To view the day-by-day program outline chart, click the “Conference Program” icon above and then click the outline chart hyperlink at the top of the page.

 

KEYNOTES

The Changing Context of and Expectations for Quality Assessment in Higher Education: A Panoramic View of the Past Three Decades and of Challenges for the Future 

Monday 5:30 p.m., Grand Ballroom

Michael Skolnik, Professor of Higher Education, University of Toronto:

This presentation will describe trends in quality assurance over the past three decades and relate these to both the changing environment in which higher education institutions operate and to changing ideas about best practices in evaluation. Important assumptions underlying different approaches to quality assurance will be identified, and fundamental questions about quality assurance will be raised. Major issues in the practice of quality assurance will also be identified and discussed.

 

Outcomes and Theory of Quality Assurance: Improving our Understanding of Organizational Change

Tuesday 9:30a.m., Grand Ballroom

Bjorn Stensaker, Programme Director, NIFU/ STEP, Norway.

A common characteristic in many quality assurance schemes around the world is their implicit and often narrowly formulated understanding of how organisational change is to take place as a result of the process. By identifying some of the underlying assumptions related to organisational change in current quality assurance schemes, the aim of the paper is to discuss the relevance of these assumptions in light of more recent insights from organisational theory. It is argued that the whole field of quality assurance will be benefited by creating a more realistic picture of how organisational change takes place in that this may provide 1) a more nuanced view on expected outcomes of quality assurance, and 2) more refined quality assurance schemes.

 

Challenges and Issues in Higher Education Quality Assurance: Perspectives from a Developing Country

Nenalyn P. Defensor, Commissioner of the Commission on Higher Education, Philippines

Wednesday 9:00a.m., Grand Ballroom

The Philippine education system departs from the education system of other countries in the Asia Pacific Rim region in a number of ways. It closely resembles the American system of formal education while its neighbours were either influenced by the English, French, or Dutch system.  The Philippines has only ten years of basic education while others have twelve or more years.  Literacy rate in the country is considerably high. For many decades, the administration, supervision, and regulation of higher education in the Philippines was vested in a singular body, the Department of Education Culture and Sports through its Bureau of Higher Education.  However, for quite a long period, the higher education sector was not given much attention because of the seemingly too many concerns in basic education.  The strong public concern for the improvement of tertiary education led to the passage of new legislation Creating a Commission on Higher Education. 

This presentation will address the basic features of Philippine higher education, its quality assurance framework, and the challenges and issues in instituting quality assurance mechanisms within the mandate of the Commission and its over-arching goal: to develop the Philippines as a regional knowledge center in the Asia-Pacific region especially in disciplines where Philippine HEIs have a distinctive competitive edge.

 

Growth of Higher Education in East Asia:  Issues and Challenges

Christopher Thomas, Sector Manager for Education in the East Asia and Pacific  Region of  the World Bank

Thursday 9:00a.m., Grand Ballroom

There are more than 2 billion children of primary and secondary school age in developing countries.  This generation will have a profound impact on the world economy, culture, governance, environment, technology, and social tolerance.  It needs to be prepared to participate in an increasingly competitive and globalized economy.  Many in this generation have aspirations of attending university.  Are systems prepared for a massive influx of students?  Will adequate financing be available?  Is the quality of education provided sufficient to equip students to meet the challenges of their generation?  In this session we will explore these questions, and highlight recent programs supported by the World Bank to address these issues in the East Asia region.

---

WORKSHOPS

Outcomes and Theory of Quality Assurance with a particular focus on Impact of External QA

Facilitators:

• Stephen Crow, Executive Director, The Higher Learning Commission of NCA, US

• Dr. Lis Lange, Executive Director, Higher Education Quality Committee, South Africa

Wednesday 2:00-3:30 pm, Hall A

One of the most difficult challenges it to account for the impact of quality assurance processes on the quality of education. Most professionals in quality assurance operate with spoken or unspoken

assumptions about the usefulness of various approaches to QA in doing more than just fulfilling public accountability.  In this workshop we will identify our assumptions, test them against the thinking of others, and see if we establish an explanatory link between institutional preparation strategies and post-QA follow-up arrangements   with the development and maintenance of quality cultures.

 Small group discussions will have participants explore such things as the role of standards, role of institutional preparation, role of site visitors and their report, role of staff and staff-led workshops and training activities on creating and supporting quality cultures.  As a larger group, we will share our knowledge of formal research that confirm the validity of cause-effect relationships and then discuss these questions among others: 

•    If your agency has the goal of stimulating significant organizational changes (a quality culture) in institutions of higher education, what kinds of evaluation/data would your agency need before it modified its existing processes significantly?

•    Can QA actually drive deep change or does it more likely engender compliance thinking?

•    Can we identify key points at which External QA connects with and supports institutional systems of QA?

 

Quality Assurance and Accountability of External Quality Assurance Agencies

Facilitators:

• Achim Hopbach, Managing Director, Accreditation Council, Germany

• Tsutomu Kimura, President NIAD-UE

Wednesday 2:00-3:30 pm, Hall B

Quality assurance and accountability of external quality assurance agencies constantly gain interest by stakeholders and especially by higher education institutions and by public authorities. This is not the least due to the constantly growing meaning of quality assurance decisions for approval and/or funding of programmes and/or higher education institutions. In most cases external quality assurance procedures and accountability mechanisms are based on sets of standards for the agencies. These standards appear in different ways, e.g. as non binding guidelines or as criteria for recognition, and are defined either in accordance with national legislation/policies, or –more recently- they reflect internationally agreed codes, for instance INQAAHE-Guidelines of Good Practice, the “Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European higher Education Area” (esp. parts 2 and 3), the CHEA standards for recognition, etc.

 The aim of the workshop is to share experiences with different types of standards for agencies and to try to draw lessons from these experiences. The workshop will therefore explore the impact of standards for quality assurance agencies on the work of the agencies and mainly address the following questions. 

•    What types of standards are in place? What scope do they have?  (General standards or detailed regulations for internal structure, procedures, etc.?)

•    What are the standards used for? (Guidelines for good practice, criteria for approval of agencies, etc.)

•    How do generic standards affect specific agencies?

•    How should standards be designed to serve as added value to agencies?

 By sharing own experiences and discussing the first three questions in separate groups, the workshop will conclude with a discussion on the last question.

 

Legitimacy and Efficiency of National Systems of Quality Assurance

Facilitators

• Stephen Jackson, Director of Review, the QAA (UK)

• Dorte Kristoffersen, Audit Director, Australian Universities Quality Agency

Wednesday 2:00-3:30 pm, Hall C

‘On what grounds is the legitimacy of national QA systems established? How do these systems of legitimization condition the focus, priorities and methods of national QA systems (including approaches to control, accountability, compliance, improvement, maintenance of academic standards and student learning outcomes, research output)? What constitutes ‘effectiveness’ in national systems, and how is this evaluated? What approaches and resources are provided to enable improvement to occur?’

 This workshop will explore the range of different types of quality assurance agencies and reflect on the nature of the relationship between their defined functions and methods of operation. Issues of funding arrangements and accountability will be explored in the broader context of mission and purpose of agencies.  In particular the theme of independence and autonomous responsibility will be addressed along with the links between quality assurance systems and the benefits to stakeholders.

 The workshop themes will be briefly introduced by reference to experience in the UK.  Participants will be invited to discuss the following issues in small groups:   

•    How have QA agencies been established, what are their missions and how do they carry out their business?

•    How well regarded are QA systems by institutions, employers, students, public?

•    Are QA agencies ‘fit for purpose’?

•    Who benefits from quality assurance? – Students, governments, tax payers, employers.

 Following feedback from the groups there will be a plenary discussion on how agencies can secure the respect and regard of institutions and meet the expectations of stakeholders. 

 

Challenges of the International Recognition of Qualifications

Facilitators:

• Ian MacCionna, Head of Function, Higher Education Training and Awards Council (Hetac), Ireland

•  Dr, Nadia Badrawi, chairperson of the National Quality Assurance and Accreditation Committee in Egypt

Wednesday 2:00-3:30 pm, Hall E

With the world’s population projected to grow by 1.5 billion over the next two decades and rising per capita income, participation at all levels of education is set to increase. The ability of countries to satisfy this growing demand depends on their development of educational resources. China, with the world’s largest population, sees increasing education provision at the higher levels as an important aspect of the country’s changing economic strategy and this cannot be fully met in the country. Figures show that the number of Chinese students pursuing studies abroad over the last decade has increased ten fold. It is estimated that excess demand for higher education in China is around 10 million and that, barring major shocks, this will continue to grow.  China, for example, estimates it will have a shortfall of over one million teachers and 100,000 academics by 2005.

 The significant increase in the use of English across the world is leading to accelerating demand for English language intensive courses. Of a projected one billion English speakers by 2050, two-thirds will be non-native speakers. Demand for tertiary education is forecast to grow from just under 100 million student places in 2000 to around 260 million places in 2025. With expanding economic activity and household wealth, it is estimated that by 2020 nearly 6 million students will seek to obtain an international education experience, especially in an English-speaking environment. 

