76 Pad Lavankura and Rattana Lao
on academic reasons or through exchange programmes, nor are they given
full-time positions that would make them feel as part of the university.
This marginalized selection and employment process make it difficult to
ensure the quality of foreign lecturers (Van der Wende 1996, p. 139).
Indeed, a limited number of full-time lecturers could hinder universities
from strengthening their areas of expertise. Adjunct lecturers or guest
lecturers have limited rights to access research grants and to proper office
spaces. Although a number of MOUs have been signed over the past
decade, their actual implementation have been limited to the exchange of
students between home and host institutions. The opportunities for Thai
universities to exchange academic materials, publications, and faculty
members, or to conduct joint research activities and organize symposiums
have not been enlarged. Having no adequate full-time lecturers of their
own prevented fundamental changes in quality of the programmes. In
fact, even though one of the ultimate aims of international programmes
is to develop the quality of lecturers in Thailand, there is only ad hoc
teaching and learning process since universities are mainly concerned
with increasing their incomes.
As far as teaching methods in Thai international programmes are
concerned, we have witnessed certain changes, mainly in respond to the
market demands and adjustment to international trends. Changes are still
at a very superficial level and universities are still struggling to introduce
fundamental changes. The system of organizing teaching methods used
in universities continues to impede integration and fundamental changes.
While students gained limited qualities, they would still adhere to the
cultural value of “West is best”. What students in international programmes
get that their counterparts in normal Thai programmes do not get are
foreign lecturers and textbooks, English as the medium of instruction, and
some opportunities to spend a semester abroad. However, currently such
changes are not enough for the internationalization of higher education
in global terms.
The premium being placed on English as the medium of instruction
and foreign teachers makes it questionable whether the internationalization
process in Thailand is in fact “international”. International programmes
in Thailand are simply English programmes, which translate the Thai
curriculum into English without adding any particular international
elements (Chalapati 2007, p. 10). Recently, there was a controversial
case involving a Thai public university attempt to create a “bilingual”
programme for dentistry. This case brought the question of “international”