Duisburg-Essen, zur Verfügung gestellt. › media › daad_de › pdfs_nicht_barrie... ·...

Der folgende Text wird über DuEPublico, den Dokumenten- und Publikationsserver der UniversitätDuisburg-Essen, zur Verfügung gestellt.

Diese auf DuEPublico veröffentlichte Version der E-Publikation kann von einer eventuell ebenfallsveröffentlichten Verlagsversion abweichen.

Niedermeier, Frank:

Designing Effective Quality Management Systems in Higher Education Institutions - Trainingon Internal Quality Assurance Series | Module 1

In: Training on Internal Quality Assurance Series

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17185/duepublico/43222

URN: urn:nbn:de:hbz:464-20170215-094702-6

Link: http://duepublico.uni-duisburg-essen.de/servlets/DocumentServlet?id=43222

Lizenz:

Dieses Werk kann unter einer Creative Commons Namensnennung - Nicht kommerziell - KeineBearbeitungen 4.0 International Lizenz genutzt werden.

http://dx.doi.org/10.17185/duepublico/43222

http://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:hbz:464-20170215-094702-6

http://duepublico.uni-duisburg-essen.de/servlets/DocumentServlet?id=43222

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/



Designing Effective Quality Management Systems in Higher Education Institutions

Frank Niedermeier

Training on Internal Quality Assurance Series | Module 1Solveig Randhahn and Frank Niedermeier (Eds.)

With financial support from the

Imprint

This e-publication is part of the Training on Internal Quality Assurance Series which is also published as paperback (ISBN: 978-3-7345-6506-9) and distribut-ed in book shops worldwide. More information is available at http://www.trainiqa.org

Author: Frank Niedermeier

Editors: Solveig Randhahn and Frank Niedermeier

Reviewers: Philipp Pohlenz, Solveig Randhahn, Oliver Vettori, Petra Pistor, Karl-Heinz Stammen, Christian Ganseuer

Edition: First edition

Layout: Nikolaj Sokolowski, Randi Ramme

Publisher: DuEPublico, Duisburg/Essen, Germany

DOI: 10.17185/duepublico/43222

Copyright © 2017 Frank Niedermeier

This book is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

Please cite the use of our course book series in presentations, trainings, papers etc. according to scientific standards. You can cite this book as:

Niedermeier, F. (2017). Designing Effective Quality Management Systems in Higher Education Institutions. Module 1. In Randhahn, S. & Niedermeier, F. (Eds.) Training on Internal Quality Assurance Series. Duisburg/Essen: DuEPublico. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.17185/duepublico/43222

http://www.trainiqa.org

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

http://dx.doi.org/10.17185/duepublico/43222

Acknowledgment

Our modules and books have been prepared and written in a joint effort of the University of Duisburg-Essen

and the University of Potsdam under the DIES (Dialogue on Innovative Higher Education Strategies) Programme

conducted by the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) and the German Rectors’ Conference (HRK) with

funds from the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). We take this opportunity

to thank the DIES Programme and all the partners from Africa, Europe and Southeast Asia who were involved

in the development process and express our deepest gratitude for the received support, without which the

modules and course books would not have been possible to realise.

We want to further express our sincere gratitude for the most valuable support and contributions from the

involved partners

Autorité Nationale d’Assurance Qualité de l’Enseignement Supérieur (ANAQ-Sup), Sénégal,

ASEAN Quality Assurance Network (AQAN),

ASEAN University Network (AUN),

Association of African Universities (AAU),

Conseil Africain et Malgache pour l’Enseignement Supérieur (CAMES),

European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA),

National Accreditation Board (NAB), Ghana,

National Council for Tertiary Education (NCTE), Ghana,

National Universities Commission (NUC), Nigeria,

Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization Regional Centre for Higher Education and Develop-

ment (SEAMEO RIHED),

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Culutral Organization (UNESCO),

University of Professional Studies Accra (UPSA), Ghana

and especially from Prof. Dr. Shahrir Abdullah, Richard Adjei, Prof. Dr. Goski Bortiorkor Alabi, Prof. Dr. Bassey

Antia, Prof. Dr. Arnulfo Azcarraga, Gudrun Chazotte, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Tan Kay Chuan, Kwame Dattey, Prof. Dr.

Ong Duu Sheng, Prof. Zita Mohd. Fahmi, Mae Fastner, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nantana Gajaseni, Robina Geupel, Josep

Grifoll, Juliane Hauschulz, Dr. Pascal Hoba, Dato’ Syed Hussein, Benjamin Jung, Prof. Abdel Karim Koumare,

Dr. Vipat Kuruchittham, Prof. Dr. Chiedu Mafiana, Prof. Dr. Duwiejua Mahama, Barbara Michalk, Prof. Dr. Le

Quang Minh, Nguyen My Ngoc, Johnson Ong Chee Bin, Concepcion V. Pijano, Prof. Dr. Philipp Pohlenz, Sonja

Pohlmann, Dr. Suleiman Ramon-Yusuf, Dr. Sylvia Ruschin, Dr. Chantavit Sujatanond, Dr. Oliver Vettori and Marc

Wilde.

The authors

Frank NiedermeierCentre for Quality Development University of Potsdam, Germany

[email protected]

http://zfq.uni-potsdam.de

http://www.asean-qa.org

Frank Niedermeier studied Sociology, Political Science and

History at the Universities of Oldenburg and Potsdam. Since

2010, he has been working as a research associate at the

Centre for Quality Development (ZfQ) of the University of

Potsdam, where he currently is Deputy Head of the Higher

Education Studies Department. He has ample experience in

higher education and internal and external quality assurance

and management. In this fields he has been involved in several

international projects and activities with a focus on Southeast

Asia, where he leads the ASEAN-QA Project.

