Curriculum Review - Design the course

Flipped classrooms

Examples of flipped classrooms

In flipped classrooms, students tend to read or learn the materials before class—and then are granted opportunities to discuss and to contemplate these materials during class. Thus, homework precedes, rather than follows, the class. The precise features of flipped classrooms vary across teachers. To illustrate a typical configuration, in one case study of a flipped classroom around chemistry, reported by Yeung and O’Malley (2014), the usual lectures were replaced by videos that students were encouraged to watch outside the classroom. Contact time was designed to help students develop a deeper conceptual understanding of the learning material. The students generally preferred this method over the traditional method.

As another example, in one study, conducted by Sun et al. (2018), 151 undergraduate students enrolled in two maths classes around calculus. The instructors created a course site in the Desire2Learn learning management system and uploaded course materials as well as created links to the homework system and online discussion forums. During the semester, students engaged in two major activities. First, they could watch online lectures and finish associated homework prior to the session in person. Second, students could participate in the session in person and complete the associated homework. The in-class sessions lasted 55 min in which the instructor first spent approximately 10 min presenting examples related to the previous online lecture with the entire class and then divided the class into groups. Each group of 3 to 4 students worked together to solve practice problems. Either the instructor or a randomly selected group presented solutions to the entire class. After each class session, students completed a corresponding assignment or quiz at home and submitted the solution to the teacher at beginning of the next session in person. The suggested schedule for finishing the online lectures was every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, before the corresponding recitation session.

Complementary methods

Sometimes, other pedagogical approaches, such as flexible assessments, complement flipped classrooms. To illustrate, Wanner and Palmer (2015) presented a case study, exploring perceptions of flipped classrooms that also entailed more flexible assessments. Specifically, each week, the learning module comprised two short recoded mini-lectures, each about 10 minutes in duration, relevant web links, short readings, and a quiz, before their 2-h tutorial each week. The tutorials comprised interactive, collaborative activities to reinforce the concepts and content of the week. To illustrate, a mock

climate change conference was conducted in the tutorial about climate change governance. As another example, students worked together in small groups on case studies about effective forest governance and presented the lessons to the class.

After the tutorial, students entered some insights into a reflective journal about what they had learned including self-assessment of their preparation and participation in the tutorial. The journal was part of the overall assessment. The assessment was also flexible. Students could negotiate when to submit two major assignments within a period of three weeks. They were also granted a choice on whether to complete a report or essay. Students also needed to complete three of nine choices to develop a portfolio--such as a book review, video analysis, comparison of two websites, analysis of twitter, editing of a Wikipedia entry, a submission to the government, or the construction of a video.

Students also submitted a personal assessment plan, by Week 4, that specified clear dates of submissions in which they could also indicate which feedback they would like to receive--written, oral, or video--and the facets on which to concentrate. They could also inform the lecture of personal learning difficulties or challenges. The majority of students, about 70% to 75%, appreciated this approach--both the flipped classroom and the flexible learning. Most of the remaining students were undecided. Some of the teachers, however, were concerned about the additional workload—and were, in general, not as optimistic about the benefits of these methods. Some teachers felt this method is merely an attempt of universities to increase profits. Teachers were also concerned that undue choice is unrealistic in the workplace, because students need to develop all key skills.

Benefits of flipped classrooms

Research has uncovered many benefits of flipped classrooms. For example, Yurtseven Avci et al (2022) conducted an online interview to investigate the experiences of pre-service teachers with flipped learning, including the perceived benefits and challenges, after 14 weeks of experience with this mode of learning. The study unearthed several benefits of flipped classrooms. Specifically, flipped classrooms were perceived as more efficient because class time was used well. In addition, students also enjoyed the interactions and discussions and thus felt more empowered.

According to van der Velde et al., (2020), one of the benefits of flipped classrooms is that students feel more connected to one another—one of the three basic needs, according to self-determination theory. Yet, students prefer flipped classrooms if expectations are explicit and some incentives to prepare are offered.

Challenges of flipped classrooms

Yurtseven Avci et al (2022) uncovered several circumstances that might limit the utility of flipped classrooms. Some of the challenges included class sizes that were too large as well as limited learning about the student technology enough before the class. Some students prefer traditional lectures, because of familiarity.

Yeung and O’Malley (2014) also reported some concerns that students expressed about flipped classrooms. To illustrate, some students felt more engaged when they listened to a live lecture, possibly because students can ask questions while they learn the material.