 The combination of these factors has led to increased cross-border activity and while it is necessary to explore all means to increase and sustain the creation of global knowledge society, it has challenged those responsible for the maintenance of quality in higher education.   

The aim of the workshop is to explore some of these challenges and discuss the role which quality assurance agencies may play in addressing these challenges.  A literature review (OECD “Quality and Recognition in Higher Education”, Higher Education Digest, various national reports) highlight some of these as follows:

    (a)            Limited experience of national recognition systems to deal with cross-border, distant learning and for profit providers;

    (b)            Slow emergence of frameworks which would act as a filter for the establishment of comparability of qualifications;

    (c)            Absence of common standards of across national quality assurance systems, as a means of verifying the robustness of higher education systems;

    (d)            Economic imperative or advantage taking priority over pedagogical values;

    (e)            Transparency of information to all stakeholders

 

 Establishing a Quality Assurance Agency

Facilitators:

• Dr. Ethley London, Executive Director of the University Council of Jamaica

• Concepcion Pijano, Executive Director of the Philippine Accrediting Association of School Colleges and University

Wednesday 4:15-5:45, Hall B

This workshop will concentrate on the issues that Quality Assurance Agencies deal with on a regular basis.  Areas to be covered include:

•  The concept of quality assurance including the relationship between quality assurance and accreditation

•  Context in which the agency operates

•  Core values and ethos of agency

•  Vision, mission and functions of the agency

•  Governance structure

•  Operational issues:

•  Developing and administering policies, standards (criteria)

•  Relationship with higher educational institutions, and the general public   

•  Training of assessors (evaluators, visiting teams)

•  Dissemination of information

•  Feedback, research and reviews

•  External relationships – national, regional and international

•  Characteristics of established QA systems

 

UNESCO/OECD Guidelines for Quality Provision in Cross-border higher education: relevance for QAA agencies

Facilitator:

Stamenka Uvalic Trumbic, Chief, Section for Reform, Innovation and Quality Assurance, UNESCO,Education Sector

Wednesday 4:15-5:45, Hall C

The UNESCO/OECD Guidelines for Quality Provision in Cross-Border Higher Education were one of the outcomes of the policy debates generated by UNESCO’s Global Forum on International Quality Assurance, Accreditation and the Recognition of Qualifications and the subsequent resolution adopted by the 32^nd session of the UNESCO General Conference. The aim was an internationally agreed framework.  The drafting process involved a number of stakeholders including official representatives from 94 Member States, NGOs and student bodies. QA experts and INQAAHE were part of the process.  The Guidelines address governments but also other stakeholders: higher education institutions and academic staff, students’ bodies, quality assurance and accreditation bodies, academic recognition bodies, and professional bodies.  They are based on a set of principles, starting with the recognition of national sovereignty over quality assurance and the diversity of systems that this produces around the world.  One of their major features is enhancing responsibility for partnerships, sharing, dialogue and mutual trust and respect between sending and receiving countries in assuring quality and relevance in cross-border higher education.  The final text was adopted by UNESCO and the OECD decision-making bodies in 2005. Both organizations are in the process of reviewing how the Guidelines have been used by the different constituencies.  Surveys are being made of the different stakeholders’ use of the Guidelines.  The INQAAHE Secretariat has been conducting an electronic survey of their members have been providing feedback on the relevance of the Guidelines for QAA agencies.

 

The workshop will provide a discussion on the Guidelines from the perspective of QAA agencies with a focus on the following issues:

·         awareness of the Guidelines

·         dissemination of the Guidelines

·         involvement in QA of higher education offered across borders

·         collaboration between sending and receiving countries in QA

·         promotion of information on QA of cross-border HE etc.

 

The objective of the workshop is to provide input to the further use and development of the Guidelines and their recommendations as a way of strengthening quality in cross-border higher education provision.

---

PAPERS

 

Theme/Colour	Theme/Colour	Theme/Colour	Theme/Colour
Outcomes and Theory of Quality Assurance (QA)	Quality Assurance and Accountability of Quality Assurance Agencies	Legitimacy and Efficiency of National Systems of Quality Assurance	International Quality Assurance

 

A.1. Quality Convergence Study II: An attempt to initiate an epistemological approach to quality assurance

• Fabrice Hénard, evaluation co-ordinator, Comité national d’évaluation (CNÉ)- France

• Nick Harris, Director of Development and Enhancement Group, QAA (UK)

Tuesday, 11:00-11:30, Grand Ballroom

The project follows on from the outcomes of Quality Convergence Study I (QCS) and has taken place in the context of a debate on how to work together and to develop further the European dimension of quality assurance in higher education. QCS I sought to confront the problem by addressing the importance of the national contexts within which all agencies work and how these impact on the modus operandi if individual agencies. This study showed that the often blurred comprehension among agencies resulted in the confusion of important notions for higher education systems, such as independence and autonomy. Considering that situation, is it possible to pursue European convergence when the values that underpin the agencies’ activities are unknown or implicit? QCS II tried to address the question.  This pilot project chose to work with the values that underpin quality in order to help deepen comprehension. The objectives of the project were to see if this kind of work was feasible and of interest and to continue to develop a debate within ENQA on notions that are not simply methodological.

A.2. Quality Assurance Impact in Institutional Differentiation:  Vivre la difference or the Homogenisation Effect?

• Lis Lange, Ph.D., Executive Director, Higher Education Quality Committee, South Africa

Tuesday, 11:40-12:10, Grand Ballroom

This paper focuses on the impact of quality assurance on the process of institutional differentiation in higher education. It takes the experience of the Higher Education Quality Committee of South Africa in order to explore the role of QA in bringing about the goal of institutional differentiation pursued by higher education policy after 1994. The paper first, explains the political and policy context of higher education reform in South Africa. Secondly, it analyses the notion of differentiation/homogenisation as unforeseen consequences of the implementation of a quality assurance regime. Thirdly, the paper reflects on the combined impact that national policy, higher education restructuring, programme evaluation and institutional audits are having in moulding the size and shape of the South African higher education system.

 

A.3. A Canadian experience of quality assurance as a driver of change in higher education

• Susan Silverton, Laurentian University

• Neil Gold, University of Windsor

• Rod Webb, York University

• Patrick Deane, Queen’s University

• David Leyton-Brown, Council of Ontario Universities

• Roy Fischer, Council of Ontario Universities

Tuesday, 12:20-12:50, Grand Ballroom

In the Province of Ontario, implementation of quality assurance in higher education has been accelerated recently through a collaborative consultation among and between academic vice-presidents, educational developers, the Council of Ontario Universities and Ontario’s Post-Secondary Education Quality Assessment Board (PEQAB). Quality assurance regimes over the last few decades have developed a series of varying but thematically connected approaches, which have lead to highly developed, educationally tested and research-supported policies and practices. We question how the recent Ontario experience is different in approach, process or timing from elsewhere and how our collective experiences in moving to Quality Assurance as a driver of change could provide additional insight to ourselves as well as to our colleagues elsewhere. 

 

A.4. Unified Approach for Implementing Best Practices through Internal Quality Systems - The Best Practice Specification Approach

• Dr.(Mrs) Rama Kondapalli, Deputy Adviser, National Assessment and Accreditation Council, Bangalore, India

Tuesday, 2:00-2:30, Grand Ballroom

Issues of quality and excellence are the greatest challenges faced by Indian Higher Education Institutions. The National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC), which is the Indian national quality assurance agency for higher education institutions is emphasising on internal benchmarking and building and strengthening the internal quality assurance systems in the higher education institutions.   

The suggested approach is built on the examples from existing industry practices, which can be adopted by institutions with minor changes and contextualisation. There is also a brief description on the best practice specification (BPS) method suggested by NAAC, and of those commonly followed by the industries of the west, which has been of help to educational institutions to locate and specify their good practices within the framework of the institutional quality system. Overall the paper aims to provide guidelines to academic institutions in identifying a unified approach for building the institutional quality system and identifying best practices for internal benchmarking and the role of internal quality assurance systems in doing so. 

 

A.5. Good Practice in the Ontario Program Review Process

• Carolyn Filteau, Quality Assessment Consultant, Canada

Tuesday, 2:40-3:10, Grand Ballroom

This paper arises from a study currently underway by the Ontario Council on Graduate Studies entitled “Good Practice in the OCGS Appraisals Process.” The research is currently being conducted in Ontario among the 18 publicly-funded universities and RMC over a six month period.  The basic purpose of the study is to learn more about the institutional role in the Ontario process for the review of new and existing graduate programs as it is carried out in the home university and home unit.  The collection of this information will lead, in the final analysis, to the identification of examples of Good Practice within the universities. During the course of the study the author has found certain aspects of the review process, and particularly aspects within the institutions themselves, that are more beneficial than others in spurring graduate programs on to development, continuous improvement and change.  The paper, therefore, focuses on the mechanisms in place in the institutions that foster ‘change,’ as well as making reference to some practices which indeed appear to be self-defeating.

