The Development of Higher Education in China and Malaysia: A Comparative Perspective

Chen Li

doi:doi:10.11648/j.sjedu.20210903.12

| Peer-Reviewed

The Development of Higher Education in China and Malaysia: A Comparative Perspective

Chen Li

Published in Science Journal of Education (Volume 9, Issue 3)

Received: 20 April 2021 Published: 24 May 2021

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Since the 1990s, higher education in the developing countries has gone through great changes in response to their fundamental political and socio-economic reforms. China and Malaysia, the two main Asian developing countries with emerging economies and ambitious goals, were picked up for a comparison of higher education development to better illustrate this general trend. In this comparative framework, comparability about the two countries is analyzed firstly, followed by the consideration of three key dimensions, and George Bereday’s method of comparison is accordingly used. It is noted from the comparison that both Chinese and Malaysian higher education systems have experienced massification, marketization and internationalization, and are currently striding toward universalization with more excellence-driven initiatives of higher education, which involve the main mechanisms and rules, as well as strategies and policies of marketization and internationalization. Yet other than the commonalities at a macro level, in these three areas concerning higher education there are some remarkable differences and disparities, such as the actual paths of size expansion, the growth and fate of private institutions, the conception of internationalization, due to different historical paths, national agendas and socio-political environments. Along this comparative approach, there are three common issues that need further elaborate discussions, namely, the unbalanced structure of quantitative development, centralized decentralization, and internationalization at home.

Published in	Science Journal of Education (Volume 9, Issue 3)
DOI	10.11648/j.sjedu.20210903.12
Page(s)	77-86
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Expansion, Marketization, Internationalization, Higher Education

