Moving out of their comfort zones: enhancing teaching practice in transnational education

Abstract

This paper investigates the development of teaching practice of the multinational staff delivering UK programmes in a higher education institution in Oman hosting these programmes. It presents a tool to evaluate the teaching practice, and points to those elements of an academic development framework that were found to be most useful in supporting staff in moving towards a student-centred, learning-focused teaching approach. The majority of the lecturers made this shift. We therefore conclude by arguing for long-term CPD aimed at enhancing teaching quality to be part and parcel of a partnership.

Keywords:

• Transnational education
• enhancing teaching practice
• continuing professional development
• Oman

Introduction

In her overview of the research literature on transnational education (TNE), O’Mahony (2014) shows that the theme of teaching is not covered as extensively as globalisation, policy, quality, trade, and the student experience (in this order of frequency). As this paper deals with the development of effective teaching practice and a staff development programme aimed at harmonising and standardising the teaching skills of staff in TNE, it draws on the literature around conceptions of effective teaching and staff development in higher education, while paying attention to aspects pertaining to TNE in particular.

Conceptions of effective teaching

Academics’ beliefs about what constitutes effective teaching in higher education are important because these beliefs influence the approach they take to teaching (Trigwell, Prosser, & Ginns, 2005). In essence, the literature conveys a wide spectrum of teachers’ conceptions of what constitutes effective teaching, with a teacher-centred approach focusing on knowledge transmission at one end, and a student-centred approach at the other (Trigwell & Prosser, 2004). While Samuelowicz and Bain (2001) proposed seven categories of belief orientations that academics have about teaching and learning, they came to the conclusion that there are clearly specified boundaries between the teaching-centred and learning-centred orientations at the two extremes. To move from one to the other seems to require a mental switch.

In the teaching-centred approach, lecturers consider it their only responsibility to be experts in their fields and to expound the subject content clearly to the students in a well-organised way, usually by means of lecturing (Biggs & Tang, 2011). Aspects of this approach would include four of the seven conceptions that Samuelowicz and Bain (2001) put forward: imparting information; transmitting knowledge which is structured by the lecturer; providing and facilitating understanding; and helping students develop expertise which they may need later in their jobs. McMahon, Barrett, and O’Neill (2007) maintain that this is actually the easier way of teaching, as students are expected passively to take in the information the lecturer offers in a presentation; according to Maclellan (2014), this traditional approach to teaching is still widespread. Despite the large body of research pointing to the effectiveness of a student-centred approach, lectures still tend to be common in higher education (Kember, 2009).

The shift in focus from what the lecturer does to what the student does is described by Biggs and Tang (2011) as a level 3 theory. In this approach, teachers’ conceptions about the relationship between learning and teaching take a central place. Earlier, Trigwell et al. (2005) identified three variations in approaches to teaching which take student learning as the starting point: student-teacher interaction, concept acquisition, and student-focused conceptual development or conceptual change (SFCC). In this way of thinking, lecturers see it as their role to prevent misunderstandings, to create for their students a learning environment within which to negotiate meaning, and to encourage knowledge creation (Samuelowicz & Bain, 2001). Within the SFCC approach there are elements of information transmission, but this is not the sole approach. The lecturer designs teaching/learning activities (TLAs) aligned with the intended learning outcomes (ILOs) of the programme, specifying not only what is to be learned (the topic) but also how it is to be learned (what type of TLAs), and to what standard (Biggs & Tang, 2011). Lecturers who take this approach, which Biggs calls ‘constructive alignment’, actively engage the students by providing opportunities for them to practise the ILOs specified in terms of verbs such as discuss or analyse and subsequently tested in the assessment at the end of each semester. Academics who have made those changes in their teaching practices assume that these will lead to changes in the quality of student learning (Trigwell et al., 2005).

Staff development programmes

Supporting lecturers in making this shift towards constructive alignment and taking a learning-centred approach calls for academic development initiatives. The attitude of lecturers towards such continuing professional development appears, however, to be linked to their conceptions of teaching and learning. The interviews conducted by Samuelowicz and Bain (2001) show that academics whose orientation is teaching-centred do not stress continuing professional development, whereas in a learning-centred orientation teaching staff do consider it important. Similarly, Åkerlind (2007) argues that when academics’ approaches to developing as teachers are based solely on gaining better content knowledge and more practical experience, they see no purpose in continuing professional development courses and are therefore constrained in their potential for development. It is only when academics’ approaches ultimately progress towards understanding what does, or does not work for the students, that an emphasis on professional development and reflection upon their own teaching would be valued by them.

