by cheryl yu
According to David Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory, learning takes place through a cycle of four stages: concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualisation and active experimentation.
In simple terms, we learn by doing, observing, thinking and then trying again. The cycle does not really end. It continues as we move through new contexts, new challenges and new forms of practice. For me, this is a useful way to think about transnational education (TNE).
Having worked in TNE for 18 years, my own learning has always been shaped by this cycle. My first role in this space involved supporting the University of Central Lancashire’s 2+1 franchised articulation arrangements with Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, the University of Electronic Science and Technology of China and Shenzhen University back in 2008. Since then, my understanding of TNE has never been fixed. It has developed through experience, observation, reflection and continued practice.
This is perhaps one of the most important lessons TNE teaches us: it is never just one thing.
TNE practice varies according to institutional positioning, knowledge, experience, motivation and relationships. It also changes over time and works differently across different geographical and cultural contexts. It is fluid, evolving and often shaped as much by people and institutional cultures as by formal agreements and policy frameworks.
I often return to Professor Daguo Li’s point that no joint education institute or joint education programme in China should be treated as being the same. Each partnership carries its own characteristics.
Even where partnerships involve the same Chinese university, they may differ significantly in motivation, power balance, personal relationships, student and parent perceptions and the individual staff involved in delivering the project. This is why learning from others remains so valuable, no matter how knowledgeable or experienced we think we are.
Understanding what working with China requires
Working in China is particularly complex because China is not a single, uniform market or context. It is geographically, institutionally and culturally diverse. For that reason, I am always cautious about the idea of anyone positioning themselves simply as a ‘China expert’. It may be more helpful to speak about people who have sound knowledge of China, or sound knowledge of TNE in China, while recognising that this knowledge must continue to evolve.
This was reinforced for me when attending the BUCA (British Universities China Association) 9th annual conference, ‘UK-China Higher Education: Shared Future, New Horizons’, in July, which became an important learning space.
The room was filled with people who had strong knowledge of China, as well as people who were eager to learn more. Many came from international office or employability backgrounds, and the discussions reflected a strong level of professional commitment and curiosity. However, one of the most striking points was not only who was in the room but also who was not.
The wider functions of UK universities were largely absent. Senior leaders, academics, finance teams, quality assurance teams, IT colleagues and online learning or resource teams were not necessarily part of the conversation.
Yet these are exactly the stakeholders who often shape whether a TNE partnership can be delivered successfully in practice. This does not mean that every colleague needs to become a China specialist. Rather, it means that key stakeholders need enough contextual understanding to make informed decisions, ask the right questions and support delivery in a realistic way.
In this sense, China literacy is not only about understanding China. It is also about helping the institution understand what working with China requires.
Institutional buy-in is a critical challenge
This point also connected strongly with a comment made by Dr Julia Wang, associate pro-vice-chancellor at Liverpool John Moores University. From her experience of delivering UK-China TNE, and wider TNE, one of the biggest challenges is gaining buy-in from wider university stakeholders. One comment she shared stayed with me: no matter how the external environment may evolve, there should always be a way forward.
That comment reflected a strong, positive and pragmatic ‘can-do’ approach, which many China-focused colleagues demonstrated throughout the session, including myself. It also resonated strongly with a conversation I had with Ula Tang-Plowman, from Global University Systems, about the importance of commitment, adaptability and institutional mindset in TNE.
External policy environments will continue to change. Approval processes, geopolitical conditions, recruitment patterns and institutional priorities will continue to shift. But TNE partnerships are not sustained by policy awareness alone. They are sustained by institutional commitment, cross-functional understanding and the ability to keep learning as circumstances change.
Recent Chinese government figures
Recent updates from the Ministry of Education, as shared by Li Jian, the deputy director of education at the British Council, China, also suggest that TNE in China continues to evolve in scale, geography and subject focus.
In 2025, there was a notable spike in new TNE approvals:
• 285 TNE partnerships were newly approved.
• The UK accounted for 15% of 2025 approvals.
• 66% of approvals involved partners outside the big four English-speaking countries.
• 42% of all the TNE partnerships were Joint Educational Institutes (JEIs).
• Approvals covered 27 provincial-level regions.
• 31% offered postgraduate courses.
So far in 2026, the approval pattern has continued strongly. In May 2026, there were 219 new TNE partnerships approved, including 133 Joint Educational Partnerships (JEPs) and 86 JEIs, meaning 39% were JEIs. The UK share was 23%, followed by Russia, France and Italy.
Subject focus is also important. Around 40% of UK partnerships were linked to engineering and advanced manufacturing, while 48% were connected to computer science, artificial intelligence, big data and digital technologies.