References

[1]	Sobia, A. & Hussin, S. (2012). University governance: trends and models. Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press.
[2]	Norzaini, A. (2012). Malaysian public universities governance system: a compromise between collegiality, autonomy and corporate management approaches. International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management. 11 (5): 115-134.
[3]	Wang, X. J. (2015). Governance reforms of public universities in Malaysia. Studies in Foreign Education. 42 (12): 57-66.
[4]	Lian, J. J. (2005). A comparative study of higher education in Malaysia and the Philippines. Fuzhou: Fujian Renmin Press.
[5]	Hayhoe, R. (1989). China's universities and the open door. Toronto: OISE Press.
[6]	Zhang, S. (2004). Privatization of higher education: study on the demand for minban higher education by high school students in Mainland China. Ph. D. thesis. Hong Kong: The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
[7]	Wang, X. J. (2014). Research on the privatization of Malaysian higher education. Chongqing Higher Education Research. 2 (3): 101-104.
[8]	Hill, C., K. C., Leong, C. Y. C. & Rozilini, F. C. (2014). TNE – Trans-national education or tensions between national and external? A case study of Malaysia. Studies in Higher Education. 39 (6): 952-966.
[9]	Li, M. (2006). Cross-border higher education of mainland Chinese students: Hong Kong and Macao in a globalizing market. Ph. D. thesis. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong.
[10]	Li. J. (2015). Internationalization of higher education in Malaysia. M. A. thesis. Ningbo: Ningbo University.
[11]	Li, J. and Chen, L. (2015). Internationalization of higher education in Malaysia: A localized concept analysis. Journal of Ningbo University (Education Edition). 37 (3): 32-37.
[12]	Hayhoe R., Li, J., Lin, J. & Zha, Q. (eds.). (2011). Portraits of 21st century Chinese universities: In the move to mass higher education. Hong Kong & Dordrecht: Comparative Education Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong & Springer.
[13]	Zhong, H. Q. and Wang, X. J. (eds.). (2012). Higher education policies and regulations in Malaysia. Guilin: Guangxi Norman University Press.
[14]	Selvaraj, G., Krishnan, K. and Azlin, N. M. (2014). Current trends in Malaysian higher education and the effect on education policy and practice: An overview. International Journal of Higher Education. 3 (1): 85-93.
[15]	Zhang, Y. and Chen, W. S. (2012). Factors influencing Chinese students to study in Malaysian private higher educational institutions: A cross-sectional survey. SEGi Review. 5 (1): 123-131.
[16]	Zhang, J. (2015). Cross-cultural adaptation of Malaysian students in Beijing. M. A. thesis. Beijing: Beijing Foreign Studies University.
[17]	Low, H. H., Yang, H. J. & Yeoh, C. L. (2015). Studying in Malaysia public universities: Choice decision of Mainland Chinese students. In F. L. Gaol (ed.). Interdisciplinary behavior and social sciences. Leiden: CRC Press, 249–253.
[18]	Altbach, P. G. & Peterson, P. M. (1999). Introduction. In P. G. Altbach and P. M. Peterson (eds.). Higher education in the 21st Century: Global challenge and national response, 1-2. Annapolis Junction, MD: IIE Books, 1, 9.
[19]	Chapman, D. and Sarvi, J. (2016). Widely recognized problems, controversial solutions: issues and strategies for higher education development in East and Southeast Asia. In K. H. Mok (ed.). Managing international connectivity, diversity of learning and changing labor markets: East Asian perspectives. Singapore: Springer, 26.
[20]	Asian Development Bank (ADB) (2011). Higher education across Asia: An overview of issues and strategies. Manila: Asian Development Bank, 5, 5.
[21]	Bereday, G. (1964). Comparative method in education. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 10-28.
[22]	Bereday, G. (1969). Reflections on comparative methodology in education, 1964-1966. In M. A. Eckstein and H. J. Noah (eds.). Scientific investigations in comparative education, 3-24. London: Collier-Macmillan Limited, 10.
[23]	UNESCO (2003). Education for all global monitoring report 2003-4: Gender and education for all. Paris: UNESCO.
[24]	Zhou, Ji. (2004). Educational work in the view of scientific development. http://www.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/cmsmedia/document/410.doc. (accessed 6 March, 2021).
[25]	Ministry of Education. (2015a). Quality report of higher education in China: Gross participation rate reached 40%. http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2016-04/07/content_5062041.htm. (accessed 6 March, 2021).
[26]	Arokiasamy, L. and Ong, S. F. (2008). The roles of private higher educational institutions in promoting formal lifelong education in Malaysia. The Journal of International Social Research. 1 (4): 77-88.
[27]	Wong, B. R. (2013). Performance measurement in higher education: A Malaysian scenario. paper presented at QS-MAPLE. Johannesburg, South Africa. Kuala Lumpur: International University of Malaya-Wales. http://www.qsmaple.org/3rdqsmaple/download/powerpoints/. (accessed 12 December, 2020).
[28]	UNESCO (2015). UNESCO science report: towards 2030. Paris: UNESCO, 685.
[29]	Tierney, W. and Morshidi, S. (2008) Challenges facing Malaysian higher education. International Higher Education. 53: 23-24.
[30]	Cao, Y. X. and Levy, D. (2005). China's private higher education: the impact of public-sector privatization. International Higher Education. 41: 14-15.
[31]	National Center for Education Development Research. (2001). Green Paper on Education in China Annual Report on Policies of China's Education. Beijing: Education Science Publishing House, 134.
[32]	Ministry of Education. (2015b). Statistics of national education development in 2014. Beijing: MOE.
[33]	Loh, R. (2012). Private higher education in Malaysia: Access, internationalization and quality assurance. Master’s Thesis. Melbourne: RMIT University, 4.
[34]	Morshidi, S. (2006). Malaysia. In UNESCO (ed.). Higher education in South-East Asia. Bangkok: UNESCO, 112, 111.
[35]	Lee, M. N. N. (2004) Restructuring Higher education in Malaysia. School of Educational Studies. Pulau Pinang: Universiti Sains Malaysia, 69.
[36]	Morgan, W. J. and Li, F. (2015). Education: from egalitarian ideology to public policy. in S. G. Goodman (ed). Handbook of the politics of China. Glos: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, 217-237.
[37]	Mukherjee, H. and Wong, P. K. (2011). The National University of Singapore and the University of Malaya: Common Roots and Different Paths. In P. G. Altbach and J. Salmi (eds.). The Road to academic excellence: the making of world-class research universities. Washington DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank, 129-166.
[38]	Tan, A. M. (2002). Malaysian private higher education: Globalization, privatization, transformation and marketplaces. London: ASEAN Academic Press.
[39]	Shao, W. (2013). National priorities in the internationalization of higher education – recent development and future trend in China. Brussels. http://www.unica-network.eu. (accessed 2 April, 2021).
[40]	Department of Education and Training. (2016). China–outbound and inbound international students. Canberra: DET, Australian Government. https://internationaleducation.gov.au/. (accessed 3 August, 2016).
[41]	Xinhua. Over 500 Confucius Institutes founded in 142 countries, regions. http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-10/07/c_136663278.htm. (accessed 4 April, 2021).
[42]	Knight, J. and Morshidi, S. (2011). The complexities and challenges of regional education hubs: Focus on Malaysia. Higher Education. 62: 593-606.
[43]	Ye, L, Wang, Z. T. (2018) China higher education internationalization: a stock take of current activity. International and Comparative Education. (5): 43-52.
[44]	Zheng, H. R. & Guo, L. J. (2014). Quality control of transnational higher education: a comparison among the importers. (6): 43-49.
[45]	Knight. J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education. 8 (1): 5-31.
[46]	Lee, M. N. N. (2006). Centralized decentralization in Malaysian education. In C. Bjork (ed.). Educational decentralization: Asian experiences and conceptual contributions. Dordrecht: Springer, 149-158.
[47]	Zhang, Y. Q. & Zhang, H. Z. (2018). From Imitative Market-driven Governance to Quasi-market-driven Governance: The Direction of Higher Education Governance Change in China. Journal of Higher Education. 39 (6): 3-19.
[48]	Zhang, W. & Liu, B. C. (2017). Internationalization at home：new trend of higher education in China. University Education Science. 163 (3): 10-17.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Chen Li. (2021). The Development of Higher Education in China and Malaysia: A Comparative Perspective. Science Journal of Education, 9(3), 77-86. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sjedu.20210903.12