While teaching in TNE is in some ways similar to teaching in the context of the home country, research shows that academics teaching abroad require an additional set of skills and specific abilities in that they need to be efficient intercultural learners (Leask, 2005); be aware of the issue of teaching and learning in a non-native language (Teekens, 2003); and have an awareness of the need to integrate content and language learning as they deal with students for whom the medium of instruction (often English) is not the first language of the students (Murray, 2012). In the case of the United Arab Emirates, the location of the programme studied here, English is often not the first language of the lecturers, either (Wilkins, Stephens Balakrishnan, & Huisman, 2012). Furthermore, Robson (2011) argues that international staff will need to examine their ‘habitual practices’ of teaching and that a critical stance towards their pedagogy needs to be nurtured through self-reflection.

Reflection is often seen as the starting point for development: if one is not aware of one’s approach to teaching and learning and one’s practice in the classroom, improvement in teaching practices will not ensue (Postareff, Lindblom-Ylänne, & Nevgi, 2007). During their staff development programme in Iraq, Bovill, Jordan, and Watters (2014) found that lecturers’ inexperience in reflecting on their own teaching practice, together with a reluctance to change, were barriers to transforming teacher-centred approaches into learner-centred approaches. They argue in favour of a staff development programme that supports academics in reflecting on their day-to-day teaching experiences, together with the trainers modelling best practice.

Basing continuing professional development on problems raised by participating academics (Kember, 2009) and on questionnaires asking what kind of development staff need (Locke, Whitchurch, & Smith, 2016) appears to increase the acceptance of the programme and therefore the eventual implementation in the classroom. Staff development programmes for academics teaching in TNE need to address the issues described above together with supporting a shift towards a constructive alignment approach.

Research context

In the majority of undergraduate studies in higher education in Oman, English is the medium of instruction. The college in this study is a medium-sized private higher education institution and has been affiliated with the UK partner university for more than ten years.

The Bachelor’s programmes are delivered in a highly international and intercultural mix: the curricula in the two faculties are provided by the UK University, the nationality of the students is predominantly Omani, while staff are recruited from 15 different countries. All programmes and modules at every undergraduate level are described in detail with specified intended learning outcomes per level, i.e. the first, second and third year of the undergraduate study. Indicative content per module is described in detail and lecture slides and notes are provided for each weekly session, together with a list of required reading for each module. Lecturers are expected to localise and contextualise the subject matter of each module in their teaching and also in the assessment. All assessments are subject to a rigorous quality assurance process with front-end training of the staff delivering the programmes focusing on these quality assurance processes.

However, given that all the academic staff originated from different parts of the world with different educational systems, there was a perceived need to harmonise the teaching practice of the staff so that students would get a similar experience (Boud & Brew, 2013). A Continuing Professional Development (CPD) programme started in the spring of 2014 based on the aggregate needs of all 55 lecturers to address the incongruity between observed teaching practice and the intended learning outcomes of the UK programmes. There seemed to be little or no awareness amongst the lecturers of the Bologna Declaration and its adoption across Europe, and therefore also in the UK programmes delivered in this college, of how learning outcomes are inherently linked to certain teaching and learning methods in order to achieve those outcomes (Lindblom-Ylänne & Hämäläinen, 2004). As the UK programmes are described and assessed in terms of learning outcomes rather than in content to be covered, the underlying assumption is that lecturers take a learning-centred approach.

Aims of this study

This study set out to investigate one of the most challenging aspects of TNE, which is related to teaching styles and training (O’Mahony, 2014). Prior to this study, until 2013 the lecturers had been evaluated annually on their teaching as part of their performance appraisal using an instrument containing eleven criteria to be rated. This evaluation tool took a teacher-centred information transmission approach, with the tacit assumption that the lecturer is a presenter.

The study aimed first of all to investigate what a new, more descriptive and context-sensitive evaluation tool suitable for TNE might look like – one that might capture more teaching approaches than only information transmission; secondly, how the quality of teaching practice subsequently developed over a three-year CPD programme; and thirdly, which elements of this CPD framework academics found most useful.

