Quality Assurance Systems in Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ENHANCEMENT OF QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN APEC MEMBER ECONOMIES reviewers which may play an important role in the improvement of the institution or program. If the institution or program does not have respect for the reviewers, or considers them not to be reliable, for whatever reason, their opinions will be dismissed, and an important part of their contribution will be lost. 5.8 Role of Agency Staff in On-site Visit In general, QA staff have administrative functions such as notifying the institutions, developing the register of reviewers and publication of the final quality assurance outcome. These functions do not require a big staff complement or many staff of high academic standing. With a small core group of competent professional staff these responsibilities can be organised well and discharged effectively. In many cases, staff are also involved in the development of the quality assurance framework, taking responsibility for monitoring the major phases of quality assurance, training the reviewers, and orienting the institutions for institutional preparations. There are many systems where the QA staff joins the review team either as a full member or as the Coordinator or Secretary to the review panel. Having QA staff on the review panel affects the reporting strategy of the panel. Often one member of the review team is made responsible for the drafting of the report in close cooperation with the other members of the team. When the staff of the quality assurance agency joins the review team, (s)he takes the responsibility for the team’s report, in consultation with the other members of the review team. Whether this option is adopted depends on the size of the national systems of higher education, the size of the quality assurance agency, the amount of quality assurance work to be done and, consequently, whether it is possible to send a staff member for each of the review teams. For example, in AUQA, the writing of the audit report is the responsibility of the AUQA staff person who is a full member of the audit team. This is possible since the AUQA has to cover only 51 entities in a period of 5 years. The NZUAAU of New Zealand also follows the same pattern. In Canada, the College Education Evaluation Commission (CEEC) takes an active role in its assessment exercises. The teams are headed by one of the commissioners of the commission. When the QA staff does not join the team at all in any capacity, the review team chair or one of the members would take the responsibility to prepare the report. Even if the QA staff joins the team as a coordinator, the policy of the QA system may be such that the staff does not take an active role in drafting the report. This is the option followed in some of the regional accrediting agencies of the USA. While the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools does not send its staff to join the review team, the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools (ACICS) of the USA sends a staff member to join the team but s/he does not have a role in the assessment decisions. It describes the role of the agency staff as below: “During the visit, the primary role of the staff is to interpret the ACICS Accreditation Criteria. Staff will provide team members with guidance in understanding and applying the Criteria and may assist team members with gathering information as time provides. Staff is not to be assigned sole responsibility for the writing of any section of the team report with the exception of the publications section. Staff also will ensure that all areas of the institution’s operation are properly reviewed by the team members.” This option also makes it very clear both to the HEIs and the external reviewers that the responsibility for evaluation rests with the external review team and not with the staff of the agency. In this approach, the QA staff members are experts on procedural aspects, but they do not fulfil the requirements to act as peers. Therefore, the QA staff may provide secretarial or clerical or procedural support to a team, but the responsibility for the contents of the report lies with the team. The emerging pattern is that of quality assurance becoming a profession by itself, and to maintain professionalism the QA staff are seen as peers in QA. The survey indicates that 20
ENHANCEMENT OF QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN APEC MEMBER ECONOMIES except for a couple of cases, the QA staff tend to play substantive roles in the QA processes. Increasingly, QA staff are involved in the QA activities directly, including participation in site visits and taking a role in report-writing. Senior staff at times chair the review panel. Some of these functions are central to the professionalism of quality assurance and can be quite challenging. Accordingly the QA system needs staff of appropriate competencies to shoulder these responsibilities and who can cope with challenging situations. 5.9 Activities during Site Visit and Duration The major purpose of the site visit is to look for evidence to arrive at a collective judgement about the quality of the institution (or program) with respect to the QA framework. To facilitate gathering of evidence, the visit schedule usually incorporates three types of activities: 1. interactions with various constituents of the institution; 2. visiting some or all of the important facilities of the institution; and 3. verification of documents. During the site visit, in addition to the meetings with the executive body and the management teams of the institution (or program), the reviewers interact with groups of teachers, staff and students. In many cases there are also discussions with alumni, employers and the public. These interactions help the reviewers to get a feel of the academic ambience of the institution and seek information on the issues that need further clarification. The reviewers may ask for relevant documents to verify the institutional claims made in the self-assessment report. In some cases they observe the classroom teaching as in the case of BAN-PT of Indonesia, NIAD-UE of Japan, AACCUP and PAASCU of Philippines, NAA of Russia, SPRING of Singapore, KCUE of South Korea and HEEACT of Chinese Taipei. The number of days for a typical visit schedule may vary depending on the size of the unit to be visited, the depth of assessment to be done, and the approach to the visit. If the institution is big or if the visit schedule requires the reviewers to visit all the departments of the institution and their facilities, the visit may need more days. In general, visits take 3 to 5 days. 5.10 Review Panel Reporting the Outcome Generally, the reviewers report to the QA agency, their assessment providing evidence they saw during the visit or in the self-assessment. In some QA systems, there is heavy reliance on the reviewers, and the review team’s recommendations become the only consideration for the agency’s decision. In the normal course of events, if there are no complaints about the objectivity of the team or the conduct of the team visit (and unless the agency has great misgivings), the recommendations of the review team are approved by the agency and declared as the final outcome. There may be mechanisms for appeal and further review but the review team’s assessment is the basis for the agency’s decision-making. If the quality assurance agency follows this model, it is essential that the reviewers are competent enough to take appropriate decisions. This becomes all the more crucial in large systems of higher education, and in quality assurance models where the agency staff do not join the site visit. In the region, some agencies require the reviewers only to advise the agency or report to the agency their impressions of the institution (or program) with reference to the assessment framework. The governing body of the QA agency or a body appointed for this purpose considers the observations as one of the inputs to decide on the outcome. For example, in many accrediting bodies in the USA, the institution routinely appears before the accrediting commission to argue its case. This approach might help in reducing the inter-team variance since the agency will be able to weigh the evidence presented for a number of similar institutions or programs. At the same time, it might be criticised as a very direct intrusive role in the process where peer assessment is central. Whatever option is selected there is a major role for reviewers and QA systems have checks and balances in place to ensure the credibility of the review outcome. The survey indicates 21
Page 1 and 2: ENHANCEMENT OF QUALITY ASSURANCE SY
Page 3: A REPORT A report on quality assura
Page 90 and 91:
ENHANCEMENT OF QUALITY ASSURANCE SY
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?