Quality Assurance Systems in Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ENHANCEMENT OF QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN APEC MEMBER ECONOMIES that experience of the reviewers, balanced composition of the panel, presence of the agency staff in the panel, emphasis on panel consensus, emphasis on evidence-based judgement, consulting the HEIs on the facts and emphasis of the report, etc. serve as checks and balances. AACCUP of Philippines indicates that the review reports undergo a technical review before a final QA decision is taken based on the report. 5.11 Decision-making by the QA System The report or recommendation by the review team is an important input to the quality assurance decisions of the agency. There are at least four different ways in which the APEC economies use the review team’s report/observations to take a final QA decision. There are systems where the final decision depends on the review team’s recommendation only. The assumption here is that the team has analysed all relevant information, and therefore its recommendation is sufficient as a basis for decision-making. The QA agency only checks whether the site visit was carried out objectively, whether there is adverse feedback from the institutions or programs that were assessed or from the QA staff who coordinated the visit, and if found appropriate, the recommendations of the review team become the quality assurance outcome. Some agencies consider review team’s report and self-assessment report of the institution or program. The assumption here is that while the external review report is an important input, the report prepared by the institution is also important enough to be considered on its own by the quality assurance agency or its board. Yet another variation is that the final decision depends on the review team’s report, selfassessment report, and other relevant information. In this case, the quality assurance agency considers other relevant information such as general data on the institution or the program, other survey reports, government reports, reports of the professional bodies submission by the other stakeholders or data regarding other institutions or programs, that may help put the decision in perspective. Some systems consider review team’s report, self-assessment report, other relevant information and institutional response. This is a variation of the process mentioned above where the institutional response receives specific consideration in the decision-making process. Here the institutional response is more than just a feedback about the site visit and the review team. Before the decision is made, the institution may be asked to respond on certain aspects which would feed into the final decision making. For example, as already mentioned, in the US, the HEIs appear before the regional accrediting commissions to explain their case. Similar to the self-assessment report, the institutional inputs through these meetings are also considered while taking the QA decision. “Who takes the final quality assurance decision?” depends on the role the various parties are expected to play in the quality assurance process, e.g. whether the reviewers can only advise the agency or make judgements about the quality as discussed earlier. 22
ENHANCEMENT OF QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN APEC MEMBER ECONOMIES 6. Outcomes and Implications of the QA Processes An external QA system is a significant undertaking for any government and its HE sector, in terms of time, cost and consequences. This is why, as described above, close attention is paid to the structure and planning of the QA processes. It is also why QA decisions must be reported appropriately, and why the processes should have positive effects. We turn now to these aspects of the QA process. 6.1 Reporting the Outcome The quality assurance outcomes by the agency is a crucial element in the eventual impact of the quality assurance processes. When the purpose of quality assurance is to certify whether an institution (or program) qualifies for a certain status such as recognition as an institution of higher learning or approval for offering degree-granting programs or eligibility for public funding, the outcome may be a simple yes/no or accredited/not-accredited. This is the outcome of most licensing and accreditation models. Some agencies declare this formal status only. When quality assurance is expected to check a threshold level of quality or when the quality assurance outcome is used for simple decisions, the binary scale outcome again serves the purpose. The two-point scale (Accredited/Not accredited) is generally found in systems where quality assurance serves the purpose of regulation or approval or recognition. It states whether the institution or program meets basic conditions, but it is unable to recognise different levels of quality among those that do. Some agencies provide the final outcome on a multi-point scale. If the quality assurance exercise asks: “how good are your outputs?” the typical outcome of such an exercise would be in a multi-point grade - numeric or literal or descriptive. This would be suitable if the quality assurance agency wishes to focus on outcomes and levels of attainment. For example, if the quality assurance outcome is to be used by the government or funding body to decide the funding levels, the binary state of accreditation outcome may not be enough. In such cases, the agency might opt for assessment where the levels of quality are expressed on a multipoint scale. Large systems with a lot of variation in quality might opt for the multi-point outcome. The accrediting agencies of Philippines state that “Due to the variations of quality, it was decided to offer accreditation at four different levels, each entailing specific benefits both in terms of administrative autonomy and access to incentive funds. The higher the level of accreditation, the more the autonomy granted to the institution.” A different way of implementing a ‘multi-point scale’ is to use a binary decision (accredited/not accredited) but specify different durations for the accredited status. This may be a good way of dealing with diverse institutions. If they are perceived to be reliable, and to be able to ensure the quality of their work, accreditation may last for a longer period of time (5 to 10 years). If, on the other hand, they need closer supervision, they may be accredited for as little as two to three years. This is in practice in the US among the regional accreditors. In Chile the QA outcome is valid for a period between one and seven years. Some QA activities result in reports only. If the quality assurance exercise is clearly focused on the processes by which an institution monitors its own academic standards and acts to assure and enhance the quality of its offerings, it might result in a report, as in the case of a typical quality audit. The objectives of the institution or program are taken as the starting point for the audit and the audit report explains how successful the institution is in trying to meet its stated objectives by placing appropriate processes in place. Due to the emphasis on internal processes of the institution or program, this method might be more useful for mature systems with well-established internal processes. Systems that intend to strengthen their internal processes for quality may also benefit from this. In practice, a quality assurance system may use a combination of the above. Choosing an option for the reporting strategy is not as simple and straightforward as has been presented 23
Page 1 and 2: ENHANCEMENT OF QUALITY ASSURANCE SY
Page 3: A REPORT A report on quality assura
Page 92 and 93:
ENHANCEMENT OF QUALITY ASSURANCE SY
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?