His main areas of work and research are higher education

and student research, evaluation of teaching and learning,

methods of empirical social research and quality assurance and

enhancement in higher education.

http://zfq.uni-potsdam.de/

http://asean-qa.de/

List of Abbreviations

ABET American Board of Engineering and Training

AQAFHE ASEAN Quality Assurance Framework in Higher Education

AQAN ASEAN Quality Assurance Network

AQRF

ASEAN

AUN

AUN-QA

CAMES

CETQA

CIPO

CQAAE

CQO

DIES

EFQM

EHEA

EQA

EQAR

ESG

EUA

HE

ASEAN Qualifications Reference Framework

Association of Southeast Asian Nations

ASEAN University Network

ASEAN University Network – Quality Assurance

African and Malagasy Council for Higher Education

Center for Educational Testing and Quality Assessment, VNU-HCM

Context, Inputs, Process and Output

Centre for Quality Assurance and Academic Excellence, MMU

Chief Quality Officer

Dialogue on Innovative Higher Education Strategies

European Foundation for Quality Management

European Higher Education Area

External Quality Assurance

European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education

Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the EHEA

European University Association

Higher Education

HEI

IMA

IQA

ISO

IT

IUCEA

MMU

NPM

OLP

PI

QA

QAF

QF

QM

QMS

PAP

SCL

SEAMEO RIHED

SPC

TQM

UNESCO

VNU-HCM

Higher Education Institution

Internal Maintenance Audit

Internal Quality Assurance

International Organization for Standardization

Information Technology

Inter-University Council for East Africa

Multimedia University Malaysia

New Public Management

Online Learning Platform

Performance Indicator

Quality Assurance

Quality Assurance Framework

Qualifications Framework

Quality Management

Quality Management System

Project Action Plan

Student Centred Learning

Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization Regional Centre

for Higher Education and Development

Statistical Process Control

Total Quality Management

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh City

8

Table of Contents

Introduction to the Course Book Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Introduction to the Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

The Quality Concept in Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

1 TheQualityConceptinHigherEducation– HowtoDefineQuality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

1 .1 What is Quality? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

1 .2 Quality Dimensions and Framework: Input, Process, Output, Outcome, Impact and Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

1.3 TheRelationofTeachingandLearningwithServices, AdministrationandResearch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

1.4 TheShiftfromTeachingtoLearning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Quality Assurance in Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

2 QualityAssuranceinHigherEducation MainTerminology,OriginsandMotives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

2.1 MainQualityAssuranceTerminologyinHigherEducation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

2.2 OriginsoftheQualityTalkandQualityAssuranceConcept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

2.3 QualityAssuranceinHigherEducation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

2.4 MotivesforQualityAssurance–WhyEngageinQualityAssurance? . . . . . . . . . 54

9

Introduction to Quality Management Systems, Models and Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

3 IntroductiontoQualityManagementSystems, ModelsandInstruments–HowtoDesignaQuality ManagementSystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

3.1 ExternalQualityAssuranceSystems– FrameworksforInternalQualityAssurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

3 .2 Internal Quality Management Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

3.3 IntroductiontoMainQualityManagementInstrumentsandTools . . . . . . . . . . 77

Structures and Roles in Quality Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

4 StructuresandRolesinQualityManagement– HowtoImplementaQualityManagementSystem . . . . . . . . . 85

4.1 StructuringQualityManagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

4.2 RolesandResponsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

4.3 ImplementingaQualityManagementSystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

4.4 CaseStudiesofQualityManagementSystemsandStructures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Successful Quality Management Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

5 SuccessfulQualityManagementSystems– WhenDoesaSystemLiveUptoitsPurpose?PartI . . . . . . . . 103

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Annexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

10

Preface

Introduction to the Course Book Series

Dear Readers,

Higher education institutions worldwide are undergoing massive changes. These result in increased public

expectations towards the institutions’ provision, new tasks and responsibilities for scholars and administra-

tors, new modes of knowledge production and transfer. Higher education institutions are developing from

elite systems, serving the educational needs of only a small proportion of respective age cohorts to mass edu-

cation systems.

The abundance of individual and organisational change processes require higher education institutions to

rethink the quality of their provision in the field of higher education. Does the way in which we design cur-

ricula and in which we organise learning processes from enrolment to the final examination still respond to

recent developments in learning theory and to the requirements of the labour market? Do we take appropri-

ate account of the diverse expectations of an increasingly heterogeneous target audience? Are the processes

of teaching, learning, and examination aligned carefully with each other in a way that allows us to educate

the workforce of tomorrow? Do we support our students appropriately in their attempt to develop into com-

petent and critically thinking citizens that are able to act efficiently in a more and more complex and ambig-

uous world?

Even more significant is the process that changes higher education institutions from state-regulated institu-

tions to independent actors on competitive education markets. The last 30 years have seen a growing number

of higher education systems that have changed the relationship between the public authorities (e.g. minis-

tries of education) and the individual institutions. Having been granted with more autonomy and self-respon-

sibility, higher education institutions needed to think more strategically about their strengths and weakness-

es. Higher education institutions have changed from classical expert organisations to organisations operat-

ing under a more managerial governance paradigm. Here again, we can see the necessity of a systematic

approach to quality assurance and quality enhancement policy: The more higher education institutions are

constituted as actors on a competitive education market, the more the need to be aware of what their “unique

selling point” or their “DNA” is. Many higher education institutions worldwide have responded to these devel-

opments by institutionalising quality assurance mechanisms or even by establishing quality assurance units,

being exclusively assigned with the respective instruments (e.g. quality assurance offices in charge of educa-

tional evaluation).

Prof. Dr. Philipp Pohlenz & Dr. Solveig Randhahn

11

The present course book series tries to give guidance to higher education institutions and their “quality assur-

ance agents” on their “quality journey”. We have collected well-established instruments and methodolo-

gy from a range of European and international higher education systems. These are supposed to guide you

through the many – and sometimes contradictory and conflicting – theories and approaches to quality assur-

ance. We are fully aware that every institution needs to find its own way and approach to quality assurance.