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Chen Li. The Development of Higher Education in China and Malaysia: A Comparative Perspective. Sci. J. Educ. 2021, 9(3), 77-86. doi: 10.11648/j.sjedu.20210903.12

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Chen Li. The Development of Higher Education in China and Malaysia: A Comparative Perspective. Sci J Educ. 2021;9(3):77-86. doi: 10.11648/j.sjedu.20210903.12

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.sjedu.20210903.12,
  author = {Chen Li},
  title = {The Development of Higher Education in China and Malaysia: A Comparative Perspective},
  journal = {Science Journal of Education},
  volume = {9},
  number = {3},
  pages = {77-86},
  doi = {10.11648/j.sjedu.20210903.12},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sjedu.20210903.12},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.sjedu.20210903.12},
  abstract = {Since the 1990s, higher education in the developing countries has gone through great changes in response to their fundamental political and socio-economic reforms. China and Malaysia, the two main Asian developing countries with emerging economies and ambitious goals, were picked up for a comparison of higher education development to better illustrate this general trend. In this comparative framework, comparability about the two countries is analyzed firstly, followed by the consideration of three key dimensions, and George Bereday’s method of comparison is accordingly used. It is noted from the comparison that both Chinese and Malaysian higher education systems have experienced massification, marketization and internationalization, and are currently striding toward universalization with more excellence-driven initiatives of higher education, which involve the main mechanisms and rules, as well as strategies and policies of marketization and internationalization. Yet other than the commonalities at a macro level, in these three areas concerning higher education there are some remarkable differences and disparities, such as the actual paths of size expansion, the growth and fate of private institutions, the conception of internationalization, due to different historical paths, national agendas and socio-political environments. Along this comparative approach, there are three common issues that need further elaborate discussions, namely, the unbalanced structure of quantitative development, centralized decentralization, and internationalization at home.},
 year = {2021}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - The Development of Higher Education in China and Malaysia: A Comparative Perspective
AU  - Chen Li
Y1  - 2021/05/24
PY  - 2021
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sjedu.20210903.12
DO  - 10.11648/j.sjedu.20210903.12
T2  - Science Journal of Education
JF  - Science Journal of Education
JO  - Science Journal of Education
SP  - 77
EP  - 86
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2329-0897
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sjedu.20210903.12
AB  - Since the 1990s, higher education in the developing countries has gone through great changes in response to their fundamental political and socio-economic reforms. China and Malaysia, the two main Asian developing countries with emerging economies and ambitious goals, were picked up for a comparison of higher education development to better illustrate this general trend. In this comparative framework, comparability about the two countries is analyzed firstly, followed by the consideration of three key dimensions, and George Bereday’s method of comparison is accordingly used. It is noted from the comparison that both Chinese and Malaysian higher education systems have experienced massification, marketization and internationalization, and are currently striding toward universalization with more excellence-driven initiatives of higher education, which involve the main mechanisms and rules, as well as strategies and policies of marketization and internationalization. Yet other than the commonalities at a macro level, in these three areas concerning higher education there are some remarkable differences and disparities, such as the actual paths of size expansion, the growth and fate of private institutions, the conception of internationalization, due to different historical paths, national agendas and socio-political environments. Along this comparative approach, there are three common issues that need further elaborate discussions, namely, the unbalanced structure of quantitative development, centralized decentralization, and internationalization at home.
VL  - 9
IS  - 3
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Chen Li

