Implikasi Penilaian Kendiri dan Pengiktirafan Terhadap ... - USM

USM Speak 2011
1-2 July 2011
“Implikasi Penilaian Kendiri dan
Pengiktirafan Terhadap Autonomi
Kepada Pentabir Pengurusan Akademik
Universiti”
(Implications of self assessment and
recognition of University’s administrator’s
autonomy for academic management)
Malaysian Qualifications Agency
7/5/2011 zpv
1

Outline
• Academic autonomy in higher education
• Changes in support of autonomy in Higher Education
• The “Why” factors
• Measures - Institutional Autonomy -National Higher
Education Strategies 2007-2015
• QA practices to enhance Academic Autonomy
• Self assessment acknowledges academic autonomy?
– Prerequisites
– Preparation
– Impact
• Challenges
7/5/2011 zpv
2

Development of Academic
autonomy
7/5/2011 zpv 3

Concept of Academic Autonomy
• Academic autonomy
“What to teach, how to teach and who to be taught”
• Institutional academic autonomy
“that academic promotes ‘intellectual diversity’ and
help a university’s primary goal of pursuit of truth, the
discovery of new knowledge through scholarship and
research, and reasoned reason criticism of intellectual
and cultural traditions, the teaching and development
of students to help them become creative individuals
and provide a pluralistic democracy and the
transmission of knowledge and learning to public at
large”.
7/5/2011 zpv
4

CHANGES IN HE LAW & MANAGEMENT
Evolution in HE system
Public Universities
• Pre 1996 –Universities
and University Colleges
Act 1976 & Education
Act 1961
• Private Higher
Education Institutional
Act 1996
• Amendments to these
Acts in 2009 and 2010
Impact
• Basic regulations
• Regulating a growing private
higher educational
institutions
• Corporatisation of public
universities- new public
management to improve
management of universities
• More autonomy with
amendments in 2009
7/5/2011 zpv
5

Autonomy, Accountability and Audit –
the “why” factors
• Public interest in tertiary education-accountability for cost and
investment and social/economic contribution
• Is it taking effective responsibility for academic quality?
• Many new challenges-mass education, private provision, issue
of quality for social and economic growth & reduce funding ,
consumer protection
• Regional higher education hub
• Internationalisation and convergence trends
• But “How to find a proper balance between governmental
steering and institutional autonomy…to achieve academic
excellence ”
7/5/2011 zpv
6

Measures - Institutional Autonomy -National
Higher Education Strategies 2007-2015
• Autonomy of university - Universities and University
College Act 1996 (Amendments 2009)
• Phase 1 & 2 CAP Projects –focus on universities
– What are the projects?
– Good governance Principles - Code of Good Governance
Index (CUGGI) Evaluation instrument to measure readiness
– Leadership and management training
– Stakeholders guidance, academic self governance,
managerial self governance and dealing with competition
• Government accepting institutional autonomy –development
and incremental approach and “moving to remote control”
7/5/2011 zpv
7

MQA & Academic Autonomy of Universities
“Quality assurance is an ongoing process and it is the
responsibility of all parties involved. “
“Institutions have always been responsible to ensure quality of
its academic awards and other related activities.”
“COPPA and COPIA would assist institutions to enhance their
quality provisions through the self-review and internal
assessment processes as well as the external audit conducted
by the MQA. “
“Universities are subjected to a broad quality and national
framework”
7/5/2011 zpv
8

Universities Autonomy – Broad Policy & Quality
Framework
• Collaborations
with foreign
institutions
• Standards of
International
bodies
MALAYSIAN
QUALI ICATIONS
FRAMEWORK
PROGRAMME
DISCIPLINE
STANDARD
PROGRAM/
GGP
QUALITY
ASSURANCE
STANDARDS
PROGRAM-
COPPA/COPIA
INSTITUTION-
VISION,
MISSION, AND
STRATEGIES &
POLICIES
• National
Policies
• Regulation for
approvals
• Quality
Standards and
assess by
Professional
bodies
7/5/2011 zpv
9

Quality Assurance Framework and
Autonomy
7/5/2011 zpv 10

1. COPPA and COPIA recognises academic
autonomy. Lets focus: 2 key areasprogramme
approval and programme
accreditation
2. Does the practice of self assessment
promote and ensure “sufficient” academic
autonomy of universities?
3. Self assessment in the Academic
Performance Audit – a number have not
incorporate self assessment/review
mechanisms well
7/5/2011 zpv 11