The policy message from the Ministry of Education appears clear: central and western China will be key areas of support; implementation measures for the regulations governing TNE are being revised; and the emphasis is increasingly on quality over volume.
As of 13 May 2026, there were more than 1,700 approved undergraduate-level and above institutions and programmes, involving 45 countries and more than 1,100 overseas higher education institutions. There are also 34 global top 100 universities currently operating in China.
The message here is not simply that China TNE is growing. It is that TNE in China is changing. The geography is shifting, the subject priorities are sharpening and the expectations around quality and strategic value are becoming more important.
Different institutions need different strategies
TNE strategy will look different for different types of universities. A Russell Group university, a modern university and a specialist institution may all approach TNE in China differently. Their motivations may include reputation, subject alignment, financial sustainability, student mobility, research collaboration or subject reputation-building. This matters because not all TNE models create the same kind of visibility or institutional impact.
A JEP often sits within an existing Chinese department or faculty. It can be academically valuable and strategically important, but its external visibility may be more limited.
A JEI, by contrast, is often established as a separate college or institute with its own identity and brand. This can create a stronger programme-level and sometimes national-level reputation.
International branch campuses, such as the University of Nottingham Ningbo China or Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, operate at another level again, with wider institutional and global influence.
This does not mean that one model is automatically better than another. Rather, it means universities need to be clear about what they are trying to achieve. The right model depends on the institution’s subject strengths, risk appetite, partner relationships, operational capacity and long-term ambition.
Turning challenges into opportunities
One of the key challenges recognised by many universities is the teaching commitment required from the international partner. When it comes to TNE in China, the international partner is normally expected to contribute at least one third of the teaching.
For some UK universities, this can be seen as a major operational challenge, particularly given staffing pressures, workload models, travel costs and the need for sustainable delivery. However, as Dr Liu Kai, chief operating officer of the University of Portsmouth London, pointed out, this challenge can also be turned into an opportunity.
If designed carefully, the teaching commitment can support two-way mobility between the UK and China. It can create opportunities for academic exchange, staff development, curriculum internationalisation and deeper collaboration between teaching teams. Rather than seeing delivery only as a burden, universities can use it as a way to build a more meaningful and reciprocal partnership.
This requires planning from the beginning. Staffing, curriculum design, academic calendars, quality assurance, student support and mobility opportunities all need to be considered together. TNE cannot be treated simply as an international recruitment project or a contractual arrangement. It is an academic and institutional commitment.
Hidden dynamics of China-facing partnerships
Over the years, another important reflection for me has been the complexity of identifying and engaging the right people within a Chinese partner university when developing and delivering a TNE project. A positive meeting or a general expression of interest is not always enough.
In China-facing partnership work, small details can carry important meaning. Where do you meet, formally and informally? Where people sit in a meeting room or around a dining table may reflect job titles, seniority, institutional status and business priorities. How a question is raised, when it is raised and to whom it is directed can also influence whether the right answer is received. It is important to learn what is not said in a conversation too.
Universities therefore need to understand who is genuinely committed, who has decision-making influence and how decisions are actually made within the partner institution. Agreement in a meeting does not always mean institutional commitment.
This is where experience, cultural intelligence and institutional literacy become essential. Successful TNE development is not only about knowing the policy framework. It is also about understanding people, motivations, internal structures and the practical realities of implementation.
From transactional TNE to meaningful partnerships
Continuing on from my recent reflections on TNE in Europe, I think we need to ask more carefully what long-term success looks like for TNE in China. Is success simply approval? Is it student numbers? Is it a financial return? Is it reputation? Or is it something more purposeful and meaningful?
For me, the more important question is not only whether an international university can establish TNE in China but also what kind of TNE it wants to build. Is it transactional provision, or is it a long-term academic partnership that creates value for students, institutions, staff and local education systems?
China TNE continues to offer significant opportunities. But these opportunities require humility, preparation and long-term commitment. They require universities to keep learning, not only through market intelligence or policy updates but also through practice, reflection and dialogue with others.
In that sense, Kolb’s learning cycle remains highly relevant. TNE is not something we learn once and then master. It is something we continue to learn through experience, observation, reflection and action.
And perhaps this is the real lesson from TNE in China: the institutions that succeed will not be those that assume they already know the answers but those that are willing to keep learning.
Dr Cheryl Yu is director of programmes at TNE Institute and managing director of China Connected International Education. She has extensive experience in transnational education, UK-China higher education partnerships, institutional collaboration and international education strategy. Her work focuses on supporting universities to develop sustainable, high-quality TNE partnerships, with a particular interest in China, Asia and the wider global TNE landscape.
This article is a commentary. Commentary articles are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of University World News.
Originally published by University World News: https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20260714135852952