However, we base these course books on the experience we have collected in a range of higher education

institution contexts throughout diverse international higher education systems. Some of the principles apply

to any context, some of them will need to be made applicable to your own situation. The course book series

focusses on five thematic fields:

1. Designing Effective Quality Management Systems in Higher Education Institutions: the first course book

lays the general basis for the training course. It introduces quality concepts, definitions of quality assurance

and development and discusses the question why quality management (QM) is an important concept for

higher education institutions.

2. Tools and Procedures for Quality Assurance in Higher Education Institutions: the second course book

deals with the basic knowledge evaluation theories and methodology, particularly in the framework of

higher education institutions. Furthermore, the course book deals with empirical social science research

methodology as a tool for effective quality assurance. Core elements are the precise conception and sys-

tematic conduction of qualitative and quantitative data collection as well as data analysis and interpreta-

tion for evaluation purposes.

3. Quality Assurance of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Institutions: the third course book intro-

duces the role of quality managers in communication and information processes of teaching and learning.

Participants learn how to support teaching staff with defining a study programme’s objectives, its expected

learning outcomes and competences. Furthermore, the course book deals with the continuous revision of

study programmes and how to write a self-evaluation report at programme level. Finally, it examines the

linkage between external and internal quality assurance approaches and how to make best use of both.

4. Information Management in Higher Education Institutions: the fourth course book focuses on possibilities

and limitations of an information management for higher education institutions. Participants get to know

the relevance of (performance) indicators. They learn to reflect them critically and to use them in a respon-

sible way. Based on this, the course book gives an introduction on how to establish a data-based reporting

system at higher education institutions for different purposes and stakeholder groups and discusses vari-

ous challenges to be considered.

5. Quality Management and its Linkages to Higher Education Management: the fifth course book completes

the training course, summarising the key elements of the previous modules and showing how to close

quality loops (which refer to the cyclic quality management logic of plan-do-check-act). It focuses more

in detail on the linkage between quality management and decision-making processes and it analyses the

functions of involved parties and existing limits of their actions. In doing so, you will get an insight to com-

munication and implementation strategies that are relevant to develop change processes at higher educa-

tion institutions.

12

Structure and Use of the Course BooksEach course book starts with an overview referring to the prerequisites and intentions of the module (includ-

ing the workshop, self-study-phases and online-phases) as well as the expected learning outcomes to be

achieved in the module. In the following, the course books are divided into various chapters that go into

detail on key issues of the respective thematic fields. Each chapter starts with an outline of the expect-

ed learning outcomes to be achieved after having read the chapter. Please read these learning outcomes

carefully and reflect them on your own after having finished a chapter as well as a course book in total.

The text is supplemented by tables, illustrations, definitions, information boxes and small snapshots on spe-

cific case studies that make reading and understanding of the content very easy. Additionally, most of the

chapters include recommendations for further readings, as well as some voluntary questions for individual

reflection.

Related Training Course and its Learning OutcomesThe course book series was originally embedded in a training programme for quality managers. In case you

are interested in additional training and workshops on the issues discussed in the course books, you are wel-

come to contact the authors.

After completion of the whole training related to the course books (TrainIQA), participants should be able

to:

understand theoretical concepts of quality, quality assurance and quality enhancement and have the abil-

ity to evaluate them according to the various visions and missions of HEIs,

design and carry out questionnaires and evaluations scientifically and control the related processes,

apply appropriate techniques and scientific methods to reflect upon the results of quality assurance and to

establish a quality loop with follow-up-processes on all levels of a HEI,

deal with the requirements of quality assurance of study programmes and their revision, including the link-

age to external quality assurance,

recognise cross connections between quality development, staff development and organisational develop-

ment,

support change in the institution using strategies and methods to overcome resistance,

support communication flows between faculty, senior management and relevant stakeholders of quality

assurance and enhancement within and outside the institution,

formulate ideas about how quality culture can be developed at the institutional level,

structure your project in the form of a project action plan.

We hope our course book series is a useful resource that provides guidance when promoting quality in higher

education institutions.

Enjoy reading!

The Authors

14

Preface

Introduction to the Module

As the first module of five in the TrainIQA course, this module and its related course book will provide the

foundation for the topic of quality assurance in higher education and give you the basic knowledge about

what quality in higher education is, where it comes from, why quality assurance should and must be carried

out and how it can be set up and managed at a higher education institution.

Prerequisites for the Module Being the first module, there are no specific prerequisites other than knowledge of the own higher educa-

tion institution’s administrative and management structure (“quality policy”) and knowledge about the home

country’s and region’s higher education system.

Intentions of the Module Focusing on the strategic and operative level of quality assurance at higher education institutions, this mod-

ule addresses both quality managers who are in charge of or involved in quality assurance at their institution

as well as the institutions senior management responsible for quality assurance (usually Vice President, Vice

Rector or Deputy Vice Chancellor for academics).

The module lays the groundwork of the training course and gives an introduction to two fundamental quality

assurance related topics: quality assurance and management systems and change management.

The course book begins by addressing the topic of the quality concept in higher education (HE) as it is the

basis to structure your quality work (Chapter 1). In the following it defines main terminologies and out-

lines the origins of QA to then answer the question why it is important for higher education institutions

(Chapter 2). Further external and internal quality assurance will be introduced, with the main terminolo-

gy, models and instruments (Chapter 3). Chapter 4 will outline first steps of the implementation of a quality

management system (QMS) discussing different possibilities on how to structure QM, main actors’ roles and

functions and the process of implementation and revision of the system. The final Chapter 5 wraps up the

content by discussing the question “When does a QM system live up to its purpose?” which will be resumed

and discussed again in Module 5.

