Quality Assurance Systems in Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation

ENHANCEMENT OF QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN APEC MEMBER ECONOMIES
8. Quality of Quality Assurance
Quality assurance agencies have the obligation to demonstrate that the quality assurance
process as implemented by them achieves the desired objectives effectively. To this end, they
become accountable to many stakeholders to prove the credibility of the process and to
ensure the objectivity of the outcome. Networking, information sharing with international
counterparts, participation in international events and discussions and self-monitoring, most of
which are either internal or informal or ad hoc, are the predominant ways QA systems follow
to ensure their quality. A few good examples of systematic, external reviews are also seen.
QA systems should be able to practice what they preach and demonstrate their quality to the
stakeholders in a more systematic manner.
8.1 Monitoring Quality Assurance
In general QA systems monitor their operations through internal controls (such as internal
audits, annual reporting requirements etc), monitoring against targets and feedback from the
sector. Next to internal checks, self evaluation against set targets and action plans is the most
prevalent practice. Feedback from the HEIs, reviewers and other stakeholders is also a major
means for the QA systems to monitor their performance. Some agencies collect feedback
from the HEIs and reviewers systematically in a structured way and act on the feedback
analysis. For example, after every audit, AUQA collects feedback from its auditors and
auditee through structured questionnaires. Questionnaires are sent to all those who meet the
audit panel during the audit program. The Chair of the Board of AUQA has a telephone
interview with the chief executive of the auditee. The feedback is analysed – quantitatively
and qualitatively – reported to the Board of AUQA, and acted on as appropriate.
Keeping pace with international developments in the field of quality assurance, participation in
international conferences and workshops have been indicated by a few QA systems.
Information exchange with the other QA systems, discussion with international and
intergovernmental organisations that have an interest in quality assurance are other initiatives
that contribute to the quality assurance of QA bodies.
Voluntary coordination in regional networks and adherence to their standards and criteria also
serves as a measure of quality assurance of QA bodies. Quality assurance agencies may
voluntarily join together as networks such as INQAAHE and APQN and follow the commonly
agreed principles or practices. They may join as associations such as Association of
Specialised and Professional Accreditors (US) and agree to adhere to the code of practice of
the association. Although they may not have the accountability concern as the main driver for
joining networks, adherence to common standards and criteria does serve to demonstrate the
accountability of the agency.
Carrying out comparative studies has been cited by BAN-PT. JUAA considers UNESCO-
OECD Guidelines to understand how its practices are aligned to international expectations.
MQA implements ISO processes and cooperates with international QA bodies as ways to
monitor quality of QA, among other things. Some agencies conduct impact studies and midcycle
correction reviews that contribute to understanding the progress towards realisation of
objectives.
Some amount of externality is found in some instances, such as hiring foreign and local
consultants to advise on performance. CNAP periodically gathers what is called Technical
Committees (where academic staff, representatives from professional associations and
employers of graduates come together) to assess and review the procedures and standards
for program accreditation. Inviting international experts to observe assessment visits to give
feedback is done by some agencies.
When the functions of HKCAA were expanded so as to meet the needs of a much wider
clientele and a more diverse range of courses, HKCAA conducted a self-review in conjunction
with an external consultant in 2003 to assess HKCAA’s readiness for the expanded role under
the Qualifications Framework. Based on the recommendations arising from the self-review,
29