School of Education Science, Liupanshui Normal University, Liupanshui, China

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Chen Li. (2021). The Development of Higher Education in China and Malaysia: A Comparative Perspective. Science Journal of Education, 9(3), 77-86. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sjedu.20210903.12

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Chen Li. The Development of Higher Education in China and Malaysia: A Comparative Perspective. Sci. J. Educ. 2021, 9(3), 77-86. doi: 10.11648/j.sjedu.20210903.12

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Chen Li. The Development of Higher Education in China and Malaysia: A Comparative Perspective. Sci J Educ. 2021;9(3):77-86. doi: 10.11648/j.sjedu.20210903.12

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.sjedu.20210903.12,
  author = {Chen Li},
  title = {The Development of Higher Education in China and Malaysia: A Comparative Perspective},
  journal = {Science Journal of Education},
  volume = {9},
  number = {3},
  pages = {77-86},
  doi = {10.11648/j.sjedu.20210903.12},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sjedu.20210903.12},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.sjedu.20210903.12},
  abstract = {Since the 1990s, higher education in the developing countries has gone through great changes in response to their fundamental political and socio-economic reforms. China and Malaysia, the two main Asian developing countries with emerging economies and ambitious goals, were picked up for a comparison of higher education development to better illustrate this general trend. In this comparative framework, comparability about the two countries is analyzed firstly, followed by the consideration of three key dimensions, and George Bereday’s method of comparison is accordingly used. It is noted from the comparison that both Chinese and Malaysian higher education systems have experienced massification, marketization and internationalization, and are currently striding toward universalization with more excellence-driven initiatives of higher education, which involve the main mechanisms and rules, as well as strategies and policies of marketization and internationalization. Yet other than the commonalities at a macro level, in these three areas concerning higher education there are some remarkable differences and disparities, such as the actual paths of size expansion, the growth and fate of private institutions, the conception of internationalization, due to different historical paths, national agendas and socio-political environments. Along this comparative approach, there are three common issues that need further elaborate discussions, namely, the unbalanced structure of quantitative development, centralized decentralization, and internationalization at home.},
 year = {2021}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - The Development of Higher Education in China and Malaysia: A Comparative Perspective
AU  - Chen Li
Y1  - 2021/05/24
PY  - 2021
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sjedu.20210903.12
DO  - 10.11648/j.sjedu.20210903.12
T2  - Science Journal of Education
JF  - Science Journal of Education
JO  - Science Journal of Education
SP  - 77
EP  - 86
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2329-0897
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sjedu.20210903.12
AB  - Since the 1990s, higher education in the developing countries has gone through great changes in response to their fundamental political and socio-economic reforms. China and Malaysia, the two main Asian developing countries with emerging economies and ambitious goals, were picked up for a comparison of higher education development to better illustrate this general trend. In this comparative framework, comparability about the two countries is analyzed firstly, followed by the consideration of three key dimensions, and George Bereday’s method of comparison is accordingly used. It is noted from the comparison that both Chinese and Malaysian higher education systems have experienced massification, marketization and internationalization, and are currently striding toward universalization with more excellence-driven initiatives of higher education, which involve the main mechanisms and rules, as well as strategies and policies of marketization and internationalization. Yet other than the commonalities at a macro level, in these three areas concerning higher education there are some remarkable differences and disparities, such as the actual paths of size expansion, the growth and fate of private institutions, the conception of internationalization, due to different historical paths, national agendas and socio-political environments. Along this comparative approach, there are three common issues that need further elaborate discussions, namely, the unbalanced structure of quantitative development, centralized decentralization, and internationalization at home.
VL  - 9
IS  - 3
ER  -

Copy | Download