Revised TNE data requirements: what does this mean for the ��ϲʿ�� HE sector and TNE providers?

This is a blog by Aneta Hayes, Dean (International) at Keele University and Chair of ��’s Group on Monitoring and Evaluation Tools in transnational education (TNE), and Joana Westphal, Head of TNE at Universities ��ϲʿ�� International.

Over the last two years, U��ϲʿ��i's Group on monitoring and evaluation tools in TNE (‘M&E group’ for short) has been feeding into the Higher Education Statistics Agency’s (HESA) . To meet regulatory requirements in England and Wales and to ensure that the ��ϲʿ��’s TNE data collection is fit for purpose, that TNE providers in England and Wales move to an individualised TNE student record, while providers in Scotland and Northern Ireland will remain in a revised, more detailed aggregate record. The proposals to expand the data collection on ��ϲʿ�� TNE students bring many benefits, yet there are potential pitfalls that need to be avoided.

Why is more detailed data on TNE students helpful?

��’s M&E group aims to support the sector in its understanding of how metrics and data analytics can be used to inform decision-making on, for example, the development of TNE or its standards. For instance, the M&E group assessed data items from the ��ϲʿ��-based student record on their usefulness and appropriateness for a TNE student data collection, discussed the pros and cons of more detailed TNE data and how it should be used, and closely engaged with HESA to discuss specific elements of the proposals.

Generally, a more detailed TNE student data collection is beneficial for the sector. Currently, the AOR only provides insights at headcount level, by type of provision, level of study and country. While this provides a helpful overall picture of ��ϲʿ�� TNE, additional data, such as the registering institution, study location, subject areas, and more precise types of provision, can help TNE providers take a data-informed approach and thus more accurately develop strategic partnerships and plan investments that meet student demand regionally and internationally.

Providers will also be able to better understand who their students are, leading to more informed pedagogical and governance approaches to partnerships, and enabling them to provide targeted student support. More specifically, some reforms of the data collection are necessary – the current types of TNE provision for example have historically led to misunderstandings and inconsistencies in providers’ data returns.

But there are challenges…

These relate particularly to the additional burden for TNE providers.

Those working with data at ��ϲʿ�� universities know that the has been challenging. The new proposals to expand the scope of data to TNE students, and the range of systems that may be needed, are thus feared to place even more demand on individual universities as well as their overseas partners.

TNE data reporting under the new requirements may mean the need for changes to individual partnership contracts and data sharing agreements, which may in turn present challenges to data compliance, validation and submission. Not all TNE partners presently collect the newly required data or have the infrastructure to do so. was therefore very welcome, as it will not only give providers more time to adjust to the changes, but also allow for the consideration of lessons learnt from the introduction of Data Futures.

Other challenges include the management of data gaps or late returns that do not fall into the responsibility of the ��ϲʿ�� providers and ensuring that the language of the data collection process is accessible to overseas partners whose first language is not English.

Removing any ambiguity in data categories and protecting students is essential.

To support ��ϲʿ�� TNE providers and their overseas partners in understanding the requirements for reporting, HESA’s consultation helpfully to remove ambiguity around describing new data fields, and the types of provision will be further refined before the final notifications of changes will be published in the summer.

Once the changes have been agreed, guidance from regulators and funders on how the more detailed TNE data will be monitored, assessed, and reviewed for the purposes of their regulatory requirements will help to manage institutions’ expectations. Additionally, to prevent confusion and misunderstandings among overseas partners and to ensure that the ��ϲʿ�� remains a partner of choice for TNE, messaging and communication from the respective regulator/funder that ��ϲʿ�� providers can share with their partners will be helpful to justify additional data collections and sharing requirements as well as the burden that this may put on the overseas partner.

In summary, we welcome the expansion to TNE data reporting requirements. The ��ϲʿ�� TNE sector needs more detailed intelligence about the students, type of course, student engagement, partner, and host institutions, as well as study locations, to strategically develop its TNE offer. There is no doubt, however, that the new reporting requirements will create significant challenges, including delays in reporting, in the early stages of implementation. We therefore caution against the use of the new data in regulation until the data changes have been successfully implemented and learnings have been addressed.

If you would like to contribute to the discussion and write a blog for us, please do get in touch with Annabelle Lee, Policy Advisor (TNE & Responsible Internationalisation), U��ϲʿ��i ([email protected]).

������ϲʿ������