Variability in the success of flipped classrooms might depend on the configuration of this approach. Teachers might apply Bloom's taxonomy, the Four Pillars of FLIP framework, or other theoretical perspectives to guide the design. These frameworks might shape both the implementation and utility of flipped classrooms (Sun et al., 2018)

Conditions that affect the benefits of flipped classrooms

Sointu et al (2022) explored the features of flipped classrooms that increase the likelihood of favourable attitudes. Specifically, this study explored the perception of flipped classrooms from the perspective of 400 Finish students, enrolled in higher education. As this study showed, students are receptive to flipped classes if they receive more information than usual on the teaching method, on the study methods to adopt, and the intended learning outcomes. Students also value more guidance on how to manage their time.

In particular, this study uncovered seven factors that predict satisfaction with flipped classrooms. First, students were more satisfied with flipped classrooms if they believed that teachers had developed extensive pedagogical knowledge—epitomised by items such as "My teachers use versatile teaching methods in order to make the studied matter easily understandable"). Second, students were more satisfied whenever such pedagogy is designed to enhance understanding (e.g., "The teachers helped students to observe the thinking process relevant to the discipline and how to reach to conclusions"). Third, students valued this approach if the flipped classroom is easy to navigate (e.g., "It took a lot of time to familiarize oneself with the pre-class material" reverse scored). Fourth, guidance on how to apply the flipped classroom (e.g., "During the course, students were adequately instructed on the study method in use") also improved satisfaction with flipped classrooms. Fifth, students enjoyed flipped classrooms whenever the atmosphere to learn is safe (e.g. "The course had a safe atmosphere to ask things and to question the contents discussed during the lessons"), ICT enhances the value of education (e.g., "The use of ICT increases my chances of gaining more skills"), and they can utilise this ICT readily (e.g., "I know how ICT is used effectively to support learning").

Characteristics of students that affect the benefits of flipped classrooms

Not all students benefit from flipped classrooms to the same degree. That is, several characteristics of students may affect the benefits of flipped classrooms.

To illustrate, Latorre-Cosculluela et al. (2020) investigated the characteristics of students that determine the impact of flipped classrooms on self-efficacy. Specifically, after students are exposed to flipped classrooms, they often experience a greater sense of self-efficacy: They are more inclined to persist on challenging problems and more likely to feel confident they can solve these problems. Presumably, flipped classrooms enable students to learn information independently but apply this knowledge collectively.

Nevertheless, in some students, this benefit of flipped classrooms was modest or even negligible. To illustrate, flipped classrooms did not greatly enhance self-efficacy in students who do not enjoy or embrace technological innovations. Likewise, flipped classrooms were not as beneficial to first year students compared to later year students.

References

Akçayır, G., & Akçayır, M. (2018). The flipped classroom: A review of its advantages and challenges. Computers & Education, 126, 334–345.
Awidi, I. T., & Paynter, M. (2019). The impact of a flipped classroom approach on student learning experience. Computers & Education, 128, 269–283.
Boevé, A. J., Meijer, R. R., Bosker, R. J., Vugteveen, J., Hoekstra, R., & Albers, C. J. (2017). Implementing the flipped classroom: An exploration of study behaviour and student performance. Higher Education, 74(6), 1015–1032.
Bredow, C. A., Roehling, P. V., Knorp, A. J., & Sweet, A. M. (2021). To flip or not to flip? A meta-analysis of the efficacy of flipped learning in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 91(6), 878-918.
Foldnes, N. (2016). The flipped classroom and cooperative learning: Evidence from a randomised experiment. Active Learning in Higher Education, 17(1), 39–49.
Gilboy, M. B., Heinerichs, S., & Pazzaglia, G. (2015). Enhancing student engagement using the flipped classroom. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 47(1), 109–114.
Hyppönen, L., Hirsto, L., & Sointu, E. (2019). Perspectives on university students’ self-regulated learning, task-avoidance, time management and achievement in a flipped classroom context. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 18(13), 87–105.
Latorre-Cosculluela, C., Suarez, C., Quiroga, S., Anzano-Oto, S., Lira-Rodriguez, E., & Salamanca-Villate, A. (2022). Facilitating self-efficacy in university students: an interactive approach with Flipped Classroom. Higher Education Research & Development, 41(5), 1603-1617.
Sointu, E., Hyypiä, M., Lambert, M. C., Hirsto, L., Saarelainen, M., & Valtonen, T. (2022). Preliminary evidence of key factors in successful flipping: predicting positive student experiences in flipped classrooms. Higher Education, 1-18.
Sun, Z., Xie, K., & Anderman, L. H. (2018). The role of self-regulated learning in students' success in flipped undergraduate math courses. The internet and higher education, 36, 41-53.
van der Velde, R., Blignaut van Westrhenen, N., Labrie, N. H., & Zweekhorst, M. B. (2020). ‘The idea is nice… but not for me’: First-year students’ readiness for large-scale ‘flipped lectures’—what (de)motivates them? Higher Education, 1–19.
Wanner, T., & Palmer, E. (2015). Personalising learning: Exploring student and teacher perceptions about flexible learning and assessment in a flipped university course. Computers & Education, 88, 354–369.
Yeung, K., & O’Malley, P. (2014). Making ‘the flip’ work: Barriers to and implementation strategies for introducing flipped teaching methods into traditional higher education courses. New Directions in the Teaching of Physical Sciences, 10(1), 59–63.
Yurtseven Avci, Z., Ergulec, F., Misirli, O., & Sural, I. (2021). Flipped learning in information technology courses: benefits and challenges. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 1-15.