58 HEPs

Quality Assurance System -EQA links with IQA-programme
and institutional level
External Quality
assurance
Programme
Accreditation &
Institutional audits
Implements
MQF
Applies for Accreditation or
institutional audit -
submission of Self Assessment
Report
Results
Feedback &
Support
Internal Quality
Assurance system
–Internal audits
and CQI
7/5/2011 zpv
13

Generic QA Standards (Best Practices) –
Practised by Universities?
Quality assurance standards designed for fitness for specified
(institutional) purposes “Voluntary compliance”
1. Vision, Mission,
Educational Goals and
Learning Outcomes
4. Student Selection
and Support Services
7. (Governance/
senate ) Programme
Leadership and
academic committees
Administration
2. Curriculum Design
and Delivery
3. Assessment of
Students
5. Academic Staff 6. Educational
Resources
8. Programme
Monitoring and
Review
7/5/2011 zpv
9. Continual Quality
Improvement
14

What are the “Must Haves” to recognise
Academic Autonomy ?
A structure of institutional governance which includes
a clear academic management structure ?
Strategies, goals and performance indicator (for
academic excellence)?
Sufficient academic, infrastructure and financial
autonomy to manage academic affairs & academic
staff ?
Clear and effective policies and procedures to
regulate all academic activities?
Active stakeholders participations ?
A robust and effective quality management system
7/5/2011 zpv
15

Programme
Accreditation
(site audit
by peers)
At Programme level? A Quality Cycle
expected in University’s system
Application for
accreditation -
Internal quality audit-
Self assessment of
programmes
Programme monitoring
and review
PROGRAMME
7/5/2011 zpv
PROGRAMME
APPROVAL
PROCESS
Internal university
process for approval
Dept to Senate
16

Programme Approval- (Sufficient
Academic Autonomy?
• Are we able to offer this new programme?
– Subjected to institutional goals and serving the larger
national and global policies and interests
– Effective internal process to examine proposal
– Market needs analysis and policies / approval of MOHE
– Sufficient autonomy in design & delivery & provision of
resources
• External quality evaluation – “appropriateness &
capacity”
7/5/2011 zpv 17

Full Accreditation & Effective Self
Assessment Review (SAR)
• Generally practice in programme accreditation
and institutional academic performance audits
• Purpose of SAR “….recognises HEP’s autonomy
and responsibilities for quality; recognises
the diversity of HEP - a different approaches;
ensures initiations and/or maintenance of
Continuous Quality Improvement systems and
production of information & material.”
7/5/2011 zpv
18

Programme Review & Self
Assessment Report
• “Critical self assessment is important … it helps the
university to discover its own quality- helps to
improve and enhance quality
• Programme review is a cyclical process- for
evaluating and continuously enhancing the quality
and currency of the programme-a combination of
self evaluation, followed by peer-evaluation…
• It fosters continuous programme improvement that
is aligned with departmental, college and
institutional goals
7/5/2011 zpv
19

Periodic Reviews by Institutional / Dept.
Continuous Quality Improvement:
• Active involvement of dept. / institutions staff in
internal audits and preparation of submission
• Periodical assessment leads to improvement
• Clients and stakeholders participation
– What actions are we taking in relation to this area?
– Why were these actions taken?
– How do we check their effectiveness-performance
indicators?
– Can we measure degree of achievement?
– Can we improve further?
7/5/2011 zpv 20

What other measures
Universities may put in place ?
Establish Benchmarking and KPIs
Enhancing Inter or multidisciplinary approach
Graduate Attribute survey, Tracer Study,
Employers satisfaction & other indicators
Institutional responsibility for quality
Improve R & D and community service
Demand strong stakeholders collaboration
internal, local and external and international
Seeking to entrenched quality culture to ensure
institutional effectiveness and growth
7/5/2011 zpv
21

Conclusion
• Universities operate within a very competitive
environment -national and global scenario.
• Recognising academic autonomy of the university
through the Quality Standards and processes
• Accountability follows Autonomy.
• Self assessment mechanisms practiced by University
reflects exercise of its academic autonomy.
• Increase of autonomy requires good governance.
• National policies supports (full?)academic autonomy
• Like the “swa universiti”
7/5/2011 zpv
22