 

A.6. Institutional Audits: A comparison of the experiences of three South African Universities

• Jan Botha, D.Th., University of Stellenbosch, South Africa

• Judy Favish, University of Cape Town, South Africa

• Sandra Stephenson, Rhodes University, South Africa

Tuesday, 3:20-3:50, Grand Ballroom

South Africa’s External Quality Agency, the HEQC (Higher Education Quality Committee), commenced its first cycle of institutional audits in 2004. During 2005, three public higher education institutions were audited, namely the University of Cape Town, the University of Stellenbosch, and Rhodes University.  The process of preparing for and undergoing an external audit is being observed with great interest by the country’s higher education sector, particularly by those institutions still to be audited.. In this paper, the authors aim to compare the three institutional contexts within which the audit preparations took place and to analyse the results of the internal feedback surveys as well as the recommendations contained in the HEQC’s audit reports, with particular reference to the goals of the HEQC’s audit framework. The paper concludes that, although each institution approached the audit in different, context-specific ways, the institutional experience of the audit process and its initial outcomes were remarkably similar. 

 

A.7. Ranking and Rating in Higher Education: The Multi-dimensional Quality in Stakeholders' Perspectives with Hierarchical Ranking and Rating Approach

• Taviga Klamkratoke, Ph.D. Candidate in Educational Measurement and Evaluation

• Sirichai Kanjanawasee, Ph.D., Associate Professor

• Siridej Sujiva, Ph.D., Associate Professor

Department of Educational Research and Psychology, Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand

Wednesday, 10:30-11:00, Grand Ballroom

Ranking is a well-known technique to indicate quality outcomes from quality assurance of institutions and used in higher education worldwide. However, it has been criticized for the weaknesses. In this paper, we present a new ranking and rating approach in higher education. The main objective of this study is to construct ranking and rating approach which provide powerful results. Through documentary research method, it was found that the quality report can be effectively described partial and holistic quality through 4 main contents as: (1) ranking and rating in three stakeholders’ perspectives: institutions, students/parents, and employers; (2) ranking and rating in two dimensions of quality: current and potential quality; (3) ranking and rating in each factor of quality and (4) aggregated quality hierarchical ranking and rating from three levels.  

 

A.8. The Perceived Impacts of Quality Audit on the Work of Academics:  A Case Study of a Research-Intensive Pre-1992 University in England

• Ming Cheng, University of Bristol, England, United Kingdom

Wednesday, 11:10-11:40, Grand Ballroom

I am interested in exploring how academics in England perceive the impact of quality audit on their work. My study considers the close relationship between quality assurance mechanisms and a culture of quality audit, and the perceived impacts of both of these on the work of academics. The mechanisms studied include both institutional and departmental level mechanisms. The arenas of academic work examined cover undergraduate classroom teaching practice, workload, curriculum, and academic relationships with students. I have reviewed three bodies of literature: quality, the concepts of quality audit and audit cultures, and changing notions of academic work. My research included 64 semi-structured interviews with academics in a research-intensive pre- 1992 university in England.  The data reveals that academics hold complex views about quality audit, and there appears to be a conflict between academics’ beliefs about their professionalism and the notion of quality audit.    

                  

A.9. Quality Assurance vs. Quality Enhancement as a driver of institutional change - a comparative study on module evaluation in the UK, India and Poland

• Alice Szwelnik, Oxford Brookes University Business School, United Kingdom

Wednesday, 11:50-12:20, Grand Ballroom

The aim of the paper is to explore which approaches to quality assurance succeed as drivers of change in Higher Education institutions. The main focus of the paper is to analyse in details one particular aspect of quality assurance: module evaluation process. The outcomes of this paper are based on research conducted as part of the FDTL project: Quality in Business Education (QUBE, 2005). Data have been collected from staff from nine institutions in semi-structured interviews and from 330 students using questionnaires. The next stage of the research was to confront the findings with institutions in India and Poland which are obliged to implement the UK QAA systems.  The conclusions are that the quality enhancement is more effective driver of change than quality assurance. Recommendations for best practice in QA in trans-national education context are proposed.  

 

A.10. Finding the right measure? - An interactionist view on Quality Cultures and the role of quality measurement

• Manfred Lueger, Professor of Sociology

• Oliver Vettori, Director of Teaching Evaluation & Quality Assurance Unit

Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration, Austria

Wednesday, 12:30-1:00, Grand Ballroom

Quality measurement undoubtedly plays a very important though also clearly ambivalent part within any quality assurance system. The Quality Culture approach on the other hand, is an approach that is barely compatible with more control- and management-oriented strategies. In this proposal we want to critically discuss some of the major pitfalls of an overly measurement-oriented Quality Culture and how such a culture could be affected in a rather counterproductive manner. At the same time, we intend to outline some options for dealing with those problems without compromising the initial idea.  

 

B.1. Local, Regional, Professional and National Quality Assurance - The Alberta Perspective

• Ronald B. Bond, Ph.D., Chair of the Campus Alberta Quality Council (and Provost Emeritus, the University of Calgary)

• Marilyn Patton, Director of the Campus Alberta Quality Council Secretariat and Chair of the Quality Assurance Subcommittee of the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada

Tuesday, 11:00-12:10, Hall A

This paper describes the intersection of various quality assurance mechanisms facing postsecondary institutions in Alberta: 1) local (i.e. institutional approval and monitoring systems); 2) regional (i.e. provincial) arrangements, such as those mandated for the Campus Alberta Quality Council; 3) national (initiatives mounted by the Council of Minister of Education, Canada and the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada; 4) professional (accreditation requirements.) The fundamental questions to be addressed in this paper are these: can one regard the well-intentioned but overlapping quality assurance arrangements as anything other than an “embarrassment of riches”? and what can be done to reduce work, redundancies, and bureaucracy at all levels?  

 

B.2. Assessing the impact of quality audit on the management of quality within institutions: The experience in England 2003-06

• Dr. Stephen Jackson, Director of Reviews

• Carolyn Campbell, Head of International

Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, United Kingdom

Tuesday, 12:20-12:50, Hall A

QAA completed a full round of institutional audits in England between spring 2003 and summer 2006. The audit process was evaluated by a review group established by the higher education funding council and the representative bodies of the higher education sector.  The group assessed the costs and benefits of institutional audit and made recommendations for future developments.  This paper uses evidence from the review, together with QAA’s own evaluation of audit, to examine the impact of external review on institutions and consider the strategies adopted for managing the process.  Some institutions have designed internal systems that help to minimise the preparations needed for QAA audit.  Others have done more than is required in an attempt to minimise risk - an approach referred to in the review report as ‘gold-plating’.  

 

B.3. Internationally Agreed External Quality Criteria for External QA Agencies – do they make a difference?

• Ms Dorte Kristoffersen

• Dr. David Woodhouse

Australian Universities Quality Agency

Tuesday, 2:00-2:30, Hall A

The increased focus on quality assurance of higher education over the last 15 years and the role of external quality assurance agencies (EQAs) in that regard has led to a request by governments and institutions for EQAs to be subject to systematic review to ensure that they  undertake sound evaluation processes and as a means of identifying credible agencies. The paper will provide an overview of the discussions of the introduction of external reviews of EQAs on the basis of internationally agreed external quality criteria and analyses and discusses the value of these criteria when applied in reviews of EQAs. 

 

 

B.4. International Benchmarking between Quality Assurance Agencies (Looking in from top to bottom)

• Mr. Robert Carmichael, Audit Director, AUQA, Melbourne, Australia

• Mr. Ian MacCionna, Head of Function, HETAC, Dublin, Ireland (editorial coordinator)

•  Marion Moser, Program Coordinator, ACQUIN, Germany

•  Professor Klaus D. Wolff, Ex Chairman, Board of ACQUIN, Bayreuth, Germany

Tuesday, 2:40-3:10, Hall A

This paper describes a benchmarking project between ACQUIN (Accreditation, Certification and Quality Assurance Institute, Germany), AQUA (Australian Universities Quality Agency), and HETAC (Higher Education and Training Awards Council, Ireland). In 2005-2006 each agency underwent a self-review and external evaluation, which provided an opportunity to benchmark review findings against internationally accepted standards for external quality assurance agencies. The paper asks, and attempts to answer these fundamental questions: what is good practice in quality assurance; and, who has responsibility for achieving it?  The standards developed by trans-national QA bodies such as ENQA and INQAAHE offered the benchmarking partners a way to pursue these questions and to share good practice. The lessons learned may also serve to offer guidance for peer agencies embarking upon similar exercises. 

 

B.5. European Standards and Guidelines in a Nordic Perspective

• Mrs. Signe Ploug Hansen

• Mr. Tue Vinther-Joergensen

Special advisers, Danish Evaluation Institute (EVA)

Tuesday, 3:20-3:50, Hall A

By presenting experiences from a project of the Nordic Quality Assurance Network in Higher Education (NOQA), this paper provides a contribution to the debate on international standards and guidelines for external quality assurance agencies. The paper argues that the European Standards and Guidelines for quality assurance represent a major step towards transparency and mutual trust across national borders. The decision to establish a register for external quality assurance agencies operating in Europe illustrates the commitment to base quality assurance of higher education on a set of joint standards.  However, the establishment of a register naturally also entails a number of challenges. The paper focuses on possible obstacles, which should be addressed in order to ensure an effective implementation of the standards and consistent assessments of agencies across Europe. The paper also suggests some ways to handle the identified challenges.  