Methods

Participants

There were three nationalities which together formed 76 per cent of the teaching staff of lecturers: those from India (23), the Philippines (12), and Pakistan (7), whereas the other 13 came from five different countries in the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) region, and none of them had studied or taught in a British programme prior to arrival. Out of the 55 lecturers who were observed in 2014, 44 were still teaching during the third year of this study.

Data collection

In 2014 each lecturer was formally observed for approximately one hour as part of the college’s annual lecturer evaluation. These observations were also conducted in 2015 and 2016, and totalled 154 hours. Although these observations were originally conducted for summative purposes as they form part of the lecturers’ evaluation, the data collected were subsequently used for feedforward purposes to improve teaching practice and to inform the elements of the CPD programme.

Procedure

Being fully aware that there is no perfect evaluation tool of something as complex as teaching and learning, the first author decided nevertheless to develop a new tool, taking existing teaching practice as a starting point. A combination of a descriptive approach together with a semi-structured observation sheet was used to capture the teaching practice of the lecturers, and the participation of the students in class. Observable behaviour of both teaching staff and students was noted down in detail for approximately one hour per session. After the observation, the lecturer had to fill in a self-evaluation sheet. These data were analysed and certain patterns began to emerge. The main conclusions were presented to all staff in January 2014, consisting of two main points: there was too much variability among the lecturers in their approaches to teaching, and at the same time too little variety in their interaction with the students, with very few or no learning activities for them to engage actively with the subject content.

A small sample of literature was initially consulted to generate criteria for evaluation and indicators for different levels. The development of the teaching practice table by the first author followed grounded theory methods consisting of simultaneous data collection and analysis, with each informing the other (Dobos, 2011; Drew & Klopper, 2014). The analysis fed into the academic development programme.

At the initial stage in 2014 the table contained mostly descriptors of the lecturers’ observed practice. Thus, the tool that emerged was originally more of a norm-referenced one as it situated the lecturers’ teaching skills relative to those of other lecturers (Cohen et al., 2011), yet it subsequently developed in a more criterion-referenced direction and literature-derived criteria of best practice replaced some of the original terminology (e.g. teacher talking time is high with a focus on teaching). The revised version of the table used terminology from the literature (Samuelowicz & Bain, 2001; Trigwell et al., 2005) and set the highest level that was around at the time (i.e. level 3) as the standard to be achieved. This approach to teaching was in line with the learning outcomes of the UK programmes, and congruent with international standards of effective teaching.

Results

Below we will describe our findings concerning the three research questions. We use descriptive statistics and qualitative interpretations to analyse the data.

Description of teaching practice

Table 1 presents descriptors of the observed features of the lecturers teaching in this college. This table is the extended version used in 2015 and 2016.

Table 1. Teaching practice table.

Level	Descriptors of observed behaviour of multinational staff teaching practice in TNE
1. In need of improvement	Is teacher-centred with a focus on information transmission with very little or no interaction. Mostly answers his/her own questions. Contents are not always presented in a well-organised way, may lack focus, or may not always be pitched at a content level students can cope with. Whiteboard work is not always well-organised
	Frequently repeats his or her own sentences. Does not allow students enough time to answer. Uses advanced, discipline specific vocabulary and does not explain nor paraphrase
2. Close to standard	Is becoming aware of the effect of their teaching. Elicits some answers from students. Refers to previous lectures. Engages students in an activity or two, and sometimes sets up pair work. Monitors students during task. Contents are presented in a well-organised way. Clearly organises information on whiteboard. Uses the teaching materials effectively
	Occasionally repeats his or her sentences. Often allows students enough time to answer questions. Explains key vocabulary
3. Effective	Focuses on the learning process and understanding of concepts. States learning objectives at the beginning, and summarises the lesson at the end. Checks students’ previous knowledge and understanding. Engages students in various activities requiring both lower and higher order thinking skills, and is able to set up pair, group and individual work taking alignment with ILOs into account. Actively monitors during tasks and gives individual feedback. Asks comprehension questions, and responds to students’ answers. Encourages questions from students. Gives clear instructions. Establishes good rapport with students, and uses their names. Evaluates own teaching through reflection
	Explicitly supports students in acquiring key vocabulary. Examples used are contextualised. Explicitly tells students to take notes, and gives them time for this. Assists students in acquiring the requisite vocabulary, and paraphrases. Allows students enough time to answer, and scaffolding is used more frequently to help students formulate an answer
4. Highly effective	Focuses on the learning process and development of concepts. Clarifies the intended learning outcomes (ILOs) and structures teaching and learning activities along lines of relevant knowledge, knowledge construction and problem-solving techniques. Learning activities concentrate on higher order thinking skills. Selects a wide range of appropriate materials, and offers a wide range of teaching and learning activities. Actively monitors during tasks and gives both individual and whole class feedback, indicating common problems. Supports students in developing generic attributes. Responds to previous exam results and adapts how they teach the curriculum accordingly. Reflects critically on own teaching
	Explicitly supports students in acquiring key vocabulary and understanding assessment verbs. Always allows students enough time to answer, and scaffolding is used very skillfully to help students formulate an answer
5. Excellent	Focuses on the learning process and supports learners to weigh up the merits of different theories and knowledge. Adjusts learning activities as the situation demands. Elicits from students what the ILOs are and how what they do in class relates to them. Assists learners as they design and undertake long-term investigations and projects. Contributes to promoting teaching excellence in the wider context of the faculty and/or the whole college
	Explicitly supports students in acquiring key vocabulary and understanding assessment verbs. Always allows students enough time to answer, and scaffolding is used very skillfully and unobtrusively to lead students towards better results

