engagement. It is important to make TNE students feel connected with the home campus and the TNE degree-awarding body throughout and ensure that their voices are listened to and responded to in the same way that students’ voices at the home campus are.

Finally, mind your staff. That is, make sure you train, support, and recognize staff involved in the management, teaching, and support of TNE, be staff working for the TNE degree-awarding body or the partner institution.