This phase of the study showed that students and staff in the 2+2 MPharm programme shared some common experiences and expectations of CU and TU, respectively. Firstly, successfully ingrained by marketers at TU, students were expecting visiting lecturers from CU as part of the teaching programme. This is also in line with CU staff expectations; they were expecting to travel to TU at some point to teach.
Secondly, since most students thought highly of CU, the collaboration increased their confidence to join the programme. Staff involved in this phase of the study agreed that the collaboration with CU brought advantages to TU in promoting their pharmacy school. As mentioned in Chapter 2 (section 2.5.2), Pyvis and Chapman found that Malaysian students viewed international education as a platform for global exposure and an investment in future career advancement. In line with this phase of the study, the TU-CU MPharm students preferred to study in the UK as they wanted an international exposure that offered a different environment, weather, food, and culture. While there was no evidence of improved chances in getting a job, graduates with CU’s MPharm certificate have the advantage of working in both countries (i.e. Malaysia and UK) if they fulfilled the training requirements set by the governing boards.
Thirdly, students and staff seemed to have a similar set of views on heavy workloads. Students revealed that there were too many assignments in a semester which was not what they expected for their undergraduate study. As for the staff, CU lecturers who travelled to TU not only had to teach but also to grade exams and moderate assessment markings. These duties increased their already full teaching load and research activities at CU.
Conflicting messages given to students by different staff during practical sessions confused the students. The students’ findings were consistent with the laboratory staff findings; they faced challenges with practical sessions when expectations were not clearly communicated
87
by the academic team. However, TU staff did not mention any communication issue with students or laboratory staff. To mitigate these problems, prior discussions, consistency of language, and reliable delivery of expectations to students could help to avoid inconsistencies and conflicting messages (Lesikar and Flatley, 2005).
This phase of the current study also drew attention to the lecturers’ experiences in the MPharm twinning programme. While some TU academics were confident teachers with considerable experience, certain CU staff expressed concerns about the teaching standards of this programme. Though not expressly mentioned by students about the standard of teaching, some have indicated concerns about certain TU lecturers who could not articulate their opinions and instructions. In the transnational context, due to its complex and diverse learners, cultures, programmes, and modes of delivery (Dobos, 2011), teaching adaptations such as customisation4 and contextualisation5 were needed to engage learners and promote effective learning. This concept of contextualisation and customisation was pertinently illustrated by a CU staff member when he described how he used a local Malaysian example (contextualisation) to explain a point to his TU students (customisation). Unfortunately, this was lacking in TU staff where students had expressed disappointment with some lecturers who just read from slides and couldn’t provide detailed explanations when asked.
It was acknowledged by both CU and TU staff that it could be difficult for one academic to deliver lecture material developed by another. Students expressed the same feeling when they had the first-hand experience of being taught by lecturers who used others' slides. Therefore, good preparation by TU lecturers is essential in order to mitigate the problem. In addition, as CU lecturers welcomed input by TU academics, further collaborative effort should be in place to contextualise (localise) the teaching thereby improving the programme for the students.
4 Alignment of a course offering’s learning design and materials with its students’ profile to promote
effective learning
5 The adaptation of one or more elements in a course offering to increase its cultural, personal,
88 4.8.4 Summary
Overall, the students and staff provided useful data and insights on the expectations and experiences of a new collaborative programme. The study has highlighted the importance of students’ expectations about the quality of teaching staff at the university, i.e. that lecturers were expected to be subject experts, effective communicators and experienced in what they teach. Staff also noted it was important that they were fully prepared to teach their classes. Past experiences helped but support was still needed especially where they were teaching using materials developed by others. It is therefore crucial to ensure that staff are provided with the necessary training and support to meet these expectations.
The focus groups with students highlighted the need for on-going dialogue between students and staff so that a better alignment can be achieved between students’ expectations and the reality of university study and culture. Managing students’ expectations at the start of the programme could help students frame realistic expectations about the course. Also, a better communication approach between staff at the two institutions could improve their ability to meet students’ expectations.
There are some important implications arising from the findings of this study for the staff at TU. While the staff between the two schools had a good relationship, which might be a direct result of the strong ownership of the MPharm programme by CU staff, TU staff had little input in the development of the teaching and assessment materials and they saw themselves as messengers to pass on knowledge to students. A greater involvement of TU staff in the development of programme materials could improve the understanding and delivery of the programme. To achieve this, employing highly-qualified staff in TNE programmes is essential to both the quality and equivalence of teaching and learning (MacDonald, 2006).