Teaching practice levels: The table shows what teaching might be like when practised by progressively more skilled lecturers. Descriptors in italics in levels 1 and 2 may be typical features of transnational education (TNE), while those in levels 3–5 are desirable.

Development of teaching practice over a three-year CPD programme

Figure 1 shows how the teaching practice of the 2014 group developed over the three years in this study. In 2015 the sharp decline in level 1 is noticeable while at the same time the number of lecturers in level 3 doubles. The shift towards generally higher levels continues in 2016, with a few even reaching level 4. In the course of 3 years, the number of lecturers in level 1 decreased from 18 to 4, and in level 2 from 15 to 8, while the number in level 3 increased from 11 to 29, and level 4 from 0 to 3.

Figure 1. Development of the original group over three years.

CPD questionnaire results

Table 2 shows the results of a questionnaire on the usefulness of the 15 different elements of the CPD programme at the end of those three years. Fifty-five lecturers returned the form (81% of the total, as some new staff had joined). Most elements were formal and deliberately introduced, while others were informal.

Table 2. CPD elements in order of usefulness.

#	Indication of usefulness of CPD elements: highest to lowest	Weighted score (%)	Confidence levels at
	Statement		95%	99%
1.	Receiving written tips on how to improve	88.89	2.35	3.09
2.	Receiving written feedback on my teaching skills	87.50	2.35	3.09
3.	The consultation session (face-to-face) after being observed	87.27	3.06	4.03
4.	Informal discussions with colleagues	85.91	3.06	4.03
5.	The observation of my teaching in itself as it heightens my awareness of what I do	84.72	3.75	4.94
6.	Reading recent literature on teaching in higher education	84.43	2.35	3.09
7.	Discussions about teaching with my mentor when I first started teaching in the college	83.02	3.43	4.52
8.	The Course Experience Questionnaire (the statements that refer to my teaching)	82.27	3.43	4.53
9.	Workshops conducted by the Programme Adviser of our affiliate university	80.66	2.35	3.09
10.	Observations and feedback by the faculty quality enhancement coordinator	80.32	4.30	5.64
11.	Peer observations (new format – focusing on learning from others)	78.70	4.50	5.93
12.	Workshops given on aspects of teaching/learning/assessment	78.18	4.80	6.31
13.	The series of workshops on teaching/lecturing we conducted ourselves in 2014	77.13	4.50	5.93
14.	Filling in the critical self-evaluation form after being observed	75.46	4.97	6.54
15.	Peer observations (old format – focusing on giving feedback to others)	75.00	4.97	6.54

Note: Results of the questionnaire on the usefulness of CPD elements (55 respondents).

Discussion

Teaching practice table

At level 1, when lecturers use advanced or discipline-specific vocabulary they presumably expect the students to know these words, as they do not explain or paraphrase them. Not allowing students enough time to answer may also be linked to assuming their language proficiency is high enough to function fully in English. As English is a second language for all the students and their levels of proficiency vary, it may take a bit of time for some students to process questions. Repeating whole sentences verbatim was based on the idea that students would understand them when heard a second time, as became apparent during the post-observation discussions. This might have been influenced by the lecturers’ own education system, as this feature was only displayed by one nationality, although not by all of them.