Return to top

Return to menu

Immersive or block scheduling

Introduction

At most tertiary institutions, students who are enrolled full time tend to complete around three to four distinct sequences of classes—sometimes called units or courses—simultaneously. They might, for example, enrol in organic chemistry, pure mathematics, quantum mechanics, and research methods concurrently. In one report entitled, “Student centered alternatives in academic scheduling”, Hanover Research delineated several alternative schedules, such as Hyflex courses and compressed courses. One of the most common alternatives is called immersive or block scheduling.

Although institutions have attempted many variants of this approach, students will typically complete only unit, course, or topic at a time. For example, in the first three weeks, students might attend classes on only organic chemistry. In the following three weeks, students might attend classes on only pure mathematics and so forth.

Alternatively, sometimes universities encourage block scheduling in specific weeks—such as the first three weeks—and then revert to more traditional scheduling in the following weeks. For example, in the study that Turner et al (2021) conducted, students first completed one module over four weeks and then two modules over the next eight weeks.

Rationale

During the 1990s in particular, immersive scheduling was deemed to be a potential solution to the limited retention of students in some communities (Lawerence & McPherson, 2000). For example, because of personal reasons, many students cannot or do not commit to their studies over an extended period. They might last only a few weeks. If immersive scheduling is introduced, some of these students might be able to complete a module or unit, instilling a sense of progress, and potentially enhancing their motivation, commitment, and retention.

Some research has corroborated this assumption. When a module, unit, or series of classes is confined to a limited period, rather than distributed over a longer period, student retention has been shown to be higher (Soldner et al., 2000)

Benefits of immersive scheduling

Some research has revealed that immersive scheduling can improve learning. In one study, conducted by Turner et al (2021), the same participants experienced both immersive scheduling and traditional scheduling. That is, these participants completed one module only over four weeks as well as two modules concurrently over eight weeks. Grades were higher when participants experienced immersive scheduling compared to traditional scheduling.

Comparable results were uncovered in psychology students. To illustrate, in another study, conducted by Richmond et al. (2015), some students completed a psychology course within two weeks. Other students, in contrast, received the same materials, but the information was distributed over 16 weeks. The students who completed the course within two weeks received higher grades. This pattern was observed even after other differences between the students, such as cumulative grade point average, were controlled.

Drawbacks of immersive scheduling

Immersive scheduling can amplify various logistical complications. To illustrate, consider the students who are ill or absent during the first two weeks of a teaching period, such as a semester. If these students complete four units simultaneously over three months, they are granted ample time to nullify the effects of this delay. They can learn the material over the next 10 weeks—usually enough to perform adequately in the final examinations or assignments. In contrast, if these students complete four units in sequence, they are more likely to fail the first unit. They are granted only two weeks to nullify the effects of this delay (Turner et al., 2021).

Other matters could also preclude immersive scheduling. This approach may not be suited to part-time students, for instance.

Psychological explanations

Some psychology theories can explain both the benefits and drawbacks of immersive scheduling. First, when students experience immersive scheduling, the completion of one module, unit, or series of classes is closer in time. Goals that feel closer in time tend to be more motivating and inspiring (Forster et al., 1998). Therefore, when immersive scheduling is applied, students may tend to feel especially motivated, enhancing their engagement and concentration.