 

B.6. The Association of Accrediting Agencies of Canada: Assuring quality accreditation programs

• Jane Winder, RN, MScN, Director of Accreditation, Canadian Association of Schools of Nursing

 

• Deborah Wolfe, P.Eng., Director, Education, Outreach and Research, Canadian Council of

  Professional Engineers

 

• Cathryn Beggs, BScPT, MSc, Executive Director, Accreditation Council for Canadian

  Physiotherapy Academic Programs

 

• Lorne F. Riley, R.P.F., Executive Director, Canadian Forestry Accreditation Board

 

• Tom Beach, P.Ag., CAE Executive Director Agricultural Institute of Canada, Executive

  Director 

 

Wednesday, 10:30-11:00, Hall A

 

In Canada, education is a provincial responsibility and there is no national or federal ministry of education.  In response to the lack of national standards for education, professions developed accreditation systems to ensure the quality of education in universities, colleges and private educational institutions.  The Association of Accrediting Agencies of Canada is made up of the majority of these Canadian accreditation agencies that come together to network, share best practices and develop common tools.  This paper will briefly detail AAAC’s history and impacts, its tools including a generic online accreditor training program and future strategic directions.  

 

B.7. Impact of QA to the senior high school students

• Kiyoko Saito, National Institution for Academic Degrees and University Evaluation, Japan

Wednesday, 11:10-11:40, Hall A

Perception gaps of useable information about university evaluation’s results between the universities’ community and the senior high schools’ community exist. To analyze the gaps precisely, not the common questionnaire method but mental model approach was used. Mental model approach uses semi structured, open-ended interviews that focus respondent’s attention. As results, it can be said that gaps exist within University Group and High-school Group. University staffs perceived that for senior high school students “results” information for example, rate of employment, is important. However in reality, students are interested not in the “results” but in the “process” to develop their ability. From the results, it can be said that the evaluation reports provided in Japan which place importance on the process of education activities are useable for the senior high school students thus universities should disseminate these reports actively.   

 

B.8. Management models in universities and the challenge of quality assurance

• Raul Atria, Department of Sociology, University of Chile

Wednesday, 11:50-12:20, Hall A

This paper is an outcome of a research project commissioned in 2005-2006 by the Chilean agency in charge of licensing new tertiary education institutions, covering a sample of accredited public universities. Strategic management has become a key aspect of institutional projects and is now a precondition for attempting successful responses to critical demands on universities.  Several performance areas have been treated as management problem areas in the study. The key research question refers to when and how the performance area becomes a “problem” that the management model is unable to solve in a satisfactory manner. Management models can be organized in terms of broad categories.  The first is the “participation model”, the second one is the “regulation model”. The two models yield a set of management types and they operate in a combined way. Whatever the model that becomes operative, the completion of the picture leads to considering the systemic context in which the top university managers must act.  

 

B.9. Striking a balance between improvement and accountability or ensuring impact and effectiveness in a multifaceted field of external quality assurance?

• Mrs. Trine Danø, Danish Evaluation Institute, Denmark

• Dr. Bjørn Stensaker, NIFU-STEP, Norway

Wednesday, 12:30-1:00, Hall A

The dilemma or (possible) balance between improvement and accountability (or control) has been a key issue in external quality assurance for many years, at least in a European context. While external quality assurance in the Nordic countries during the 1990s were said to reflect such a balance, it can be questioned whether it has been maintained over time, none the least considering the introduction of various accreditation schemes in the Nordic countries as in the rest of Europe. Furthermore key issues and dilemmas of external quality assurance may have shifted towards the effectiveness of improvement and accountability rather than improvement and accountability in itself. Based on developments in the Nordic countries the paper discusses if and how improvement can be stimulated, also in the “age of accreditation”. But it also points to possible threats to accountability, not the least of which is the effectiveness of accountability as well as improvement, inherent in the practice of accreditation as well as other methods of external quality assurance.

 

 C.1. Strategies for the Creation of an Enabling Environment for Quality Assurance in India

• Dr. M. S. Shyamasundar, Deputy Advisor, National Assessment and Accreditation Council, India

Tuesday, 11:00-11:30, Hall B

Quality Assurance Systems (QAS) are gaining a good deal of momentum all over the world, which are at different levels of maturity and capacity, in various countries. There is an overall agreement for the necessity of effective and efficient quality assurance mechanism. Need for quality assurance, assessment and accreditation of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in India by National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) is no longer in question. In this context, stakeholders like NAAC, State Governments under Indian Federal system and HEIs being an integral part of higher education system, promotion of their active participation in creating an enabling environment for quality improvement may be one of the key indicators in QAS. This paper discusses NAAC’s approaches, strategies, resources and the feasible measures that need to be adopted at the national, state and institutional levels to create an encouraging ambience, which in turn facilitate the institutions to move towards quality enhancement, sustenance and academic excellence.

 

C.2. Towards an Effective National Quality Management System for Oman

• Dr. Salim Razvi

• Martin Carroll

Oman Accreditation Council

Tuesday, 11:40-12:10, Hall B

This paper outlines the major reforms underway in the Sultanate of Oman’s higher education quality management system.  Oman’s HE sector has developed from nothing to 23 private and over 20 public higher education providers.  In order to satisfy the demands of a young and growing sector, many programs were imported from other countries, along with their corresponding quality assurance policies and systems.  Oman is currently in the process of consolidating these gains through the establishment of a comprehensive national system.  This paper outlines the key elements of that system, including infrastructural policies; institutional quality assurance standards and processes; program quality assurance standards and processes; and quality enhancement activities.  In particular, it describes how the whole sector is being involved in the reforms in order to achieve genuine improvements in capability.   

 

C.3. Benchmarking and students’ outcomes

• V. Navodnov

• A. Maslenikov

• G. Motova

The National Accreditation Agency of the Russian Federation

Tuesday, 12:20-12:50, Hall B

The paper focuses on the problems of assessment of students’ learning outcomes within the quality assurance system of a large country with a great number of educational institutions. The use of benchmarking mechanisms to evaluate and monitor students’ achievement by information communication technologies is looked at. The authors argue that benchmarking assisted by information technology increases efficiency and transparency of the national quality assurance system.  

 

C.4. Toward a Certificate/Masters Degree Program in Quality Assurance in Higher Education

• Marjorie Peace Lenn, President, Center for Quality Assurance in International Education (USA) – Session Coordinator

• Maria Jose LeMaitre, President, RIACES (Iberoamerican Quality Network) and Director, National Council on Program Accreditation (Chile)

• Mitch Leventhal, Vice Provost, University of Cincinnati International (USA)

• Nelson Vincent, Dean, College of Education, University of Cincinnati (USA)

• Richard Lewis, President, International Network of Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (UK)

Tuesday, 2:00-3:10, Hall B

INQAAHE’s membership has grown from 11 in 1991 to at least 74 countries in 2006.  This portends a large and growing number of professional staff from a wide range of backgrounds entering a new profession without adequate preparation.  There appears to be general agreement that there is a profession in quality assurance; however, only informal training or exchange programs exist for professional development purposes. Missing is a formal, internationally recognized credential for quality assurance professionals at the graduate level.  Leaders of the INQAAHE community and members of the teaching staff at the College of Education at the University of Cincinnati (a major public institution of US higher education located in Cincinnati, Ohio) would like to discuss the potential of a Certificate Program in Quality Assurance (3-6 month program) embedded in a Masters Program in Educational Leadership (12-18 month program) which would be open to quality assurance professionals from throughout the globe. 

 

C.5. The epistemology of quality

• Lee Harvey, Ph.D., Sheffield Hallam University, United Kingdom

Tuesday, 3:20-3:50, Hall B

The paper addresses the nature of quality and how different conceptualisations impacts on the ‘success’ of quality assurance. It explores the epistemological and philosophical roots of quality and quality assurance. Drawing also on the research into impact, the paper examines how ‘quality in use’ is underpinned by the philosophy of pragmatism. The analysis then shows how opposition to quality in use is divided along an idealist-materialist fault line. A synthesises of conceptual work on quality reveals several dimensions of the quality conceptualisation and implementation process. The complex interrelationship of quality concept, quality assurance and implementation is interrogated and it is argued that there is a need to disentangle the quality theorising from operational matters, but without creating a superstratum of theorising that fails to engage the practicalities of learning and teaching. This leads to a deconstruction of the interrelationship between internal and external processes.  