15

Before we begin, please read through the expected learning outcomes below. When reading the course books

and participating in the course, keep in mind that the modules and course books are not designed to provide

all the answers, but instead to give you the tools and knowledge in order to develop and clarify your own

views. Although sometimes you might find strong statements by an author, we invite you not to take them as

granted but to challenge them instead.

evaluate and apply theoretical concepts of quality, quality assurance and enhancement on the basis of

your own experience and context of your HEI,

describe current developments of international educational trends connected to quality assurance and

analyse them against the background of your own HEI,

weigh possibilities of designing a quality management system in the context of the own institution,

weigh possibilities of structuring QA and setting up an internal unit for quality assurance

against the background of your own institutional framework conditions,

understand and be aware of the roles in quality assurance and be aware of your own duties and

responsibilities,

reflect what needs to be considered for the design and implementation of a QA system at the own HEI.

On successful completion of this chapter, you should be able to…

Chapter 1: The Quality Concept in Higher Education

16

1 TheQualityConceptinHigherEducation–HowtoDefineQuality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

1 .1 What is Quality? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

1 .1 .1 What Quality is Not . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

1 .1 .2 Concepts of Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

1.1.3 DefiningQuality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

1 .2 Quality Dimensions and Framework: Input, Process, Output, Outcome, Impact and Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

1 .2 .1 Input Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

1 .2 .2 Process Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

1 .2 .3 Output, Outcomes and Impact Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

1 .2 .4 Context Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

1.3 TheRelationofTeachingandLearningwithServices,AdministrationandResearch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

1.3.1 Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

1.3.2 Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

1 .3 .3 Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

1.4 TheShiftfromTeachingtoLearning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

explainthedifferentconceptsofqualityinhighereducation,

haveabasicunderstandingofkeyaspectstobeconsideredwhendefiningqualityatyourownhigher

educationinstitution,

explaintheshiftfromteachingtolearningandevaluateitsimpactonyourownqualitywork.


Chapter 1

The Quality Concept in Higher Education How to Define Quality


17

1 The Quality Concept in Higher Education – How to Define Quality“Quality: The standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the

degree of excellence of something: an improvement in product quality.“

(Oxford Dictionaries 2014)

Atfirst,everybodyknowsandfeelsabletorecognisequality,itisthere.Itinspiresmanymindstostrivefor

theimprovementinthemostdifferentfieldsoflife.Qualitycanbeapassionandevokestrongemotions,be

theypositiveornegative.

TheabovedefinitionoftheOxfordEnglishDictionaryinitiallyseemstobeobvious,buthowdoyouapplyitto

abroadersectororfieldlikecarproduction,medicineorwhatisofgreatestinteresttous,highereducation?

Thereisnoeasyanswer,althoughatthisstagewearenotevenaskingourselveshowtoachieveormeasure

quality.Maybeitiseasiertolookatittheotherwayroundanddefinewhatqualityisnot?Ineverydaylifesit-

uationsonerecognisesbadqualityquiteeasilyafterall.Thisstrategycouldhelp,butthenagainitstillmight

notleadtoadefinitionthatyourinstitution(asawhole)standsbehind,acceptsandstrivesfor.

Sowhatisquality?OrinthewordsofPirsig(1999)andBall(1985)onemightbetterask“Whatthehellisqual-

ity?”Ourfirstchapterwilltrytogiveyouanoverviewonthediscussionoftheconceptinhighereducation.

Answeringthisquestionforoneselfandtheinstitution(orprogrammeetc.)iscrucialtoestablishabasisfor

thequalityworkoftheinstitution.Itwillstructureyourqualitywork,themechanismsandinstrumentsused.

We therefore encourage you to read this chapter thoroughly, although it might seem that you are familiar

withit.Sharpdefinitionsandwell-definedgoalsandobjectivesbuildthefoundationofgoodqualityworkand

systemsandinvolvelongdiscussions.

Questions & Assignments

1 . Howwouldyoupersonallydefinequalityofhighereducationandspecificallyforyourinstitution?

Writedownuptotenbulletpointsdividedingeneralandinstitution-specificpointsandsavethe

fileforyourfuturereference.


18

1.1 What is Quality?ItisnotacoincidencethatmanypapersabouttheconceptofqualityinhighereducationcitePirsig(1999)

withapublicationofthe1970sandBall(1985)ofthemid1980s,althoughweareinthe2010s.Itmightbe

becauseitstillisaquestionraisedatdifferentlevels(frompolicydowntolectures)andonoccasionssuchas

conferences,workshopsorinternalmeetingsintheinstitutions.

Ontheonehand,thisisduetothebroadrangeofacademicdisciplineswhichareinvolvedandthosepartici-

pantswhoarenewtothediscussion,andontheotherhand,qualityhastoberedefinedoverandoveragain

inadynamicworldofhighereducation.Withoutbeingabletopredictthefuture:certaindiscussionsabout

qualitywillprobablycontinueandare,apartfromsomeeverrecurringarguments,apositivereflectionofthe

factthatpeopleareinvolvedandcareaboutquality.Intheendallthismightbeasignofacertain“quality

culture“.

Nevertheless,youwillfindandmaybeunderstandthatsomeprofessionalsandresearchersinthefieldwant

tomoveonandnotcontinuouslydealwiththequestionofwhatqualityataconceptuallevelis.Woodhouse

(2012)expressesthisfeelingthus:

“It is perhaps a sign of the newness of the field of QA that many speakers and writers still begin by

saying ‘there is no agreement on the meaning of quality’, and quote a list of five meanings from

20 years ago (Harvey & Green, 1992). Even worse, for years we have been assailed with a quote

from 40 years ago, namely ‘What the hell is quality?’”

(Woodhouse 2012, 7)

Fortherecord,backin1974thephilosopherPirsigwrote:

“Quality - you know what it is, yet you don‘t know what it is. But that‘s self-contradictory. But

some things are better than others, that is, they have more quality. But when you try to say what

the quality is, apart from the things that have it, it all goes poof! There‘s nothing to talk about.