Nevertheless, research on the spacing effect (e.g., Cepeda et al, 2006; Kornell, 2009; Rohrer & Taylor, 2006, 2007), has uncovered a conflicting insight. This research tends to compare distributed learning—in which students the material that students need to learn is distributed over several weeks or months—to massed learning—in which the material is confined to a shorter period. In general, when the materials are distributed over a longer period, students memorize and learn the information more effectively.

Explanations of the spacing effect

Several explanations have been proposed to explain the spacing effect. First, if the material is distributed over time, the circumstances in which individuals learn each item, concept, or fact are likely to vary appreciably. So, reminders of each circumstance could help students remember the various items (Greene, 1989)

Alternatively, if the material is not distributed over time, but confined to a few days, the various items or concepts seem quite familiar each time they are presented. Because these items seem familiar, students may dedicate limited effort or attention to this information, compromising their learning (for evidence, see Magliero, 1983)

References

Burton, S., Nesbit, P. L. (2008). Block or traditional? An analysis of student choice of teaching format. Journal of Management and Organization, 14, 4–19
Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 354-380.
Daniel, E. L. (2000). A review of time-shortened courses across disciplines. College Student Journal, 34, 298–308.
Davies, W. M. (2006). Intensive teaching formats: A review. Issues in Educational Research, 16, 1–20.
Forster, J., Higgins, E. T., & Idson, L. C. (1998). Approach and avoidance strength during goal attainment: Regulatory focus and the "goal looms larger" effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1115-1131.
Greene, R. L. (1989). Spacing effects in memory: Evidence for a two-process account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 371-377.
Greene, R. L. (1990). Spacing effects on implicit memory tests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 1004-1011.
Hanover Research (2022). Student centered alternatives in academic scheduling.
Kornell, K. (2009). Optimising learning using flashcards: Spacing is more effective than cramming. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 1297-1317.
Kucsera, J. V., & Zimmaro, D. M. (2010). Comparing the effectiveness of intensive and traditional courses. College Teaching, 58(2), 62-68.
Lawerence, W. W., McPherson, D. D. (2000). A comparative study of block scheduling and traditional scheduling on academic achievement. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 27, 178–182.
Magliero, A. (1983). Pupil dilations following pairs of identical and related to-be-remembered words. Memory & Cognition, 11, 609-615.
Richmond, A. S., Murphy, B. C., Curl, L. S., & Broussard, K. A. (2015). The effect of immersion scheduling on academic performance and students’ ratings of instructors. Teaching of Psychology, 42(1), 26-33.
Rohrer, D., & Taylor, K. (2006). The effects of overlearning and distributed practice on the retention of mathematics knowledge. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 1209-1224.
Rohrer, D., & Taylor, K. (2007). The shuffling of mathematics practice problems improves learning. Instructional Science, 35, 481-498.
Soldner, L., Lee, Y., Duby, P. (2000). Welcome to the block: Development freshman learning communities that work. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory, and Practice, 1, 115–129.
Turner, R., Morrison, D., Cotton, D., Child, S., Stevens, S., Nash, P., & Kneale, P. (2017). Easing the transition of first year undergraduates through an immersive induction module. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(7), 805-821.
Turner, R., Webb, O. J., & Cotton, D. R. (2021). Introducing immersive scheduling in a UK university: Potential implications for student attainment. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 45(10), 1371-1384.
van Scyoc, L., Gleason, J. (1993). Traditional or intensive course lengths? A comparison of outcomes in economics learning. Journal of Economics Education, 24, 15–22.

Return to top

Return to menu

Collaborative arrangements: Joint degrees, dual degrees, and double degrees

Introduction

Students often complete their degree or course at one tertiary education institution only. However, an increasingly larger number of students will complete parts of their degree at multiple institutions—a trend that largely originated in Europe in the 1990s but rapidly spread across the globe (Obst et al., 2011). These students might, for example, complete some of their classes or units in one institution and the other classes or units in another institution. Or, if enrolled in a PhD, they might visit the laboratory of one university but complete most of their studies at another university.

In some instances, the two institutions in which the students complete their degree do not need to establish on ongoing collaboration. For instance, students might complete most of their degree at one institution but then want to complete an elective at another university, sometimes called credit mobility. Often, the students can merely contact this other university themselves, perhaps with some guidance from the administrative team at their institution.