   

C.6. Quality Assurance of Students’ Assessment in Higher Education and Training Sector- Technical and Vocational Education and Training

Cancelled

 

C.7. Chinese practices and strategies of quality assurance in higher education

• Li Yadong, Vice-President

• Guo Chaohong, Associate Professor

Shanghai Educational Evaluation Institute

Wednesday, 11:10-11:40, Hall B

With the development of economic globalization and internationalization of higher education, the quality assurance of higher education has been paid more and more attention internationally since 1990s. China is not an exception. With more than 1700 higher education institutions and un-development market economy, how to deal with the relationship of government, professional evaluation bodies and higher education institutions in the context of centralization of State power remains a big problem in China. On the basis of making a brief introduction to the situation of Chinese higher education and its quality assurance system, the paper mainly discussed the practices of Chinese quality assurance since 1990s and analyzed problems existing in the system of Chinese quality assurance as well. In addition, some strategies and proposals are also put forward at the end of paper so as to be used for reference.    

 

C.8. The Standards and Key Performance Indicators of External Quality Assurance for Higher Education in Thailand

• Dr. Somwung Pitiyanuwat, The Office for National Education Standards and Quality Assessment, Thailand

Wednesday, 11:50-12:20, Hall B

The 1999 National Education Act emphasizes the importance of quality assurance. Section 6 mandates the implementation of national education standards and educational quality assurance, A system of educational quality assurance is to be comprised of both internal and external quality assurance (Section 47)  The Office for National Education Standards and Quality Assessment (ONESQA) was established as a public organization responsible for external quality assurance (Section 49).  The objectives of the office are to develop the criteria and methods of external assessment of the outcomes of educational provision in order to assess the quality of educational institutions, taking into account the aims, principles and directions for the provision of each level of education as stipulated in the National Education Act.  In this paper, the external assurance framework and the standards consist of 7 standards with 48 key performance indicators, 39 common KPI’s, and 9 unique KPI’s. for external quality assurance in higher education in the context of the Thailand are presented.  

 

C.9. Quality Assurance in Higher Education is Coming of Age

• Dr. Jagannath Patil, Deputy Adviser

• Dr. M S Shyamasundar, Deputy Adviser, NAAC, India

National Assessment and Accreditation Council, India

Wednesday, 12:30-1:00, Hall B

The old debate of Quality verses Equality remains valid even as the Quality Assurance in HE is coming of an age. The paper attempts to reflect on how these maturing QA mechanisms have succeeded in responding to quality concerns while accommodating the nuances of massification of higher education.  By taking NAAC, India as a case in point, the  paper makes reflections on issues like:

•     Whether Quality Assurance and Concerns for Equality & Participation still confront each other?

•     Can affirmative action be an excuse to offer low quality Higher Education provision?

•     If scarce national resources in developing countries are being invested in Higher Education, then is not it more relevant to demand quality as value for money?

•     If the present models are inadequate, then are there any alternative models to take care of huge number and diversity?

The paper aims at contributing to the efforts of QAAS in addressing such concerns by collecting and collating experiences to draw the lessons for further fine-tuning the QA methodologies, policies and practices. 

 

D.1. Developing an Efficient and Responsive National Quality Assurance (QA) System in Trinidad and Tobago: A Challenge in Progress

• Dr. Alvin A. Ashton: National Institute of Higher Education, Research, Science and                 Technology, Trinidad and Tobago 

Tuesday, 11:00-11:30, Hall C

Quality Assurance (QA) models, because of the seeming similarities in their core characteristics may lead to a ‘one size fits all’ approach to the efforts to develop a quality culture in emerging higher education systems.  The ready availability of QA standards and procedures which can be adapted to country specific contexts tends to contribute to simplification of some of the critical prerequisites for the development and improvement of quality education in countries such as Trinidad and Tobago. 

The fledgling nature of higher education itself; the de facto power exercised by bodies external to the QA agency and the institutions themselves; policy ambiguity as well as capacity issues are all factors which manifest themselves in ways that pose serious challenges to legitimacy and efficiency.  This paper aims to address these interrelated factors in the Trinidad and Tobago context using as an analytical framework, the “Frame Factors” concept.  

 

D.2. Enhancing Quality Relevance of Higher Education: A Case Study from Jordan

• Dr.  Taleb  M. Abu-Sharar    

• Dr.  Ali A. Yaghi

• Ms. Sahar Al Yousef                         

Accreditation Council of Higher Education Institutions, Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research, Amman-Jordan

Tuesday, 11:40-12:10, Hall C

Due to the wide demand on higher education in Jordan, a fast horizontal and vertical growth has been observed in that sector over the last 15 years. The growth is demonstrated by continuously increasing number of public and private universities along with numbers of academic degrees that are offered by each university. However, none of these universities has a pre-set and clearly focused vision and mission statements that define its goals, aims and its reason for existence. Moreover, although degrees offered are subject to needs of education market, most of them are not fully oriented towards the genuine skill requirements of local and regional labor markets, especially in terms of basic knowledge (hard skills) and soft skills frequently requested by employers. Quantitative growth, in many cases, had initiated a deteriorating effect on quality of higher education.  

In this paper, challenges to quality of higher education in Jordan will be analyzed, especially those of financial deficiency, increasing demand for higher education by local and regional communities, competencies of admitted students to higher education institutions, sufficiency and academic efficiency of recruited faculty. Means of higher education institutions reform will be explored. An independent accreditation and quality assurance commission in-charge of implementing both the current accreditation practices and a proposed total quality management system at the national level will be proposed. 

 

D.3. The Higher Education Assurance Mechanism in China

• Prof. Liu Fengtai

• Dr. Li Liqun

Higher Education Evaluation Center, China

Tuesday, 12:20-12:50, Hall C

A great advancement has been achieved in the area of higher education in China in recent years. By the end of 2005, there had been 1,792 institutions of higher learning across the country with a total student body of 23 million studying in different categories of higher education institutions, of them there were 8.49 million students studying at 701 regular universities and colleges, and 7.13 million students studying at 1,091 postsecondary vocational and technical schools. The first round of evaluation officially started from the second half of 2003, and was scheduled to be implemented in the first half of 2008. A expert team will visit the university for about one week, and write down a report suggesting the result of evaluation, based on the "Evaluation of University Baccalaureate Programs Project” drafted by MOE, and the result falls into 4 categories: “Excellent", "Good", "Accepted" and "Not Accepted". At the beginning of every year, the committee of experts of MOE will discuss the result suggested by the expert team to vote to the final decision. The outcomes will be put into publication. The evaluation of regular universities and colleges is organized by HEEC directly and the budget is allocated by the government for evaluation, which can insure the justice and authority of the evaluation. A recent survey of 171 institutions which had already undergone evaluation shows that 99% of the institution faculty and students regard the quality assurance mechanism as necessary and important. They consider the quality assurance mechanism to be a significant measure which has improved the college infrastructure and basic facilities, strengthened their capacity for student education, upgraded their research work, and improved their services for society, and come up with a host of influential research results and findings.  

 

D.4. Quality of Teacher Education in Pakistan

Tuesday, 2:00-2:30, Hall C

Cancelled

 

D.5. The QA-QF Nexus: Strengthening Quality Assurance with Qualifications Framework

• Dr. Manuel T. Corpus, Executive Director, Accrediting Agency of Chartered Colleges and Universities in the Philippines  (AACCUP)

Tuesday, 2:40-3:10, Hall C

Quality assurance has created a world-wide interest.  The growing number of members in the International Network of Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE) and the Asia-Pacific Quality Network (APQN), manifests, at the least, this phenomenon.  The necessity of quality assurance is generally recognized and accepted.  It is urgent in cases where the quality of education is wanting as in the case of the Philippine educational system. 

This paper examines two approaches in defining quality.  The traditional educational systems define quality in terms of inputs and processes, while the more progressive systems define it in terms of outputs.  It is suggested that quality assurance agencies make this shift to outputs.  The focus in assessing outputs could be aided by the introduction of qualifications framework which defines the competencies desired at each level of the QF architecture.  Education providers should adopt these competencies as the targeted outputs, i.e., the knowledge, skills and desirable attributes of their graduates in designing the curriculum and other learning experiences. The role of QA is to assure that the definitions in the QF are followed by education providers, and that the quality of the service is satisfactory and acceptable. 

 

D.6. A Model for the Integration of Strategic Planning, Budgeting, and Outcomes Assessment in Higher Education

• Dr. Robert H. Roller,  President, International Assembly for Collegiate Business Education (IACBE)

• Dr. Steven L. Bovee, Chair, Division of Business, Roberts Wesleyan College, USA  

Tuesday, 3:20-3:50, Hall C

Over the past several years, many higher education quality assurance organizations, including most regional and specialized accrediting associations, have begun requiring colleges and universities to use outcomes assessment to measure student learning and operational effectiveness.  All too often, outcomes assessment becomes a separate organizational process with few links to the university’s strategic planning or budgeting processes.

In this paper, we present a model for strategic planning that integrates budgeting and outcomes assessment with the strategic planning process, resulting in one coherent process that includes strategic planning, budgeting, and outcomes assessment.  The paper examines the challenges and frustrations commonly associated with strategic planning, budgeting, and outcomes assessment; details a process for strategic planning and continuous quality improvement, including extensive material on budgeting and outcomes assessment; examines institutional differences that impact the strategic planning process; and suggests ways to lead organizational change that improve the linkages among strategic planning, budgeting, and outcomes assessment.  