Level 2 is a transition stage where lecturers are beginning to become aware of the effect of their teaching. However, much of what takes place in the classroom is still teacher-led (Trigwell et al., 2005), while monitoring students usually did not mean much more than checking on the progress of the task. What may also be the case is that lecturers here are in an experimental phase and have just begun introducing learning activities, possibly because they have been encouraged to do so.

The outcomes in 2016 show that the teaching skills of four lecturers of the original group are still in level 1, while 11 lecturers are in the transitional level 2. Possible factors that acted as impediments to reaching the desired standard may be any one or a combination of the following factors. First of all, lecturers may come from an educational system where they were expected to expound their knowledge to the students. Secondly, teachers are not autonomous, as the curriculum is developed by academic staff of the provider university and they are hired to deliver it (Arenas, 2009). This may lead to an inclination to do exactly that: deliver the content. Thirdly, individuals may not be motivated to act upon the advice given (Smith, 2008) and may not be willing to accept that they are novices in teaching in TNE when they have many years of experience teaching in their home country (Deaker, Stein, & Spiller, 2016). Fourthly, there may be a general lack of critical self-reflection (Bovill et al., 2014), while self-reflection is generally seen as a prerequisite for development as a teacher (Mälkki & Lindblom-Ylänne, 2012). This became evident in the self-evaluation forms lecturers had to fill in after being observed, with most of them not showing awareness of the effect of their teaching. And finally, the rapid rise in student numbers over the three years of the study was not always keeping pace with the recruitment of new staff, leading to an increased workload and too many administrative tasks (Dobos, 2011).

Level 3 was set as the standard, reflecting good practice already present in 2013 and thereby forming a local definition of what counts as a ‘good’ performance (Smith, 2012). Level 3 appears to be closely linked to what is described in the literature as effective teaching, taking a student-centred approach. There are of course elements of information transmission in level 3, but it is not the sole approach. There is also an awareness that students are studying in a non-native language (Teekens, 2003) and need support in acquiring the necessary vocabulary to access the content (Murray, 2012). Separating listening and trying to understand the concept from writing notes is likely to be needed by the majority of students in TNE. Listening to an explanation, trying to understand, and simultaneously taking notes is an extremely complex skill, particularly given the students’ language proficiency. Content and language learning need to be integrated. Considering that none of the teaching staff are Western and the number of lecturers in level 3 or higher increased from 11 to 32, we concur with Jordan et al. (2014) that taking a student-centred approach focusing on the learning process is not inherently a Western concept.

What distinguishes level 4 is that the teaching and learning activities are fully aligned with the intended learning outcomes of the programme level taught (Biggs & Tang, 2011); the extent to which it is student-centred; the ability of lecturers to reflect on their own performance and on feedback from external sources, and to transform this into practice (Postareff et al., 2007); and explicitly supporting students in understanding assessment verbs. This change in teaching practice may very well be needed to bridge the gap between how lecturers and students understand these verbs (Williams, 2005). All these factors make this teaching approach highly effective.

Achieving level 5 is dependent upon students taking major responsibility for their own learning, and lecturers being able to adjust learning activities in response to the students’ needs. This would require an ability to improvise on the part of the lecturer. However, this active approach to learning by students was only observed in a few individual cases, and may not be characteristic of a Bachelor’s programme in general.

It is crucial to remember that a lecturer may not display all of the indicators in a particular level, and indeed sometimes showed behaviour that was indicative of more than one level. The factor that was decisive in establishing a lecturer’s level was a focus on teaching and information transmission as contrasted with a focus on learning with various learning activities to engage the students.

Discussion of CPD programme

In this study, a broad conception of CPD was adopted with both formal and informal elements, largely echoing Gibbs’ overview of activities used to develop teaching and learning (Gibbs, 2013). All the initiatives were embedded in academics’ professional practice (Boud & Brew, 2013). The lecturers were asked to indicate how useful they had found these elements for their professional development during their time in the college. These answers were weighted in order to arrive at a percentage rate of usefulness, where 100% would mean that all respondents found this element very useful. Subsequent confidence levels were calculated at 95% and 99%. With a sample size of 55 from a population of 69 lecturers in 2015 and a confidence level of 95%, this would mean that the highest scoring element (receiving written tips on how to improve) at almost 89% has a confidence interval of 2.35. This indicates that we can be certain of this result within a range of 2.35 for 95% of the time, meaning that approximately 87 to 91% of all the lecturers find this element useful or very useful.