In other instances, the two institutions in which the students complete their degree will establish on ongoing collaborative arrangement. That is, they will sign an agreement or MOU to encourage their students to complete parts of their degree at both institutions. These collaborative arrangements can be divided into several variants:

joint degrees in which the institutions collaborate to develop a distinct program that integrates the skills and resource of both organizations, demanding significant interaction and discussion. Students receive one degree and one diploma or certificate
dual degrees in which the two institutions both offer comparable programs and students can shift their enrolment between the institutions. Students receive one degree but two diplomas or certificates, each corresponding to one of the institutions. This alternative is more common in graduate research degrees, such as a PhD

Terminology varies across scholars and nations. Scholars may use the term double degree in lieu of dual degree. Other scholars may use the term double degree when students complete two distinct courses—that differ either in level or discipline—one at each institution.

These degrees tend to originate from one of two events (e.g., Brown, 2013).) First, some institutions will methodically scour the globe to uncover a partner that might fulfill their needs. For example, one institution, specializing in health but deficient in engineering, might seek a partner that specializes in engineering but is deficient in health to develop a joint health technology course. Second, the collaboration might emanate from an existing relationship or friendship between the staff at two institutions—a relationship that has been productive and could thus be amplified.

Benefits of collaborative arrangements to students

These joint degrees, dual degrees, and double degrees can benefit students (for a discussion, see van den Hoven & Connell, 2016). For example, these collaborative arrangements may enhance the capacity of students to contemplate issues and to solve problems more insightfully, creatively, and effectively. These benefits are especially pronounced when individuals study in more than one nation or region. In these instances, students are exposed to more diverse perspectives. This exposure to diverse perspectives had been shown to enhance the capacity of individuals to unearth original and useful solutions to problems. Students demonstrate this creativity both in their field of expertise as well as more generally (Lee et al., 2012).

Second, these collaborative arrangements may extend the networks of students. Students who are enrolled in joint degrees, dual degrees, or double degrees at multiple institutions tend to meet a broader range of academics or practitioners who share their interests. They are, therefore, more likely to be informed of potential opportunities, facilitating their future careers.

Third, these collaborative arrangements may extend the knowledge of students. To illustrate, PhD candidates, if enrolled in a joint degree or dual degree, are more likely to meet academics or peers who share their interests. They can discuss their research with a broader range of academics. They are more likely to garner insights, knowledge, or perspectives that enhance their original plan and improve the quality and impact of their work.

Fourth, whenever students complete their studies at more than one institution, they are more likely to be able to access a greater diversity of useful resources, such as specialized equipment than few universities can afford. This access is especially likely to benefit the work of graduate research students, such as PhD candidates.

Benefits of collaborative arrangements to teachers and supervisors

Some of these collaborative arrangements may also benefit the academic staff at each institution. Staff who contribute to either joint degrees or supervise research candidates enrolled in joint degrees or dual degrees are especially like to benefit. To illustrate, in these instances, the academic staff who collaborate with peers at other institutions—particularly in other nations—will be exposed to diverse perspectives and practices. This exposure is likely to extend their knowledge, inform their innovations, and improve their creativity.

Joint degrees or dual degrees in graduate research can significantly benefit the research productivity of research supervisors. After research supervisors from different nations supervise on the same panel, they often maintain some level of collaboration after the arrangement ends. International collaborations tend to improve the metrics of publications. For example, publications derived from international collaborations are more likely to be cited (Aksnes, 2003; Douglas et al. (2020).

Benefits of collaborative arrangements to the institutions

These benefits of collaborative arrangements to students and staff are obviously helpful to institutions as well. Yet, institutions can also enjoy additional benefits (see Stichting EP-Nuffic, 2015; van den Hoven & Connell, 2016). Indeed, most universities—perhaps over 95%—have either already embedded, or plan to embed, joint, dual, or double degrees into their portfolio (Obst et al., 2011). First, because of these collaborations, institutions become more renowned globally (Kuder & Obst, 2009). Their brand is more likely to be recognized by staff at the partner institution, students at the partner institution, as well as the colleagues, collaborators, and families of these students and staff. This international renown may culminate in a range of benefits. To illustrate

these institutions can more readily attract international students, because they are more likely to be recognized. Students are more likely to trust the brands if they had been exposed to these brands previously, sometimes called the mere exposure effect (Fang et al, 2007).
some university rankings, such as QS and THE, depend on the evaluations of peers around the globe; international renown, therefore, can increase university rankings—generating a range of benefits

Collaborative arrangements in research degrees can transform the research profile and priorities of universities and research institutions. For example, joint degree or dual degree doctoral programs may facilitate interdisciplinary research. That is, these degrees may facilitate collaborations between institutions that have developed capabilities in different, but complementary, academic disciplines. These complementary skills might enable the institutions to undertake more productive interdisciplinary research.