 

D.7. Regional Quality Networks: The New Capacity Building Organizations

• Marjorie Peace Lenn, Center for Quality Assurance in International Education, USA

• David Woodhouse, Australian Universities Quality Agency, Australia

• Peter Cheung, Hong Kong Council on Academic Accreditation, Hong Kong

• Maria Jose LeMaitre, National Council on Program Accreditation, Chile

• Richard Lewis, International Network of Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (UK)

Wednesday, 10:30-11:40, Hall C

Regional networks of quality assurance agencies are a relatively new phenomenon which have evolved with the economic/political regionalism of the last two decades. There are at least 16 regional networks representing virtually all geographical areas and over 100 countries, but the overwhelming majority of these have been established since the year 2000. Their purposes are generally common: to build capacity in quality assurance in higher education, but some have been founded for very specific purposes with limited timelines; others for very small geographical areas and still others as membership associations or recognition bodies.  The dual evolution from a focus on individual countries to groupings of countries; and from a single centralized membership organization (INQAAHE) to multiple decentralized membership organizations, present new opportunities and challenges for the future. This session will present an overview of this new regionalizing phenomenon; will focus on two new and very large networks (the Asia Pacific and the Iberoamerican) where the majority of the membership is composed of  developing countries; will discuss the relationship of the networks to INQAAHE; and generally will consider issues of opportunity and challenge, including the current and prospective development grants to the networks from The World Bank. 

 

D.8. Mutual Recognition of Accreditation Decisions: The Next Step

• Dr. Mark Frederiks Accreditation Organisation of the Netherlands and Flanders,              Netherlands

• Dr. Rolf Heusser, Center of Accreditation and Quality Assurance of the Swiss Universities, Switzerland

Wednesday, 11:50-12:20, Hall C

Building trust between quality assurance agencies is of crucial importance for mutual recognition and international cooperation between agencies. The activities undertaken by the 15 accreditation organisations from 10 European countries which are members of the European Consortium for Accreditation in higher education (ECA) are aimed at building this trust. This paper highlights the steps that have been taken in building the trust needed to come to mutual recognition of accreditation decisions. The thinking on “substantial differences” and the shift in perspective towards an approach of “acceptance” is explained. It is substantiated why mutual recognition has an impact on higher education by enhancing the recognition of qualifications and mobility of students. The next step in the process of mutual recognition will be the involvement of governments and stakeholders to bring the mutual recognition agreements to its full effect.  

 

D.9. Building mutual confidence in quality assurance systems: a sound foundation for Qualifications Recognition

• Mike Willing, Deputy Chief Executive

• Sam Lockyer, Policy Analyst, International

New Zealand Qualifications Authority

Wednesday, 12:30-1:00, Hall C

The paper will present a discussion of the inter-relationship between the international recognition of qualifications and the external quality assurance systems that underpin qualifications.  The focus will be on the development of recognition agreement mechanisms (bi-lateral and regional), rather than processes relating to the case-by-case recognition of qualifications.   In particular it will draw on examples relating to New Zealand’s relationship with Malaysia and China, and the process of building mutual understanding and confidence in quality assurance arrangements and systems.  It will use illustrations from practical experience to draw out broader lessons and observations. 

A central thesis is that building confidence in external quality assurance systems, as opposed to focusing solely on the specifics of an individual course, qualification or even institution, is the best pathway to qualifications recognition. Although achieving mutual understanding and confidence may require a relatively long lead-in time and be relatively costly, in the long term this approach offers advantages in terms of cost and efficiency, when compared to approaches reliant upon a case-by-case basis.  These benefits apply to both to the agencies involved and to the users of qualification recognition services.  

 

E.1. Developing a Global Framework for Quality Assurance of Pharmacy Education

• Michael J. Rouse, Assistant Executive Director, International & Professional Affairs, Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), USA

Tuesday, 11:00-11:30, Hall E

Pharmacy practice, pharmacy education and quality assurance systems for education differ from country to country. While developments in practice and education are reducing this diversity, current differences (on a global scale) are still significant.  In many countries, quality assurance systems for pharmacy education are well-developed; in other countries, they are still emerging. An international forum – operating under the auspices of the International Pharmaceutical Federation (FIP) - has been established to facilitate information exchange, collaboration and cooperation in the area of quality assurance of pharmacy education, with the ultimate goal of promoting and advancing quality in education for the profession of pharmacy worldwide. The objectives, activities and major project of the forum (to develop a globally-applicable framework for quality assurance of pharmacy education) will be discussed in the presentation.  

 

E.2. Giving Credit Where it is Due - Issues in international recognition of qualifications

• Salman Kureishy, Consultant, Canada

Tuesday, 11:40-12:10, Hall E

International recognition of qualifications has acquired increasing importance in the globalization process, and has been acknowledged as an area of priority by international agencies like UNESCO. The current systems and procedures are costly, unfair and inefficient. Students are its most obvious victims. It is argued that the real challenge is not so much in ensuring identical or similar programs, but in ensuring a system of comparison that can identify learning outcomes and gaps. Adopting a ‘learning outcome’ based approach will facilitate development of a system that can quickly detect differences and measure these gaps in learning. The role of external quality assurance agencies in this process is highlighted. 

 

E.3. Through a Glass Darkly: Reflections on the dynamics of policy and politics in Australian Quality Assurance for Higher Education

• Professor Deryck Schreuder

• Dr. David Woodhouse

Australian Universities Quality Agency

Tuesday, 12:20-12:50, Hall E

Abstract Quality assurance (QA) in higher education aims to be a pure public good, but its actual form is mediated through the structure, culture, politics and history of the society in which it is located, and through explicit and implicit interactions with and between the stakeholders. When the jurisdictional environment is a federated polity, these interaction are particularly complex. 

 

E.4. Identifying Threats and Maximizing benefits of Transnational Education

• Theresa Okafor, M.Ed., Quality Assurance and Research Development Agency, Nigeria.

Tuesday, 2:00-2:30, Hall E

The growing demand for higher education and the inability of the private sector to satisfy this demand together with the challenges of market economy, ICT and privatization has fuelled the growth of transnational education. Transnational Education impacts on higher education in far-reaching and significant ways. Whilst it improves access, widens choice and promotes flexibility and internationalization of education, there are foreseeable threats that border on recognition, cultural autonomy, competitiveness and transparency. This paper examines the multi-level challenges of transnational education to existing higher education provision and proposes ways existing national (and emerging international) quality assurance systems can develop effective means to regulate and assure quality and protect learners in the context of GATS and eradicate ‘degree mills’/bogus institutions,  malpractice and fraud. 

 

E.5. Is there a logic in the development of quality assurance schemes? Using history to draft a theory

• Don Westerheijden, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS), University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands

• Bjørn Stensaker, NIFU STEP, Oslo, Norway

• Maria J. Rosa, Cipes (Center for Research in Higher Education Policies), Porto, and University of Aveiro, Portugal

Tuesday, 2:40-3:10, Hall E

Looking back into the development of quality assurance schemes in various countries and in the last 20 years, a picture emerges indicating that systems and procedures implemented have changed significantly over the years. Although much diversity exists as to the methods, contexts, and procedures associated with individual countries, this paper investigates whether one can identify common traits in the development of quality assurance schemes. By applying a historical and comparative perspective, with Europe as the main geographical focus, the article discusses the existence and importance of some common underlying factors affecting how systems of quality assurance develop.  

 

E.6. International Dimensions of Quality Assurance in the Asia-Pacific

 Dr. Antony Stella

• Dr. David Woodhouse

Australian Universities Quality Agency

Tuesday, 3:20-3:50, Hall E

In general, quality assurance agencies are established to serve a specific national context. The recent developments in the HE sector, in terms of increasing internationalisation, affect the national orientation of the QA agencies and require them to take up certain international elements as well. Considering the national QA agencies at the centre, one can identify at least three dimensions to their international orientation. This paper addresses them as ‘three Ds’. D1 is related to the QA agency expanding its scope to cover the international activities of its own higher education sector - both import and export. D2 is related to the QA agency crossing its national borders to offer its QA service to HE sectors in other countries. D3 is related to the QA agency wishing to demonstrate its own quality against international criteria. Apart from these ‘national QA agency centric’ dimensions, there are also international quality assurance activities carried out by agencies that are not oriented to any specific national contexts but function primarily to offer QA services internationally. This paper discusses only the national agency centric dimensions with specific reference to the Asia-Pacific region and the role of the network of QA agencies in strengthening these developments.  