The discussion of the main results has been clustered into four groups: feedback on observed practice, informal elements of professional development, workshops, and various other elements. Firstly, the overall results indicate that individual feedback on teaching practice, whether oral or written, is found to be most useful. Although this was time consuming on the part of the first author, it is obviously valued by the vast majority of lecturers. Furthermore, elements which were not deliberately introduced follow closely, with informal discussions with colleagues rated highly at almost 86% (Thomson, 2015), followed by reading recent literature on teaching in higher education and discussions with the mentor when they first started teaching in the college at approximately 84% and 83% respectively. Thirdly, as far as the workshops are concerned, the ones given by the programme adviser of the affiliate university are found to be more useful than the ones on teaching and learning. This may be an indication that lecturers’ identity is more closely related to their discipline than to their teaching, a conception which may indicate that they see themselves first and foremost as experts in their field, which in turn may lead to a teacher-centred approach focusing on the transmission of information. Finally, the element which scored lowest amongst the lecturers as to usefulness was filling in the critical self-evaluation form after being observed. Here the comments made by the lecturers differed most from what the first author had observed. It might be the case that lecturers were reluctant to write down what did not go well as they felt this might negatively affect their appraisal.

Limitations of this study

The possible subjectivity of a single observer was counterbalanced by a longitudinal perspective, lending higher reliability.

Implications of this case study

In view of the improved teaching practice of the original group, we argue that it appears worthwhile to have an academic development unit embedded in the host institution focusing on transforming teaching practice to a student-centred approach in line with the learning outcomes of the TNE programmes, and focusing on features that seem typically to contribute to effective teaching in TNE (see Table 1). However, for a significant minority (one third of the group) this time period of three years was not enough to reach the desired teaching practice level 3. What may also be needed is a more critical self-reflection on their teaching by those lecturers, something which was often lacking. Although Smith (2009) argues that transnational teaching is a novel experience that can lead to critical reflection and ultimately transformation and change of practice, with this particular group of lecturers it did not automatically seem to be the case for everyone. As the lecturers indicated that individual feedback with tips on how to improve was most useful to them, this suggests the need for academic developers to focus on these elements in a CPD programme and to treat each academic as a whole person, with individual needs, fears, strengths and weaknesses (Blackie et al., 2017). Deliberately creating opportunities for discussions and for sharing good practice with colleagues may contribute to reducing resistance to change and to transforming teaching practice.

Additionally, what may also be needed is to make lecturers aware of the change in students’ learning outcomes, in line with Guskey’s (2007) model of teacher change so that a change in teachers’ beliefs and attitudes will ensue, which in turn might lead to them adopting a student-centred approach. There were early indications in 2016 that for the first time in the history of the college the classification of results of the students was increasing, with higher pass rates, fewer students getting a third-class, more a second-class, and some even a first-class degree, while the composition of the student body had remained largely the same over the previous three years. Improved teaching skills may be one of the main factors contributing to the improved quality of the students’ learning outcomes. These better results took years to manifest themselves, and underline the necessity of long-term CPD programmes in TNE.

Conclusion

While a key aspect of our study has been to assess the relative value of a range of CPD elements in the context of TNE and the concurrent changes in teaching practice, this approach is likely to be of interest to a wider reach of academic developers in their quest for effective CPD. The most significant finding is that individual attention is more effective than other forms of CPD. This does not invalidate workshops, but it does mean that they need to be followed up by more sophisticated and personalised approaches that support lecturers in their shift towards a student-centred approach to teaching. One area that needs further research relates to the finding that lecturers in TNE deemed self-reflection on their practice least useful.

Although quality assurance processes in TNE are rigorous and omnipresent, that is much less the case with quality enhancement initiatives. With ever more Western universities working in partnership across different academic cultures around the world, we recommend long-term CPD programmes focusing on the quality of teaching to be part and parcel of the partnership.

Notes on contributors

Antonia M. Lamers has a background in teaching English in Syria, Vietnam, Oman and the Netherlands and is currently the manager of the Centre for Capacity Building at Gulf College, Oman. She is taking her doctorate at Leiden University, the Netherlands. Her research interests include quality enhancement in teaching and learning, and transnational education.

Wilfried F. Admiraal is a full professor Educational Sciences at the ICLON, Leiden University, the Netherlands. His research interests include teaching and teacher education. For books and articles that he has published see https://sites.google.com/site/wilfriedadmiraal/

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.