Yet, collaborative arrangements in coursework degrees can also benefit the institution. To illustrate, a degree that is administered in one location might not be accredited in other locations. In contrast, collaborative arrangements, especially dual degrees or double degrees, that are administered in more than one location may be accredited in more extensive regions (Bamford, 2014). Students are thus more likely to be benefit from these courses.

Finally, collaborative arrangements in both research degrees and coursework degrees may enhance institutional knowledge. As the institutions develop these degrees, they share knowledge and insights about academia—about research, supervision, teaching strategies, management strategies, and many other topics. The operations of these institutions may thus improve.

Nevertheless, whether these benefits of collaborative arrangements outweigh the challenges and drawbacks warrants further research. Scholars have decried the absence of comprehensive evaluations of collaborative arrangements (Council of Graduate Schools, 2010).

Complications of collaborative arrangements: Overview

Despite the benefits of joint degrees, dual degrees, and double degrees, students who complete their studies at multiple institutions may experience a range of complications (for a review, see van den Hoven & Connell, 2016; for a comparison of benefits and drawbacks, see Asgary & Robbert, 2010). The main complications revolve around feelings of uncertainty—feelings that can promote some anxiety or stress. To illustrate, when students enroll in joint degree, dual degree, or double degree, their circumstances are likely to differ from the experiences of their peers. For example, if completing a PhD, they might be the only candidate in their lab group studying at multiple institutions. None of the peers may experience the same challenges or need to complete the same tasks. They will thus reach decisions independently rather than depend on their peers.

However, because of their circumstances, these decisions may not be straightforward. They may be exposed to conflicting perspectives on how to collaborate effectively, conduct research, or complete a range of other tasks. Even their supervisors may not be familiar with the challenges they could experience. Their supervisors, therefore, may not be able to impart helpful or relevant advice.

Their workload could exacerbate the effect of this uncertainty. Students who study at multiple institutions may need to complete more tasks, in practice. Doctoral candidates may, for example, to learn more policies and procedures—additional work that is not recorded in their milestones. If the institutions are located in different regions, such as Europe and Africa, they may experience delays with visas (e.g., Maiworm, 2006), amplifying their stress and sometimes disrupting their plans.

Collaborative arrangements can also be costly. The institution must somehow accommodate the costs of travel. They might attempt to access government assistance, philanthropic funding, or other sources to pay these costs.

Complications: Different policies, procedures, and guidelines

Another complication is that policies, procedures, and guidelines might differ between the two institutions. For example, if the collaborative arrangements revolve around graduate research

in some institutions, the candidate must present a seminar after 6 months of candidature; in other institutions, the candidate must present a seminar after 12 months of candidature.
in some institutions, examiners offer some guidance and input from the outset; in other institutions, examiners are arranged only after the thesis has been submitted

In some cases, research candidates fulfill the policies, procedures, and guidelines of both institutions, despite the discrepancies. Candidates could, for example, present a seminar after 6 months and 12 months of candidature. In other instances, candidates cannot fulfill the policies, procedures, and guidelines of both institutions. Examiners are either arranged from the outset or after the thesis is submitted but not both. Accordingly, the institutions must negotiate an agreement. The following table outlines some potential discrepancies, partly derived from van den Hoven and Connell (2016), and some recommendations on how to resolve these discrepancies.

Practice	One pole	Another pole	Recommendation
Minimum duration of study	No minimum	3 years	The minimum duration should equal the higher of the two limits
Maximum duration of study	3 years	5 years	The maximum duration should usually equal the higher of the two limits
Level of financial support	Minimal living expenses	Paid employment	The financial support that candidates will should be derived from a blend of the policies and practices at each institution. For example, institutions may offer financial support to the extent to which they may benefit financially from the completion of a thesis or to the degree to which the candidate may engage in teaching and other activities
Duration of financial support	3 years	4 years	As above
Admission requirements	Equivalent to an Honours Degree	Equivalent to a Masters Degree with a significant research component	Candidates should fulfill the admission requirements of both institutions
Coursework	No formal coursework	1 year of coursework	Candidates should complete the minimum coursework requirements of both institutions--provided the maximum duration of study is also the longer of the two limits. Merge coursework requirements that are similar but marginally different across the two institutions
Milestones	A presentation early in the candidature, such as a confirmation of candidature	An early-candidature, mid-candidature, and late-candidature presentation and annual progress reports	Candidates should be able to fulfll the milestones of both institutions--but after merging milestones that are similar, but marginally different across the two institutions
Role of examiners	Only examine at end	From the outset to offer guidance	The role of examiners should correspond to the more extensive of the two descriptions--provided the conflict of interest guidelines of each institution are fulfilled
Length of thesis	Up to 70 000 words	Up to 100 000 words	The number of words should be the larger of the two limits--provide the maximum duration of study is also the longer of the two limits
Examination tasks	Written thesis only	Written thesis and oral defence	Candidates should complete the tasks that fulfill the requirements of both institutions