 

E.7. Evaluations have a manifest impact on the quality of medical and paramedical programmes

• Brita Bergseth, Swedish National Agency for Higher Education

Wednesday, 10:30-11:00, Hall E

Cancelled

 

E.8. Achieving Multi-National Accreditation for Canada’s Open University

• Nancy K. Parker, PhD,  Director Institutional Studies, Athabasca University, Canada

Wednesday, 11:10-11:40, Hall E

Athabasca University is the first university in Canada to receive accreditation from one of the six regional accreditation boards in the United States. This case study reviews the challenges and rewards of the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE) accreditation process for a wholly distance university.  This presentation will provide an overview of the steps in the application process from candidacy, through the design and development of the self-study, and the final visiting team report.   The overview of the MSCHE accreditation standards will highlight some of the challenges with their application for trans-national delivery of online programs.  The presentation will end with a brief discussion of the contrasts between peer based reviews, state regulatory requirements and consumer education definitions of quality.  With this perspective larger questions of multi-national accreditation standards can be addressed. 

 

E.9. International Experiences - An Essential Element of Quality IT Programs

• Anu A. Gokhale, Ph.D., Professor of Electronics and Telecommunications, Illinois State University, USA

Wednesday, 11:50-12:20, Hall E

Collaborations with other institutions nationally and internationally is often cited by accrediting agencies as one of the criteria for evaluating program effectiveness, and this is most applicable for Information Technology (IT) programs. Given the nature of the IT discipline - free flow of information that completely blurs national boundaries - it is obligatory to enhance student and faculty awareness of IT practices around the world to enhance the quality of the educational programs. There are several mechanisms to accomplish this goal; some of the most effective are faculty and student visits to international educational institutions, student internships in foreign countries, and collaborations for teaching and research. Results of a survey of 15 students and 15 faculty on their experiences of multiple international activities and events are discussed.   

 

E.10. Internationalising Higher Education Knowledge Content: Acknowledging a Pedagogical quality assurance discourse

• Dr. Monne Wihlborg, Lund University, Faculty of Medicine, Sweden.

• Professor Lennart Svensson, Lund University, department of education, Sweden

Wednesday, 12:30-1:00, Hall E

There is a need of addressing questions about the internationalising of the knowledge content of education. Both at national and institutional levels, in many countries, internationalisation is stated to be an educational goal, and on one hand discussed as to be an linear homogenization process, or on the other hand, emphasizing differences and a pluralistic process and multilingualism. In some previous studies we have found that the concretisation of this goal is very unclear. The concrete content considered to represent internationalisation seems to be rather haphazardly included in the teaching and learning. There is also a tendency to look at what is considered to be general unproblematized knowledge and general human qualities as what represents internationalisation, and, not content based on research. In higher education there is no institutionalised educational and didactic thinking as a basis for developing internationalisation of the education. The concrete thinking is very much restricted to organisational and administrative aspects of the education. The thinking about knowledge content and learning outcomes is much idealised and not developed in terms of students’ competencies and capabilities. In this article we present and discuss a theoretical frame-work for an educational didactic approach to internationalisation of higher education. 

 

F.2. The Challenges of the Spellings Commission: The Integrity of the Regional Accreditation System of Quality Assurance Threatened in the United States of America

• Dr. Sandra Elman, Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities, USA

Tuesday, 11:40-12:10, Osgoode West

The Spellings Commission on the Future of Higher Education is calling into question the legitimacy, efficiency and effectiveness of regional accreditation in the United States. Secretary Spellings and the Commission’s goals may result in dramatic changes in the historically decentralized role of government vis-á-vis higher education/regional accreditation. The federal government (USDOE) appears intent, even if it has to bypass conventional legislative practice, on having regional accreditation: (1) focus almost exclusively on outputs (student learning outcomes) rather than inputs and processes; and (2) establish mechanisms for comparability among higher education institutions; and on (3) strengthening regional accreditation’s accountability/compliance function.     

 

F.3. The Evolution of Private HE in Kuwait

• Prof. Imad Al-Ateeqi (Secretary General, PUC)

• Dr. Lafi Alharbi (PUC consultant)

Private Universities Council, Kuwait

Tuesday, 12:20-12:50, Osgoode West

With the introduction of private HE in Kuwait (largely cross-border HE), Private Universities Council (PUC) was established in 2000, as an NGO, to supervise the licensing, assuring quality, and offering accreditation for Private HE establishments. PUC assumes these tasks and responsibilities when there is a limited domestic/national educational resources. Such resources, when available are limited to public establishments, which exhibit traditional model of government/public agencies.  The present-day procedures of licensing, assuring quality or accreditation were not in local/national reach.   The local/national educational portfolio was doubtful of the introduction of private HE education. Cross-border HE, in particular, was viewed with suspect.    

The PUC success was due to its rigorous adherence to the Quality Provision in Cross-border HE. It sets a model of a successful intermarriage between the International Standards and the Local Educational Culture. Such a mode is not attainable without the firm commitment to the UNESCO resolutions adopted in 1998 WCHE, and the International Standards set thereafter.  The evolution of Private HE in Kuwait will be dealt with in terms of: chronological development of the introduction of private HE, legal support and NGO arrangements, key success factors.   

 

F.4. Co-building of assurance and the relative nature of quality

• Christian Chauvigné, D.S.P., Ecole nationale de la santé publique, France

Tuesday, 2:00-2:30, Osgoode West

Under the common appellation of quality assurance of higher education, multiple practices have been coexisting according to the contexts and stakes. After having described a few differentiating elements of the most prevalent practices, we will focus on a quality assurance approach that aims for its continual development. Based on the analysis of two properties of quality assurance that are not often highlighted, the co-building of assurance and the relative nature of quality, the hypothesis of their mobilization as leverage for the continual improvement of quality will be tested. The example of the accreditation of medico-social institution manager training in France illustrates the relevance and effects as regards the continual improvement of quality.

 

F.5. A Critical Evaluation of the INQAAHE Guidelines for Good Practice by Higher Education Quality Assurance Agencies

• Douglas Blackmur, Ph.D., University of Western Cape, South Africa

Tuesday, 2:40-3:10, Osgoode West

INQAAHE issued Guidelines of Good Practice for Quality Assurance Agencies [the Guidelines] in May 2005. They constitute a code of behaviour for agencies with respect to their stakeholders and with respect to certain internal matters such as resourcing and decision-making processes. The Guidelines also address the issue of “who regulates the regulators” by defining a process of self-regulation. The nature and extent of their implementation will be reviewed in 2007.

The paper examines the eleven guidelines in terms of criteria which include clarity, logical interconnections and extent. Specific matters discussed include the viability of self-regulation by organisations which, in many cases, are public, statutory monopolies; the powers of agency clients to initiate an external review of agency policy and/or behaviour; the principles of corporate governance which govern agency Boards; the extent to which agencies apply the principles of efficient regulation; the relationships between quality assurance agencies and other regulators which impact on higher education; agency diversity and the applicability of a common set of guidelines; agency funding and independence; the risks of internal and/or external capture; and the extent to which the agency conducts regulatory impact analysis. Governance, transactions’ costs economics, public choice and agency theory provide points of departure for the discussion. The paper argues that there are major omissions and significant room for improvement in the Guidelines as they currently stand.    

---

POSTERS

 Official Poster Viewing – Wednesday, 3:30-4:15

1. Driving Curriculum Innovation and Change: Using the AACSB's Assurance of Learning Standards to Guide the Development of New Interdisciplinary Programs at the New Jersey Institute of Technology

• Dr. Frederic Bogui

• Dr. Jose Casal

• Dr. Katia Passerini

• Dr. William Rapp

• Dr. Barbara Tedesco

• Dr. Mark Somers

New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ, USA

 The accreditation standards of the Association for the Advancement of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) require that business schools provide tangible evidence that self-defined learning objectives, tied to the business school's and the university's missions, are being met.  In preparing for maintenance of AACSB accreditation, the faculty and staff of the School of Management at NJIT developed a comprehensive assurance of learning system that began with a thorough examination of the school's degree programs.  This process generated learning objectives that are common to most business schools in areas such as critical thinking and communication, but it also led to the development of mission specific learning objectives associated with applications of technology in business.

 In building an assurance of learning system to assess these learning objectives, it became clear that those tied to technology required partnerships with other academic units at NJIT. Thus, several new interdisciplinary bachelors and master's programs in areas such as financial engineering and risk management, new media and communications, emergency management, and biomedical management were developed in cooperation with the colleges of engineering, computing, and science and liberal arts.  This poster describes a process of innovation and change at the organizational level that was driven by building the QA system required to meet the AACSB’s assurance of learning standards. It includes the factors behind the impetus for change, the process of gaining faculty involvement, the use of QA processes to build bridges between academic units, the development of measures, and reports of  preliminary assessment data.

 

2. Intent and Outcomes of the University of the West Indies Quality Assurance Process

• Sandra Gift, Jacqueline Moniquette, Anna Perkins

University of the West Indies 

This poster presentation will indicate the structure of The University of the West Indies (UWI) quality assurance system as it has evolved over the past five years with projections for the future.  It examines “fitness for purpose” as the concept of quality which informs the approach to quality assurance at The UWI, a Caribbean regional institution of higher education.  The presentation will demonstrate the extent to which this concept has been successfully applied through an analysis of the intended and actual outcomes as evident in feedback from Quality Assurance Reviews.  The resulting successes and challenges across the three campuses of the UWI over the past five years will be discussed.  A major focus will be the quality of the teaching and learning experience of the students using key quality indicators.  These include curriculum design and delivery, standards, assessment, relevance and resources. It will outline the follow up strategies employed to ensure the implementation of recommendations of the Review Teams.   

