Quality Assurance Systems in Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ENHANCEMENT OF QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN APEC MEMBER ECONOMIES 1.3 Diversity In a vibrant region such as the APEC region, with linguistic, political, economic and cultural differences, the higher education systems and policies of the various economies and the developmental stage that they have reached are very diverse, and correspondingly the quality assurance practices vary widely. In fact, the term `quality assurance’ is used to denote different practices in the APEC economies and quality assurance is exercised through many modes. While the approach to quality assurance has variations to serve unique national contexts, there is agreement on the essentials. Whatever the basic approach to quality assurance, the survey indicates that most quality assurance systems have certain common features. The institution (or program) that undergoes the quality assurance process provides relevant information to the agency. In most cases, this is part of a self-assessment which provides a critical analysis of the institutional/program data. This is followed by a site visit of an external review team that results in the report / recommendation / observations about the quality of the institution / program. The final step in this evaluation process is the decision on the review team’s recommendations / observations, and the disclosure of all or part of the outcome. While the survey reveals that all quality assurance processes follow this common framework, there is a lot of variation in the way the processes are implemented. This is not unexpected, since the APEC economies themselves are very varied. They vary in size from a few million people to over a billion, in stages of both general and educational development, in systems of culture and government, and in national and international aspirations. The next few pages of this report provide an overview of the commonalities and variations observed among the APEC economies related to various aspects of quality assurance. Drawing on the commonalities and variations, this report provides some insights into what quality assurance agencies consider has worked well in their experiences. 1.4 Number of Agencies Many of the economies have several quality assurance agencies (and the number does not correlate with the size of the population). Therefore, this report does not cover all quality assurance efforts, although from several economies there are two or more responses. When responsibilities are shared, there are differences in the specific objectives and clientele. However, in general the multiple agencies within the same economy do have a lot of commonalities, as they are driven by the same national context, so some inferences may be drawn. Care has been taken to get a national view from the agencies that participated in the survey. Also, in economies where quality assurance is implemented by multiple agencies, the agencies that were surveyed provided information about other players at the national level and that was helpful for understanding the national scenario. 2
ENHANCEMENT OF QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN APEC MEMBER ECONOMIES 2. Legal Basis and Governance A QA agency needs a basis for its authority and a system for controlling and directing its activities. The basis may be a legal instrument (e.g. a law or statute) or simply an agreement between various parties. The system of control is usually a board (of directors) or commission (of trustees), supported by management and/or administration. 2.1 Establishment of the Quality Assurance Systems Among the 21 APEC economies, currently there are about 25 major national quality assurance initiatives beyond the ministerial functions. A couple of them are very old, established in the 1940s and 1950s, a few have been in existence since the 1980s, and most of them have been set up in the nineties or since then. The year of establishment / initiation of the agencies that participated in the survey are as below (Full contact details are given in Appendix 1): 1. Australia: Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA) 2000 2. Brunei Darussalam: Brunei Darussalam National Accreditation Council (BDNAC) 1990 3. Chile: Comision Nacional de Acreditacion (CNAP) 1999 4. China: China Academic Degrees & Graduate Education Development Center (CDGDC); Higher Education Evaluation Centre (HEEC) of Ministry of Education (MoE), 2004 5. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Council for Academic Accreditation (HKCAA) 1990, University Grants Committee (UGC) (established in 1965 and assessment initiatives started in 1993) 6. Indonesia: Badan Akreditasi Nasional Perguruan Tinggi (BAN-PT) (in English: National Accreditation Board for Higher Education - NABHE) 1994 7. Japan: National Institution for Academic Degrees and University Evaluation (NIAD-UE) 1991, Japan University Accreditation Association (JUAA) 1947 8. Malaysia: Malaysian Qualifications Authority (MQA) 2006 9. New Zealand: New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) 1989/1990; Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics Quality (ITP-Q) 1991; New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit (NZUAAU) 1993 10. Philippines: Accrediting Agency of Chartered Colleges and Universities in the Philippines (AACCUP) 1987, Philippines Accrediting Association of Schools, Colleges and Universities (PAASCU) 1957 11. Russia: National Accreditation Agency (NAA) of the Russian Federation, 1995 12. Singapore: Quality Assurance Unit of the MoE; Standards, Productivity and Innovation Board (SPRING) 1981 13. South Korea: Korean Council for University Education (KCUE) 1982 14. Chinese Taipei: Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan (HEEACT) 2005 15. Thailand: Office for National Education Standards and Quality Assessment (ONESQA) 2000 16. Vietnam: General Department of Education Testing and Accreditation (GDETA) 2003 Many of the recent initiatives are revised forms of earlier bodies, or were preceded by other bodies, and the current forms are outcomes of the changing higher education scenario. The situation is changing constantly. Therefore, the year of establishment of the quality assurance agency given above has to be interpreted with caution. For example, the current national quality assurance agency of Australia for the higher education sector was established in 2000. Prior to that, Australia had a national quality committee in 1993–1996, and then the quality assurance system was an integrated framework where quality assurance responsibility was exercised by many agencies and strategies. A similar situation is observed in Malaysia 3
Page 1 and 2: ENHANCEMENT OF QUALITY ASSURANCE SY
Page 3: A REPORT A report on quality assura
Page 72 and 73:
ENHANCEMENT OF QUALITY ASSURANCE SY
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
show all

Quality Assurance Systems in Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?