But if you can‘t say what Quality is, how do you know what it is, or how do you know that it even

exists? If no one knows what it is, then for all practical purposes it doesn‘t exist at all. But for all

practical purposes it really does exist. What else are the grades based on? Why else would people

pay fortunes for some things and throw others in the trash pile? Obviously some things are better

than others - but what‘s the “betterness“? So round and round you go, spinning mental wheels

and nowhere finding anyplace to get traction. What the hell is Quality? What is it?”

(Pirsig 1999, 139 et seq.)

Fromthewayinwhichthequestionisposed,itisunmistakablethatdefiningqualityisnotaneasytask,one

mightsayitalmostfeelslikenailingjellytoawall.Thisbeingsaid,youwillnotbeabletodefinethequalityof

others,forexampleforfaculties,studyprogrammes,researchorlectures.Qualitymanagersarehoweveran

importanthingebetweenthefieldexperts,stakeholdersandthequalityassurancecommunityandresearch.

Theyareafacilitatorandmoderator,theretoinitiatethediscussionandhelpthoseinvolvedtodealwithand

definequalityforthemselves.


19

1.1.1 What Quality is Not... Asdepictedintheintroduction,sometimesitiseasiertolookatthingstheotherwayround.Ifwelookatqual-

ity,itisoftenmisunderstoodorusedasasynonymforqualityassuranceorstandards.

Quality assurance doesnotdefinequality,itchecksthequalityofprocessesoroutcomesandcanhavethe

purposeofcompliance,control,accountabilityorimprovement/enhancement.(Harvey2012,6)Theimpor-

tantdifferenceisthatqualityisaconceptandqualityassuranceisacollectionofmethodsonhowtocheck,

maintainandenhancequalitywithdifferentprocesses,toolsandinstrumentsondifferentlevelsstartingfrom

thepolicyallthewaydowntotheprogrammeandcourselevel.

Standardsareoftenwidelymisunderstoodandsometimesusedasasynonymforquality.There is indeed

acloserelationbetweenthetwoterms.Astandardcanbeapre-setcriterion(e.g.lecturesshouldberated

“good”inevaluationsofthefaculty)oralevelofattainment(e.g.thelecturesofthefacultyhavebeenrated

“average”bythestudents).Usuallystandardsaremeasurableindicatorsandusedwiththemeanstocom-

pareandassessthings.Qualityontheotherhandreferstotheprocess(e.g.howthelecturehasbeendone).

Amuchdiscussedtopicwhentalkingaboutstandardsandqualityiswhetherthequalityoftheeducational

processcanbemeasuredbythestandardoftheoutcomes.(Harvey2004-14;Harvey2012,7)

Quality vs.quality assurance vs.standards

Quality vs. Standards - A Golf Analogy

Harveytriestomakethedifferencebetweenqualityandstandardsclearerwithagolfanalogy:

“A quality standard is a fixed criterion, that specifies implicit or explicit expectations or

norms. In golf, each course has a par score for each hole, which is the number of strokes

that an accomplished player would be expected to take in normal conditions (in this analo-

gy, the quality standard could also be described as a benchmark). The actual score achieved

by a player is equivalent to the standard of achievement, which may be more or less than

the par score (quality standard) depending on the climatic conditions. The standard is dis-

tinct from (although not entirely independent of) the quality of the play. A golfer may make

excellent shots but is unlucky with the lie of the ball or is faced by very bad weather and

so may not score well. Conversely, some poor quality play may result in lucky breaks and

a good score”.

(Harvey 2004-14)

Quality Standards

View on: Process Outcomes

Refers to how things are done Usedtomeasureoutcomes

Golf analogy: Eleganthitoftheball Good score

Table 1 Quality vs. standards (Harvey 2012, 7) (own table)


20

Therearefourbroadtypesofstandardsinhighereducation:

1 . academic standardswhichrelatetotheintellectualabilitiesofstudents

2 . standards of competencewhichrelatetothetechnicalabilitiesofstudents

3 . service standards whichrefertotheserviceprovidedbytheinstitutiontothestudent

4 . organisational standardswhichareprinciplesandproceduresbywhichtheinstitutionassuresthatitpro-

videsanappropriatelearningandresearchenvironment(Harvey2012,8)

Nowthatwehavepartiallydefinedwhatqualityisnot,bydifferentiatingitfromstandardswhichareoften

mistakenlyusedasasynonym,wecanfurtherexplorethedifferentdefinitionswhichhavebeenmadefor

highereducation.

1.1.2 Concepts of QualityAkeydebatewhendiscussingqualityisifqualitycanbedefinedforhighereducationingeneral.Overthir-

tyyearsofqualityassuranceinhighereducationhasnothelpedtogenerateagrowingconsensusonhow

todefinetheconceptofquality,butonthecontraryhasgivenbirthtoamuchlargerdiversityofconcepts

(Damme,2002,43).

Ifyouaskvariousstakeholdersinhighereducationtodefinequalityforhighereducation,theywillmostprob-

ablyalldefineitwithaverydiversefocusasshowninthetablebelow.

Stakeholder Quality focus on…

Students Practicaluseandusefulnessforfutureemploymentvs.useforpersonalfulfilment

Lecturers Processes of learning

Management Achievementsoftheinstitution(tangibleandintangible)

Alumni Jobopportunities

Employers Competences of the graduates

Politics Percentage/numberofalumni

Community/society Ethicalandsociallyresponsiblepersons Productionofnewknowledgetocopewithpresentand future challenges

Table 2 Stakeholder quality focus exemplary comparison

Theexamplesaboveshowjustonewaythegroupsofstakeholderscouldseeitandnotevenallpossiblestake-

holdersarelisted.Leisyteetal.(2013,3)forexamplefurtheraddsparents,administrators,mediaandcom-

munityrepresentativesaspossiblestakeholdersofhighereducation.Further,therearealsodifferentviews

Different stakeholder

viewson quality


21

withinthegroupsthemselves.Certaingroupscouldevenchangethefocusovertime:whenstudentsbecome

alumnitheyoftendefinequalitydifferentlyduetochangedprioritiesandperspectives.