Other discrepancies may be observed when the collaboration revolves around coursework, rather than research, degrees. Decisions around credit transfer—such as which past courses or experiences are equivalent to accredited courses—often culminate in conflict between institutions (see Kuder & Obst, 2009).

Circumstances that affect the benefits of collaborative arrangements: Compatibility between the institutions

Many circumstances, such as the extent to which the joint degree is recognized around the globe (e.g., Rauhvargers et al., 2003), affect the sustainability of these collaborations. But perhaps the most significant determinant of success revolves around the relationship. Joint degrees in particular benefit from regular, collaborative, and trusting relationships between the institutions. Several conditions and circumstances may affect the degree to which these relationships are productive. For example, as demonstrated from the case studies that Bamford (2014) conducted, these arrangements tend to flourish if

the key decision makers at each institution have developed a strong, personal relationship or friendship
the financial benefits of this collaboration are explicit, pronounced, and relatively equal
each institution appoints a person whose responsibility is to maintain this arrangement and to liaise between the universities

van den Hoven and Connell (2016) proposed some recommendations that institutions should apply, or least consider, to expedite collaborative arrangements and to maintain the quality of these courses. Specifically, according to van den Hoven and Connell (2016) and other scholars, to develop a joint doctoral program in particular,

institutions should publicize the benefits of this collaborative program to applicants, candidates, and supervisors—such as the distinct resources and opportunities that each institution can offer
institutions should establish a joint academic committee, comprising members of each institution; each institution should appoint a coordinator; the chair should rotate and occasionally be a member of one institution and occasionally be a member of the other institution
institutions should develop templates to assist students and supervisors—such as templates that help students develop a travel plan, formulate a data management plan, and seek ethics approval
institutions should arrange more opportunities to enable students to develop their intercultural competence and cultural humility (Juknytė-Petreikienė & Žydžiūnaitė, 2017)
the candidates and the supervisors from both institutions should develop a joint supervision agreement that stipulates the responsibility of each person. The agreement should stipulate which supervisor should be granted authority if disputes unfold. To illustrate, one supervisor might be granted authority to resolve disputes around the scope of research, and another supervisor might be granted authority to resolve disputes around the methodology. The individuals should review the supervision agreement regularly, perhaps every three months, to confirm this accountability matches the skills and interests of each supervisor

Some research has also explored the qualities that universities consider when they decide whether to collaborate with another institution on a joint degree. For example, in her dissertation, Brown (2013) interviewed staff who contributed to the development of joint degrees between Nanyang Technological University or NTU in Singapore and other institutions as well as analyzed relevant documentation. These methods revealed that NTU consider the degree to which the institutions share the same values and goals around this degree, the prestige and ranking of this partner, the level of funding that can be directed towards this collaboration, and whether the Singapore government recognized this partner (for a similar study, but in China, see Willis, 2007).

Other scholars and committees have proposed guidelines that enumerate the matters that institutions should consider when they choose a partner to develop a joint, dual, or double degree (see Tillman, 2007; Van de Water et al., 2008). These considerations include

the degree to which the two institutions share the same interests, motivations, and goals to collaborate on this program—a key determinant of success (e.g., Jie, 2010)
the extent to which the other institution has participated in collaborative arrangements successfully in the past
the degree to which the academic calendars of these institutions are compatible
the extent to which the library facilities, research facilities, and other services of both institutions are comparable
the degree to which the institutions are similar in size, location, ranking, and values
the extent to which the courses at this other institution have been accredited by relevant bodies

