The experience of international postgraduate students on a distance-learning programme

Abstract

Online distance-learning (ODL) programmes in higher education enable students to remain in their domicile country to study with institutions based in other countries. ODL students can find themselves studying with others from many different countries, adding greater heterogeneity of personal, environmental and cultural perspectives compared with oncampus education. This is likely to impact the learners' experience in different ways. The current research examined the experience of students living outside of the European Union, who were registered with an ODL programme with a higher education institution based in the European Union. The research identified a number of important factors that influenced the students' experience in different ways. The results emphasize the need for ODL programmes to fully consider individual students' contexts, regardless of where they are in the world, and for these needing to be embedded in a pedagogical framework that gives due consideration to globally diverse cohorts of students

The Expatriate and Transnational Distance Student Phenomenon: A Series of Investigations

“…The reasons underlying why foreign-residents choose to study abroad at a distance are not clear. The experience of studying at a distance while situated in a culture different from one's own is under described in the literature (Harrison, Harrison, Robinson, & Rawlings, 2018). Nor is it clearly understood why some long-term foreign residents in Korea, with no plans to return to their home nations, do not take advantage of local education programs, especially when comparable programs exist.…”

“…Such complex liminal spaces also create new challenges when conceptualizing the situations that students can exist in (Andrews & Tynan, 2010;Harrison et al, 2018;Dobos, 2011;Gemmell & Harrison, 2017;Stewart, 2017;Wilkins, 2016). Academic institutions have long made distinctions between national and international students in the student body for various practical, logistical, and legal purposes, but this traditional dichotomy is inadequate in modern face-to-face and distance educational settings (Andrews & Tynan, 2010;Harrison et al, 2018;Dobos, 2011;Gemmell & Harrison, 2017;Stewart, 2017;Wilkins, 2016). Rensimer (2016) critiqued, "[t]he overlapping language of all things international-international students and international institutions in (inter)national spaces-appears to have made the term all but redundant as a useful research analytic in a globalizing era" (p. 79).…”

“…Some intercultural faux pas (e.g., different role expectations, differing perceptions of time) were expected as par for the course, but other more serious intercultural transgressions (e.g., discussion prompts about topical but controversial topics, ethnocentrically informed practices, intercultural power imbalances) simply went unnoticed (Gunawardena, 2003(Gunawardena, , 2014Gunawardena & LaPointe, 2008;Harrison et al, 2018;Hoare, 2013;Lee, 2011;Patel & Lynch, 2013). These types of situational challenges may be exacerbated when instructors and administrators also experience adverse professional treatment by the home institution, a burdensome load of administrative responsibilities, the need to create new teaching materials for local effectiveness, as well as determining how strictly to adhere to a standardized curriculum that may not be effective in a different setting (Dobos, 2011).…”

“…The academic literature thus far has shown that distance education can transcend national borders, and that this seems to be happening with increasing frequency . Evidence for this expansion includes traditional face-to-face and hybrid transnational programs (e.g., Arunasalam, 2016;Dobos, 2011;Francois, 2016;FSU, n.d.;Hou et al, 2014;IFEZ, n.d.;IGC, n.d.;Kanu, 2005;Miller-Idris & Hanauer, 2011;Sidhu & Christie, 2013;Sutrisno & Pillay, 2013;UCRX, n.d.;Wilkins et al, 2017;Yung-Chi Hou et al, 2015;Ziguras & Pham, 2014), the emerging recognition of transnational distance students and possible ways of categorizing them (e.g., Andrews & Tynan, 2010;Gemmell & Harrison, 2017;Harrison et al, 2018;Stewart, 2017;Wilkins, 2016;Ziguras, 2008). While ICT (and the Internet in particular) has enabled potentially global access to distance education opportunities, the difference that institutions, instructors, and students have in values, expectations, and social and cultural norms are arguably greater than any technological challenge facing those wanting to take advantage of these opportunities (Gunawardena, 2014).…”

“…In educational settings, the role of the teacher as an authority is often ideal in High Context Cultures, whereas the facilitator is often described as ideal in modern pedagogical approaches in Low context cultures (Hall, 1976;Hofstede, 1983). The misapplication of teaching practices in different cultural contexts risks creating problems despite good intentions (Gunawardena & LaPointe, 2008;Harrison et al, 2018). For example, consider Grow's (1996) model of student self-directed learning (SSDL) which is indicative of a distinctly western worldview that prioritizes and values self-directed learning.…”