Thelargediversityofdefinitionshasledmanyscholarstodeductthattheconceptborrowedfrombusiness

andindustryisnotsuitableforhighereducation.(Nicholson2011,4)HarveyandGreen(1993)tookanoth-

errouteandinsteadoftryingtofindonedefinitionforall,theyhaveidentifiedfivedifferentapproachesto

definequalityandhavecategorisedthem.ThefollowingpartintroducesthecategorisationprovidedbyHar-

vey(2012,11–29)themostcurrentdefinitionofhisandGreen’squalityapproach.Youwillfindatablewhich

givesyouanoverviewofthedifferentconceptsincomparisontostandardsinAnnex1.

1. Quality as exceptional or excellencehasthreedifferentvariations:

1.1.intermsofthetraditionalnotionofqualityasdistinctive

1 .2 . in terms of exceeding high standards - excellence

1.3.intermsofpassingarequiredstandardcomparabletoathreshold

The traditional notion isassociatedwithsomethingexclusiveandsuperior.Thisnotion isnotdetermined

byanassessmentbutderivesfromtheexpectationthataneliteeducationwithitsbarriers,ownrulesand

uniquenesscanonlybequalityassuch.Thereisnorealcriterionexceptthebadgeofeliteeducationwhichis

deductedfromreputationandderivedfrommanyyearsofexistenceandhistoryforexample.Thistraditional

conceptisofnovalueforthequestiononhowtoassessqualityandmeasureit.

Thesecondapproachunder this category isquality as excellence. Excellence isaword that isoftenused

insteadofquality. Incomparisontothetraditionalnotion,theexcellencenotionhasstandardsonehasto

complywith,whichdoesnotmeanthesestandardsareobjective.Anexampleofthisnotionwouldbetaking

thebeststudentsandprovidingthemwiththebestresources(input)andthenexpectingexcellence(output).

Itdoesnotmatterhow(process)andiftheinputactuallyaddedvaluetothestudentsexcellingbutoneonly

looksattheinputandtheoutput.Therearealsootherviewsofqualityasexcellence,forexampleexternal

parameterssuchaspublications,awardsandresearchgrants.

Thethirdandlastnotionofqualityasexceptionalisfarlesselitistandseesquality as something that passed

a set of checks to assure minimum standards. These minimum quality standards are granted when a certain

definedthresholdispassed.Thestandardscanbesetinternallybytheinstitutionorexternallybyaministry,

agencyorassociationforexample.Thisapproachmakestheassumptionthatthenatureofstandardsisobjec-

tiveandneverchanging,butbeingtheoutcomeofanegotiation,standardsareneverobjectiveandalways

subjecttorenegotiation.

2. Quality as perfection or consistency (‘zero defects’)

Thisnotionseesqualityintermsof’zerodefects’and‘gettingitrightthefirsttime’,meaningalsothatquality

isaculture.Comingfromourfirstdefinitionofqualityasexceptionalorexcellence,withthisnotionwemove

fromthemeasurementofoutcomestoprocesses.Qualityismeantassomethingconsistentorflawless.This

notionreplacesthefocusonexclusivitywithademocraticapproachinthesenseofmakingqualityaccessible

toeveryone.Qualitycultureisseenasaphilosophyofpreventionratherthanpurequalitycontrolandthere-

foreinspection.

Fivequality concepts according to Harveyand Green


22

Theapproachhasbeencriticisedasinapplicabletohighereducation,becauseitwouldproduceuniformgrad-

uatesorresearchinsteadofbeingindependent,criticalandanalytical.Butthe`zerodefects`approachdoes

nothavetobeusedforresearchandlearning,insteaditcouldbeagoodchoiceforprocesseslikestudent

gradingandservicesofferedbytheinstitution.

3. Quality as fitness for purpose

Thisapproachdefinesquality intermsofhavingaproductorservicethatmeetsthepurposeofwhatit is

supposedtodoastofulfilaspecificationorstatedoutcome.Qualityisjudgedbythefulfilmentlevelofpur-

pose.Therefore,itislikethe‘zerodefects’notionrelativeandinclusiveandnotelitistorspecialnorperse

difficulttoattain.Itisfunctionalandnotexceptional.Doesthismeanthateverythingthatisdoingwhatitwas

designedforistobeconsideredquality?

Thisraisesthequestionofwhodeterminesthepurposeandifthepurposeisagoodone-thequestionoffitnessof

purpose.Thepurposecanbemission-basedofthehighereducationinstitutionwhichsetsitsowngoalsandobjec-

tivesoritcanbecustomer-drivenwhichweprefertotranslateintostakeholder-drivenforhighereducation1 .

Thepurposecanbesetexternallysothatfitnessforpurposebecomescompliance.Othersseethepurpose

difficulttodefine,whichiswhyfitnessofpurposehasbeenintroducedtoevaluateifthequality-relatedinten-

tionsofanorganisation,serviceorproductareadequate.

Whilefitnessforpurposeallowedinclusivequality,becauseeverythingcanpotentiallyfitthepurposeand

therefore,everythinghasachancetobeofquality,thefitnessofpurposesetabarriertothisinclusiveness

byquestioningacceptablepurposeswithanexternalview(i.e.stakeholdersortheone’sownmission/vision).

Therefore,fitnessforpurposeshouldonlybeseenpairedwithfitnessofpurpose,otherwisepurposescould

bedefinedthathavenoreachorarenotsustainableandadequate.

4. Quality as value for money

Valueformoneyseesqualityintermsofefficiencyandeffectiveness.Thequalityofprovision,processesor

outcomesarejudgedrespectivelyagainsttheexpensesneeded.Inessence,qualityisseenasthereturnon

investment.Therearetwomajorviewsvalueformoneycanbedividedinto:

1. qualityasinreachingaspecifiedoutcomeatthelowestpossiblecost

2. qualityasinreachingaspecifiedoutcomeatacostthatisacceptableorthatsuitsthecustomer.

