QA organisational structuresQA organisational structures in the mega universities can be categorised into three types:a centralised QA structure, a collective QA structure, <strong>and</strong> a dispersed QA structure.The following is a discussion of the different types of QA organisations in nine megauniversities.A centralised QA structure: Several mega universities have set up a centralised totalquality management system to co-ordinate <strong>and</strong> oversee the implementation of QAactivities university-wide based on policies <strong>and</strong> guidelines formulated by QA-relatedboards or committees. Those centralised units are operated based on university revenue.Examples include UT (Indonesia)’s QA Centre, STOU (Thail<strong>and</strong>)’s Educational QA CoordinatingCentre, AIOU (Parkistan)’s Research <strong>and</strong> Evaluation Centre, <strong>and</strong> OU (UK)’sQA team <strong>and</strong> a Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Learning <strong>and</strong> Teaching.A collective QA structure: A QA system of some universities has been set <strong>and</strong> run bythe boards, the councils, <strong>and</strong>/or the committees rather than an independent QA unit inadministration. Each body has distinctive roles in different stages of QA processes or indifferent areas of QA activities. At IGNOU (India), School Boards, Planning Committee,<strong>and</strong> Academic Council are responsible for overseeing QA policies <strong>and</strong> implementations.At Anadolu (Turkey), University Senate, University Executive Board, AcademicAdvisory Board, Course Accreditation <strong>and</strong> Review Committee, <strong>and</strong> Instructional DesignCommittee play a significant role in QA <strong>and</strong> accreditation.A dispersed QA structure: There are mega universities where QA is a part of theresponsibilities of one or more related administration offices. At CCRTVU (China),units responsible for assuring quality of <strong>distance</strong> <strong>education</strong> include the EducationalAdministration Division, the Centre of Learning Support Service, the Centre ofExamination, <strong>and</strong> the Academic Assessment Office. KNOU (Korea) has a QA systemwhere quality is not a specified responsibility of any particular post or office, rather it isa responsibility of all related offices <strong>and</strong> academic divisions. SHTVU (China) assignsQA responsibilities to the Department of Teaching Affairs, but specific QA activities areassigned to all related units of the university.QA policies <strong>and</strong> regulationsQA policies <strong>and</strong> regulations have been set in all the institutions surveyed. However, thedegree of elaboration in those policies <strong>and</strong> regulations <strong>and</strong> the level of integration withthe general university policy framework <strong>and</strong> the national QA framework vary across theinstitutions.Complying with national st<strong>and</strong>ards: Three institutions have developed their QA policies<strong>and</strong> regulations in compliance with the national guidelines. For example, the QA policies<strong>and</strong> regulations at IGNOU are in conformity with the QA guidelines determined by thenational QA agency, the Distance Education Council (DEC) of India. Anadolu’s <strong>distance</strong><strong>education</strong> programmes <strong>and</strong> courses comply with the st<strong>and</strong>ards <strong>and</strong> requirements of theInformatics National Committee. And OUUK’s Qualifications Framework is consistentwith the national “Frameworks for Qualifications in Higher Education <strong>and</strong> CreditGuidelines for HE Qualifications.”Developing own QA policies: Whereas, in some cases where the national QA frameworkfor DE provides rather general guidelines or there is no national QA frameworkspecifically for DE institutions, institutions have developed their own QA policies <strong>and</strong>regulations. Such examples include STOU, UT, AIOU, KNOU, CCRTVU, <strong>and</strong> SHTVU.82