References

Aksnes, D. W. (2003). Characteristics of highly cited papers. Research Evaluation, 12(3), 159-170.
Asgary, N., & Robbert, M. A. (2010). A cost-benefit analysis of an international dual degree program. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 32(3), 317-325.
Bamford, J. K. (2014). Joint degrees and engaging with a Europe of Knowledge: lessons from a UK perspective of a challenging collaborative endeavour. Research in Hospitality Management, 4(1-2), 77–83.
Brown, J. L. (2013). Selection of partners for international joint degree programs. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Chan, S. J. (2012). Going international: Double/joint degree programs in a Taiwanese university. Asia Pacific Journal of Educational Development (APJED), 1(2), 17-27.
Council of Graduate Schools. (2010). Joint degrees, dual degrees, and international research collaborations: A report on the CGS graduate international collaborations project. Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools.
Culver, S.M., Puri, I. K., Spinelli, G., DePauw, K.P., & Dooley, J.E. (2011). Collaborative dual-degree programs and value added for students: Lessons learned through the Evaluate-Eproject. Journal of Studies in International Education
Culver, S.M., Warfvinge, P., Grossman, C., & Puri, I.K. (2011). Evaluation of engineering double-degree programs in Sweden: results of the Lund Focus Groups. European Journal of Higher Education, 1(2-3), 220-232.
Douglas, T. S., Chimhundu, C., Harley, Y. X. ., & De Jager, K. (2020). Collaboration and citation impact: trends in health sciences research at the University of Cape Town. South African Journal of Science, 116(3-4), 51–58.
Fang, X., Singh, S., & Ahluwalia, R. (2007). An examination of different explanations for the mere exposure effect. Journal of consumer research, 34(1), 97-103.
Hou, Y.-C. (Angela). (2020). Quality assurance of joint degree programmes: what Asia can learn from Erasmus Mundus joint degree programmes in Europe. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 18(1), 19–29.
Jie, Y. (2010). International partnerships: A game theory perspective. New Directions for Higher Education, 150, 43-54.
Juknytė-Petreikienė, I., & Žydžiūnaitė, V. (2017). Quality considerations in the internationalization of higher education: the international students’ experiences within joint degree studies. Pedagogika (Vilnius, Lithuania), 127(3), 205–218.
Knight, J. (2008). Joint and double degree programmes: Vexing questions and issues. Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.
Knight, J., & Lee, J. (2012) International joint, double, and consecutive joint degree programs. In
D.K. Deardorff, H. de Wit, J. Heyl, & J. Adams (Eds.) Sage handbook of international
higher education. (p.p. 343-358). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.
Kuder, M., & Obst, D. (2009). Joint and double degree programs in transatlantic context: A
survey report. Institute of International Education.
Lee, C. S., Therriault, D. J., & Linderholm, T. (2012). On the cognitive benefits of cultural experience: Exploring the relationship between studying abroad and creative thinking. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(5), 768-778.
Maiworm, F. (2006). Results of the survey on study programmes awarding double, multiple or joint degrees. In German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) & German Rector’s Conference (HRK).
Obst, D., Kuder, M., & Banks, C. (2011). Joint and double degree programs in the global
context: Report on an international survey. Institute of International Education
Patricio, M. T., & Santos, P. (2020). Collaborative research projects in doctoral programs: a case study in Portugal. Studies in Higher Education, 45(11), 2311-2323.
Paziura, N. V., Hryhorieva, V., & Kalashnykova, T. (2021). Joint PhD programs as an effective tool for the internationalization of higher education in Germany. Comparative Professional Pedagogy, 1(11), 35-42.
Rauhvargers, A., Bergan, S., & Divis, J. (2003). United we stand: The recognition of joint
degrees. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7, 342-353
Stichting EP-Nuffic. (2015). Joint Programs from AZ, A reference guide for practitioners.
Retrieved from https://www.nuffic.nl/en/expertise/jdaz.
Tillman, M. J. (ed.). (2007) Cooperating with a University in the United States: NAFSA’s Guide
to Interuniversity Linkages. Washington, D.C.: NAFSA: Association of International Educators.
Van de Water, J., Green, M. & Koch, K. (2008). International partnerships: Guidelines for
Colleges and universities. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
van den Hoven, E., & Connell, J. (2016). Joint doctoral supervision across countries: changes, challenges and considerations. In emerging directions in doctoral education (Vol. 6, pp. 259–280). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Willis, M. (2007). Suggestions and procedures for choosing a Chinese institution of higher
education as a partner. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 18(2/3), 9-43.
Zheng, G., & Cai, Y. (2018). Collaboration between Europe and China in doctoral education: Historical development and future challenges. International status anxiety and higher education: Soviet legacy in China and Russia, 335-361.

Return to top

Return to menu