 

3. Gauging Maturity of the Institutional Quality Systems

• Dr.(Mrs) Rama Kondapalli , Deputy Adviser

• Dr.(Mrs) Sujatha Shanbagh, Assistant Advisor

National Assessment and Accreditation Council, Bangalore, India 

During the last decade a good number of Higher Education Institutions in India have been in the pursuit of the objectives of quality improvement. Today in India we have close to 4000 HEI’s accredited by NAAC. Many of these institutions have completed five year validity period and are undergoing the process of re-accreditation. Striving to bring in a quality culture NAAC has put in efforts at three main levels - at the government level, at the University level and at the institutional level. This has yielded satisfactory results and most of the accredited institutions now have Internal Quality Systems in place.  

If we have to get the benefit of continuous improvement and be able to achieve performance excellence then it is not enough to be satisfied with the present method of assessment by external quality assurance agency. For this, we need a measurement system that could use a self-assessment tool, which will help institutions, plan to go beyond minimum requirement, work towards benchmarking and total quality management to attain stakeholders’ satisfaction.   

In this paper the author discusses the effectiveness of the quality systems of Indian Higher Education Institutions and the need for developing a system for measuring the maturity of the quality system and a model for implementation.  

      

4. Precede Activities for the Implementation of the Quality Culture in Georgian Higher Education System: Experience of the Tbilisi State Medical University

• Gia Lobzhanidze M.D., Ph.D., Tbilisi State Medical University, Georgia. 

(Authors:  Giorgi Menabde, David Chavchanidze, Merab Kavtaradze, Gia Lobzhanidze, Levan Labauri, Ketevan Akhmeteli, Merab Buadze)

 In the Georgian Higher Education System the notion - “Quality Assurance” has been implemented after the “Georgian Law on Higher Education” stepped into the force. Each step passed by TSMU has to be considered as a legal stage and predictive measurements for the improving the quality culture.

 In 2006, The Georgian Ministry of Education and Science carried out the institutional accreditation of the universities. The accreditation criteria and requirements in this process were enough liberal.  During this process, the Georgian Medical Academy has merged with TSMU. Meanwhile, the second stage of the accreditation was completed. As a result, only 39 higher educational institutions (13 medical) got the authorization and recognition from the State.  TSMU after the unification process has successfully passed the accreditation and presented good results in both basic and optional criteria. Four faculties were left: Medicine, Dentistry, Public Health & Pharmacy. During the preparatory period, TSMU was able to launch and implement the following reforms:

-     Introduction of new structure of University;

-     Competition based selection of the academic staff;

-     Elections of the University governing bodies;

-     Introduction of the improved teaching curricula;

-     Affiliation of new hospitals;

-     Creation of Quality Assurance Department;

-     Full implementation of ECTS;

-     Establishment of Schools of Public Health & Nursing;

 As from the activities carried out by the university, the important lessons are already learned; we need to share advanced experience from our international colleagues, with further practical implementation, to assure the high standards in education.  

  

 5.  Quality and Standards of UK higher education provision in China

• Dr. Stephen Jackson, Director of Reviews

• Carolyn Campbell, Head of International Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, United Kingdom

The poster will use evidence from the recently completed audit of UK higher education awards offered through partnership arrangements between Universities and partner institutions in China.  It will illustrate the various models that have been developed to manage partnership arrangements and present contrasting views of the perception of provision from the UK and from China.  It will also draw on experience of Chinese students who have transferred to the UK to complete their studies.

-     Facts and figures about UK HE provision in China

-     Arrangements for the management of quality and standards

-     Features of good practice

-     Benefits of collaborative provision for UK HEIs

-     Perception of UK HE in China

-     QAA overview report

 In 2006, QAA conducted a survey of UK higher education links with China. It identified that nearly 11,000 Chinese students are studying for UK awards, and that 82 UK universities had established links with Chinese institutions.  This information was used to evaluate the academic standards of UK higher education programmes and the quality of learning delivered in China.  The findings are available in: UK higher education in China: an overview of the quality assurance of UK higher education awards delivered in the People's Republic of China, 2006.

The review included a desk-based analysis of 30 UK universities and a detailed audit of 10 partnership links in China. The universities represented a mix of traditional and new universities from across the UK and a range of collaborative arrangements.  Many universities offer programmes which combine study in China with study in the UK.  In 2006, three teams of QAA reviewers visited the Chinese partner institutions in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou.

 Overall, the review shows that effective procedures are in place to assure the standard of UK awards delivered in China.  Students studying for UK higher education awards receive an experience that is equivalent to students studying in the UK.  QAA also discussed UK partnership arrangements with the Ministry of Education, provincial authorities and other higher education organisations in China.  The messages received confirmed the general regard for the standards of UK higher education, but also raised concerns about variations between institutions, the experience of students and the limited choice of subjects.   

   

6. Can using course approval and monitoring processes to transform student learning?

• Dr. Ann Read

• Caroline Carpenter

Southampton Solent University, UK 

The increasing emphasis on the scholarship of learning and teaching in the UK is promoting an ethos of (or is that lip service to?) quality enhancement as opposed to quality control/assurance. The QA processes associated with course approval and monitoring are seen as the principal drivers of change, providing opportunities for widespread enhancement in the student learning experience as well as assurance of the quality of the provision.  Yet the success of these various processes as drivers of change is very variable.

 Effective enhancement of the curricula and the learning experiences and achievements of students depends on the identification and dissemination of good practice and the willingness of staff to engage in QA processes and develop their practice to meet student learning needs and other evolving institutional and professional requirements. All too often the very processes designed to drive change act as a bureaucratic barrier to their achievement, with course developers more concerned with ‘hitting the deadlines’ and ‘getting the paperwork looking right’ than enhancing student learning and promoting the deep engagement of individual staff.  Stripping down documentation requirements and putting quality enhancement at the heart of course development has promoted more of a reflective and critical team approach to course development at Solent, resulting in improved validation outcomes and student performance and feedback. Yet, despite the evidence, QA is still seem as bureaucratic nonsense preventing rather than driving change.  

---

CHAIRS FOR PAPER SESSIONS  

• Dr. Robin Armstrong, Executive Director, College University Consortium Council, Canada (Tuesday, 11:00-12:50, papers D1-D3)

• Cathryn Beggs, Executive Director, Accreditation Council for Canadian Physiotherapy Academic Programs (Tuesday, 11:00-12:50, papers E1-E3)

• Dr. Angelo Belcastro, Vice-President (Academic) University of New Brunswick, Canada (Tuesday, 11:00-12:50, papers A1-A3)

• Ronald B. Bond, Ph.D., Chair of the Campus Alberta Quality Council (and Provost Emeritus, the University of Calgary), Canada (Tuesday 2:00-3:50, papers F4-F5)

• Dr. Steve Crow, Executive Director, The Higher Learning Commission, North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, U.S.A. (Wednesday 10:30-1:00. papers B6-B9)

• Dr. Earl Davey, Provost, Tyndale University College & Seminary, Canada (Tuesday, 11:00-12:50, papers, C1-C3)

• Mireille Duguay, Chief Executive Officer, Maritime Provinces Higher Education Commission, Canada (Tuesday, 11:00-12:50, papers B1-B2)

• Dr. Frank Gelin, Executive Director and Co-Chair, British Columbia Council on Admissions and Transfer, Canada (Tuesday, 11:00-12:50, papers F1-F3)

• Dr. Neil Gold, Provost, University of Windsor, Canada (Tuesday 2:00-3:50, papers E4-E6)

• Cindy Hazell, Senior Vice-President, Seneca College, Canada (Wednesday 10:30-1:00, papers C6-C9)

• Dr. David Leyton-Brown, Executive Director, Council of Ontario Universities, Ontario Council on Graduate Studies, Canada (Wednesday 10:30-1:00, papers A7-A10)

• Dr. Christine McKinnon, Dean of Arts and Science, Trent University, Canada (Tuesday 2:00-3:50, papers C4-C5)

• Jean Morse, President, Middle States Commission on Higher Education, U.S.A. (Wednesday 10:30-1:00, papers D7-D9)

• Marilyn Patton, Director of the Campus Alberta Quality Council Secretariat, Canada (Tuesday 2:00-3:50, papers B3-B5)

• Dr. Susan Silverton, Vice-President Academic, Laurentian University, Canada (Tuesday 2:00-3:50, papers A4-A6)

• Dr. Rodney A. Webb, Associate Vice-President Academic, York University, Canada (Tuesday 2:00-3:50, papers D4-D6)

• Dr. Louise Zak, Associate Director, New England Association of Schools and Colleges, Commission on Institutions of Higher Education, U.S.A. (Wednesday 10:30-1:00, papers E8-E10)