Examples of elaborated QA policies: As for the level of specification in QA policies <strong>and</strong>regulations, OUUK <strong>and</strong> UT provide good examples of an elaborated system. OUUK hasdeveloped the Guide to Quality <strong>and</strong> St<strong>and</strong>ards in the Open University that provides aguide to the structural <strong>and</strong> procedural arrangements for internal quality assurance. Thisdocument aims to embed QA into OU’s organisational structure, staff roles <strong>and</strong> processdesign, but yet allow flexible adaptations by each unit. UT has adopted the AAOUQuality Assurance Framework to develop the “Quality Assurance System for UniversitasTerbuka”. This new quality assurance system encompasses nine components <strong>and</strong> 107quality criteria or statements of best practices. Each criterion is further delineated intoindicators <strong>and</strong> methods of achievement. In addition, UT has developed 112 work manualsbased on its quality system, outlining QA systems, procedures <strong>and</strong> assessment criteria.The manuals are used consistently by all the members of UT in carrying out their dailyresponsibilities, assessment forms were developed to monitor <strong>and</strong> assess tasks performedby individual staff, to support self-assessment of each unit, to record processes <strong>and</strong>outputs of the tasks, to identify problems, <strong>and</strong> to offer solutions.QA objectives <strong>and</strong> methodsThe survey shows that quality assurance in most mega universities has similar objectives,but is assessed by a variety of instruments <strong>and</strong> methods.Objectives of QA activitiesFor most institutions, the predominant objectives of internal QA activities are selfimprovement<strong>and</strong> accountability to the society in general <strong>and</strong> to the National QAauthority in specific. Thus, the internal QA results are used both for self-improvement<strong>and</strong>/or external evaluation.Accountability to society <strong>and</strong> QA authority: Heavy involvement of external expertsis often observed in some cases where the primary objective of QA is accountability.IGNOU, being appraised by the Open <strong>and</strong> Distance Education Assessment <strong>and</strong>Accreditation Board of DEC at intervals of 5 years, integrates the prescribed norms <strong>and</strong>st<strong>and</strong>ards set by DEC in its internal QA system, <strong>and</strong> evaluates implementation of thosenorms <strong>and</strong> st<strong>and</strong>ards constantly with the help from external reviewers. An importantdriver in all the QA activities is external in nature at OUUK where QA results are usedfor the basis of public funding decisions. UT’s external assessment has involved expertsfrom the Directorate General of Higher Education on a semester basis, as well as from theNational Accreditation Board of Higher Education on a three- to four-year basis.Self-improvement: Feedback from internal <strong>and</strong> external reviewers <strong>and</strong> students are usedto improve the quality of courses, programmes, materials <strong>and</strong> services of most of the<strong>distance</strong> teaching universities surveyed. IGNOU keeps all the records of discussions ofvarious committees <strong>and</strong> experts to ensure that the recommendations of the committees<strong>and</strong> experts are incorporated in improving key aspects of its courses, programmes <strong>and</strong>services. AIOU puts a great emphasis on feedback surveys. The results of the surveys areused to improve quality of <strong>distance</strong> teaching <strong>and</strong> <strong>learning</strong> at AIOU. UT uses feedback <strong>and</strong>inputs from various sources including the top management for continuous improvement.At Anadolu, formal feedback is collected from teaching evaluation surveys <strong>and</strong> studentquestionnaires <strong>and</strong> the results from the feedback are used to improve its <strong>distance</strong><strong>education</strong>. KNOU uses the results of student evaluation <strong>and</strong> expert opinions to improvethe quality of its textbooks.83
- Page 1 and 2:
PERSPECTIVES ONDISTANCE EDUCATIONLi
- Page 3 and 4:
The Commonwealth of Learning (COL)