Valueformoneyisconnectedtoefficiencyandeffectiveness,reachinggoalswiththeleastresourcespossible.

Itbecomesincreasinglyimportantintimesofbudgetshortages.

Asanexampleofvalueformoneyinhighereducation,governmentsoftentrytospendaslittleaspossibleon

highereducationbuthaveaccountabilitymechanismstomakesuretheyreceivevalueformoneyfromthein-

stitutions.Alsostudentswhohavetopaytuitionfeesseekmorevalueformoneythehigherthetuitionfeeis.

1 Itisanopendebateiftheterm“customer”isappropriateforhighereducationandontheotherhandwhothecustomersofhigher educationare.Weuse ithere forexplanationpurposes, followingHarvey (2012).Thosewhoagree,seethestudentsas themain customer,oftenbeing in countrieswhere students largelyfinancehighereducationwith fees.Otherseven see the studentsasa productofhighereducation(Conway,Mackay,&Yorke1994,31).Weprefertousethetermstakeholderinthehighereducationen- vironment in order to clearly distinguish it from industry and production. A summary of the customer debate can be found in Redding(2005).


23

5. Quality as transformation

Thetransformativenotionofqualityseesqualityintermsofaqualitativechangeandasaneverendingpro-

cess.Thetransformationaccountsbothfortheindividualandtheorganisation.Ineducationitappliesmostly

totheenhancementandempowermentofstudentsintermsofchangethroughthelearningprocessbutalso

moregenerallytonewlycreatedknowledgeintheinstitutionforexampleinordertoenhancetheprovision

oftransformativelearningfortheirstudents.Therearetwounderlyingprinciplesofthetransformativeview

ofquality:

1 . enhancingthestudents–meansthatqualityeducationhaseffectsonthestudentsandsupposedlyenhanc-

esthem.Itcanthoughalsorefertoenhancingtheserviceprovidedbytheinstitution.

2 . empoweringthestudents–meansenablingthestudentstoinfluencetheirowntransformation.Inorder

toempowerthestudents,theyneedtobeinvolvedinthedecision-makingofthetransformationprocess

whichwill then lead to self-empowerment. Independent learning contracts for examplehave students

negotiatetheirlearningexperienceincludingtheassessment.Otherexamplesthatcanleadtoempower-

mentarefeedbackevaluations,guaranteesofminimumservicestandards,provisionofchoicesanddevel-

opmentofstudents’criticalreflectiveability.

Qualitythoughtastransformationneedsamongothers

“shifting from teaching to learning; encouraging critical reflection; developing explicit skills, atti-

tudes and abilities as well as knowledge; developing appropriate assessment procedures; reward-

ing transformative teaching; encouraging discussion of pedagogy; linking quality improvement to

learning”

(Harvey 2012, 28)

Transformationgoesbeyondenhancingorimprovingorjustaddingtohighereducationandstudents.Accord-

ingtoHarvey(2012,28–30)thisnotionunitesallotherdefinitionsofqualityandismostlyaboutaqualitative

changeofstate.Itmeansthatnotonlyisinformationincreased,butthatthewayitisprocessedchangesand

allowsstudentstoreconceptualise,transfer,analyse,synthesise,thinklaterallyandbecritical.


24

1.1.3 Defining QualityWatty(2006)arguedthattodefinequalityinhighereducation,youhavetoaskthoseclosesttoacademia,

teachingandlearning:thestudentsand/ortheacademics.Theoutcomeofhissurveyamongacademics(only)

was,that“qualityinaccountingeducationoughttobeabouttransformation,definedinthequestionnaireas:

aunique,individuallynegotiatedprocessbetweentheteacherandthelearner,wheretheparticipantistrans-

formed”(Watty2006,298).Inouropinionthiswouldbetoonarrowbecausethereareotherstakeholders

suchasthestate,theemployersandalumnitobeconsidered.

Somescholarsinterpretthemanydiverseconceptualisationsofqualityinhighereducationasproofofthe

conceptcomingfromindustryandtheeconomy,notbeingsuitablefortheeducationalcontext.(Nicholson

2011,4)Itisacentraldebateaboutqualityinhighereducation,“whetherconceptsderivedfromtheprofit

centredsectorcanbereadilytransferredtopublicserviceorganisations”(Green1994,7).Thisdebatewill

also appear in Chapter 3,whereinternalqualitymanagementmodelsarediscussed.Thedifferencesderive

fromhighereducationinstitutionsandacademiabeingaspecialformoforganisationwithlivedconceptssuch

asacademicfreedom,notsodefinedchainsofcommand,andtheprocessofeducationbeingdifferentfrom

manufacturingproducts(Redding2005,410).

Harvey’sandGreen’ssummaryof thedifferentconceptsofquality inhighereducationclearlydepict that

qualityismulti-dimensionalandcomplex.Dependingonwhodefinesquality,towhichstakeholdergrouphe/

shebelongsto,qualitygetsinterpreteddifferently.Thereisnot‘one’singledefinitionofit.Thismakesiteven

moreimportantthatqualityisclearlyspecifiedanddefinedforeachpurpose.TodefinequalityforanHEIfor

exampleonemightmakeuseofsomeoftheperspectivesofthestakeholdersshowninthepreviouschapter

andselectivelymakeuseofstandardsasaminimumthreshold.

