Quality Assurance Systems in Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ENHANCEMENT OF QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN APEC MEMBER ECONOMIES Table 4: QA Outcome and its Implications S. No. Economy Agency Outcome Implication Who decides on final QA outcome Inputs considered for final QA outcome QA outcome given to Institution QA outcome given to Public Who is Report conclusions Follow-up responsible for the report Validity of Outcome Appeals 1 Australia AUQA Report Federal funding, prestige Panel makes recommendations and GB decides Panel report, Institutional response to report Full report Full report The agency staff who joins the panel, in consultation with the panel Commendations, Affirmations, and Recommendations for further attention In general will be done in the next audit. The institutions provide a progress report 18 months after the publication of the audit report. Five years Yes. AUQA Board will handle formal appeals and take appropriate steps. No appeal during past five years. 2 Brunei Darussalam BDNAC Report, Formal status GB recommends based Formal Status on review report and govt authority decides Panel report and SAR Formal Status and part of the report Formal Status All panel members – – – Yes. The Council is the appellate authority. Three appeals in the past five years and all three were granted. 3 Chile CNAP Report, Prestige Formal Status Panel gives observation s and the agency decides. Panel report, SAR, relevant info, institution’s response to report Report and Formal Status FS and full report Panel report is by the Chair – Agency report is by agency staff. It is the agency report that goes to the institution. Agency views on meeting criteria. In some cases, specific areas for improvement to be addressed before reaccreditation. Yes. Sometimes a progress report. Chair checks on progress and a short report is sent to the institution. General followup is at the next visit 2–7 years Depends on degree of consolidation of the institution/ program, time needed for verification of actions, reliability of processes in place Yes. No dedicated appellate authority. Agency considers requests for review. May lead to new report and site visit. 4 inst 6 prg appealed. 1in each were granted. 3+4 denied. 4a China CDGDC Report, Formal status Formal Status or approval Panel makes recommendations and GB decides Panel report, SAR and other relevant info Report and Formal Status Formal Status Chair Recommendations, Commendations, suggestion for corrective action No Varies Yes. MoE. Investigates and writes a report. No appeals in the past five years. No post- 74
ENHANCEMENT OF QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN APEC MEMBER ECONOMIES S. Economy Agency Outcome Implication Who decides on final Inputs QA QA Who is Report conclusions Follow-up Validity of Appeals No. QA outcome considered for outcome outcome responsible Outcome final QA outcome given to Institution given to Public for the report QA reports. 4b China HEEC, MoE – – – – – – – – – – – 5a Hong Kong HKCAA Report, Approval, Formal Status direct funding, incentive Panel makes recommendations. GB decides. Panel report, SAR, evidence gathered before and during site visit Report and Formal Status Formal Status Agency staff Recommendations, Commendations, suggestions for improvement Yes. Fulfilment of pre-conditions and requirements 2–6 years. Depends on stage of devt of HEIs and readiness and track record of delivering prg accredited. Yes. HKCAA Council will handle formal appeals and take appropriate steps (eg forming a review com). No appeal during past five years. Post QA reporting – varies. 5b Hong Kong UGC Report, Approval, Formal Status direct funding, incentive Panel makes recommendations and GB decides Panel report and SAR Varies Varies Varies Varies – normally recommendations, suggestions, observations etc Varies Varies NA 6 Indonesia BAN-PT Report, Approval, Formal Status incentive, autonomy Govt takes the final decision Panel report, SAR Formal Formal Status, part Status of the report, Recommend ation for program improvement Chair and agency staff Recommendations and suggestion for program improvement and further development No 3–5 years. Depends on the accreditation status Yes. Authority – Chair and Secretary of the board, and executive secretary of BNA-PT. Ten appeals in average – granted four and denied six 7a Japan NIAD- UE Only report Approval, linked to improvement Review panel decides ?? Report Full report and summary Chair Achievement to the standards – comments on areas that are excellent and areas that need improvement No There is no validity of QA outcome. HEIs have the obligation to have the review in no more than 5–7 yrs Yes. Review panel judges the appeal. 14 Colleges of Technology appealed during 5 yrs. Nine were granted. Post QA reporting – HEIs report on substantive 75
Page 1 and 2:
ENHANCEMENT OF QUALITY ASSURANCE SY
Page 3:
A REPORT A report on quality assura
Page 6 and 7:
Page 8 and 9:
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45: ENHANCEMENT OF QUALITY ASSURANCE SY
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?