- Page 5 and 6:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSIn addition to the
- Page 7 and 8:
These are some of the issues that a
- Page 9 and 10:
What are the trends and issues in l
- Page 11 and 12:
of policy implications relating to
- Page 13 and 14:
evince important differences that c
- Page 15 and 16:
inequitable regulations governing t
- Page 17 and 18:
associations and groups of countrie
- Page 19 and 20:
THE CONTRIBUTORChristopher McIntosh
- Page 21 and 22:
INTRODUCTIONIn his 1996 report to U
- Page 23 and 24:
Lastly, our analysis of the situati
- Page 25 and 26:
diploma or similar certificates of
- Page 27 and 28:
force of the undertaking. Here agai
- Page 29 and 30:
RELEVANT INTERNET SITESUNESCO Task
- Page 31 and 32:
Notes1. This phrasing has been used
- Page 33 and 34:
goals (Daniel, 1996). Lifelong lear
- Page 35 and 36:
eported that group activity had red
- Page 37 and 38: NEW AREAS FOR DISTANCE EDUCATION:WO
- Page 39 and 40: targets systematically for the use
- Page 41 and 42: Rausch, A.S. (2003). A case study o
- Page 43 and 44: correspondence teaching systems tha
- Page 45 and 46: significant differences between syn
- Page 47 and 48: In distance flexible- and blended-e
- Page 49 and 50: STATE-FUNDED DUAL-MODE SYSTEMS ATUN
- Page 51 and 52: Table 4.2: Fundable elements in dis
- Page 53 and 54: sciences in 21 countries of the reg
- Page 55 and 56: How a system is funded depends in p
- Page 57 and 58: Litto, Fredric M. (2004). Digital l
- Page 59 and 60: CHAPTER 5LIFELONG LEARNING IN THE A
- Page 61 and 62: education, which was initiated by C
- Page 63 and 64: So the virtual classroom acted as a
- Page 65 and 66: In June 2002, when the course came
- Page 67 and 68: RELEVANT INTERNET SITESFORCIIR proj
- Page 69 and 70: 11. The approximate rate for 1€ w
- Page 71 and 72: The term modern distance education
- Page 73 and 74: the National Networked Consortium f
- Page 75 and 76: important resource for undeveloped
- Page 77 and 78: standards have been proposed for th
- Page 79 and 80: The development of e-learning withi
- Page 81 and 82: RELEVANT INTERNET SITESCCRTVU Onlin
- Page 83 and 84: MoE (2004b) The Notice on Running N
- Page 85 and 86: CHAPTER 7QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEYOF
- Page 87: (Paris, France, 28-29 June 2004) in
- Page 91 and 92: plans and produces its conventional
- Page 93 and 94: SHTVU (China)• Teaching• Teachi
- Page 95 and 96: offers its programmes to Turkish ci
- Page 97 and 98: mega universities apply a set of st
- Page 99 and 100: RELEVANT INTERNET SITESThe Commonwe
- Page 101 and 102: 2. QA initiatives or publications b
- Page 103 and 104: assurance of ODL. This DST will be
- Page 105 and 106: Educational Planning has been respo
- Page 107 and 108: A system of weighting of the key qu
- Page 109 and 110: RELEVANT INTERNET SITESHigher Educa
- Page 111 and 112: CHAPTER 9THE FINNISH VIRTUAL UNIVER
- Page 113 and 114: foreign providers. In Finland, the
- Page 115 and 116: to make the best use of new educati
- Page 117 and 118: The foremost task for the Service U
- Page 119 and 120: part of quality management. The aim
- Page 121 and 122: online courses; an educational tech
- Page 123 and 124: polytechnics, research institutions
- Page 125 and 126: CHAPTER 10PROMOTING CROSS-BORDERREC
- Page 127 and 128: The Bologna Declaration was followe
- Page 129 and 130: indicators currently being used for
- Page 131 and 132: the qualification resulting from th
- Page 133 and 134: Table 9.1: Outline of the portfolio
- Page 135 and 136: • Make sure that incoming student
- Page 137 and 138: CHAPTER 11CHARTING THE EVOLUTIONOF
- Page 139 and 140:
Another common characteristic was t
- Page 141 and 142:
the current capacity of the educati
- Page 143 and 144:
conditions for success. Conditions
- Page 145 and 146:
Cultural and ethical issues in inte
- Page 147 and 148:
the cost and maintenance of learnin
- Page 149 and 150:
Research can be a useful tool for c
- Page 151 and 152:
REFERENCESBates, A. (1995). Technol
- Page 153 and 154:
Twigg, C. (2001). Quality Assurance
- Page 155 and 156:
y, for example, entering into partn
- Page 157 and 158:
and even greater steps, and the dec