HarveyandKnight(1996)seethenotionofqualityastransformationas incorporatingtheotherfourcon-

cepts theydescribedandthatwehavesummarisedabove.Withthe focusondevelopmentand improve-

mentandthemainconcernofenhancingandempoweringthestudents,theyseequalityastransformation

asameta-concept.(Harvey&Knight1996,14etseq.)Theotherconceptsontheirownfailtoencapsulate

thewholemeaningofqualityandcanonlybepartialdefinitionsastheyjustassessprovisionsoroutcomes

againstcriteria,betheyabsoluteorrelative.Thatiswhyinourview,qualityastransformationmightbethe

bestchoicetoseequality.AsHarveyputsit:

“Transformative quality encourages an approach that sees quality as a dynamic and continuous;

that does not simply encourage improvement but enables a process of transformation of the stu-

dent, the researcher and the institution”

(Harvey 2012, 30)

HoweverHarveyandGreens(1993)approach,withthemanydifferentdefinitionsandsubdefinitionsofqual-

ity,hasbeencriticisedasnotbeinghelpfulforeverydaypractitioners.Woodhouseforexamplesaysthatby

noweverybodyshouldhaverecognised,thatBall(1985)hadalreadyfoundthesolutiontothequalityquest,

namelyfitnessforpurposewhichforhimincludesthefitnessofpurposeconcept.Woodhousearguesthat

thisdefinitionissortofameta-conceptinthewayHarveyseesitforthetransformationnotion.Fitnessfor

purposecoversallothernotions,“becauseallofthemimplyaspecificcharacteristicorgoal(i.e.purpose)that

Deciding onanotion ofquality


25

shouldbeachieved.[…]andprovidesan‘organisingprinciple’forapproachestotheachievementandcheck-

ingofquality.Itis,furthermore,aprinciplethatacknowledgesthedifficultiesinherentindefiningandachiev-

ingqualityincomplexsystemsandaddressingtheseinanappropriateway”(Woodhouse2012,7).

UsingfitnessforpurposeisonewaytodefinequalityanditmightalsobeaneasierapproachthanHarvey

andGreenstransformationnotion.Ontheotherhand,itcouldcometooshortforcertaininstitutions.Aswe

havealreadynotedintheintroduction,qualityremainselusiveonagenerallevel.Beingarelativeconcept,it

furtherhastobeseenalsoasdynamicandchanging.

Aqualitydefinitionthatworksforoneinstitutionmightnotbeimplementableforanotherinstitution.Also

asmallinstitutionwithfewsimilarstudyprogrammesmightbeabletodefinequalityindetailforthewhole

institution,whereasalargeinstitutionwithverydiverseprogrammesmightbettersetageneralqualityframe

definingthespecificsinthedepartmentsorprogrammes.

Wethereforesuggesttoadequatelyanalyseyourowncontextatyourhighereducationinstitution,especially

lookingathowandwhichstakeholderstoinvolve,andtoseekyourveryowntransparentqualitydefinitionby

meansofdiscussioninyourinstitution,constantlyupdatingitandthesystemaswellasinstrumentsbehindit.

Togiveyoufurtherfoodforthoughtandtoshowapossibleway,wewillintroduceabasiccontext-input-pro-

cess-outputframeworkandfurtherintroduceyoutoimportantrelationsofteachingandlearningwithother

coreservicesandfunctionsofhighereducationinstitutionsthatcanhelpyoutodefinequalityfordifferent

levelsatyourinstitution.


1.Whichqualityconceptwouldyoupersonallyfollow?

2.Whichdefinition/swouldyousaythatyourowninstitutioncurrentlyappliesandwhy?

Further Reading

Harvey, L. (2012).Understanding quality. InHarvey, L., Kohler, J., Bucher,U.,& Sursock,A.Best

of the Bologna Handbook. Understanding Quality in Higher Education 1(pp.5–34).Berlin:Raabe.

Leisyte, L.,Westerheijden,D. F., Epping,E., Faber,M.,&deWeert,E. (2013). Stakeholders and

quality assurance in higher education. Enschede: Center for Higher Education Policy Studies.

Sharrock, G. (2000).Why students are not (just) customers (and other reflections on life after

george).Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 22(2),149–164.

Quality = fitnessfor purpose?


26

1.2 Quality Dimensions and Framework: Input, Process, Output, Outcome, Impact and Context

Wehave learnedthatquality isacomplexandmulti-dimensionalconcept.Quality ineducationhasmany

different stakeholdersmaking itdifficult forhighereducation institutions to liveup toall thediverseand

sometimesconflictingconceptionsandexpectations(seeChapter 1 .3 .2).Theinstitutionmustbeawareofits

stakeholdersandtheirrole,expectationsandviews.Whoareourstakeholdersandhowdotheyseequality

ofhighereducation?Whataretheirneeds?Regularexchangeshouldbeorganisedwiththestakeholders,and

instrumentsthathelptofillblindspotsshouldbeimplemented.

Qualitycanbeseen infivedimensionsthatwearegoingtodiscuss: input,process,output,outcomeand

impact.Ontheonehand,itisimportanttokeepinmindthedistinctionwhenassessingqualityandonthe

otherhand,itcanbeusefultodefinequality.Furtheritisimportanttoconsiderthecontextofyourinstitution.

Beingawareofthesestagesandthecontextisimportantforqualityassuranceingeneralathighereducation

institutions.

Theproductivesystemasaframeworkwhereinputsaretransferredintooutcomesisoneofthemostfre-

quentlyusedmethodstodescribeandclarifyeducationalquality.(Scheerens,Luyten,&Ravens2011,35–37)

Inlightofthedifficultyindefiningquality,itcanbeusedasatooltonegotiateandunitethedifferentstake-

holdersbothinternalandexternaltoacademiaintheirviews,wishesandrequirements.Thatbeingsaid,it

mightbeanimpossibletasktospecificallydefinequalityforthewholeinstitution,depending,forexample,

onthedifferentculturesandcontextofthefaculties.Onewaytocopewiththiscouldbetogenerallydefine

qualityofteachingandlearningontheinstitutionallevel(e.g.withguidelines)andleaveroomforspecific

definitionsinthefacultiesordepartments.

Figure 1 A basic sytem model on the functioning of education (adapted from Scheerens 2011, 36)

AboveyoucanseeabasicsystemframeworkadaptedfromScheerensetal.(2011,40)onthefunctioningof

education,whichwewillfurtherreviewstepbystepasappliedtohighereducationinstitutions.Themod-

elaboveisbasicandcanhelpyoutodefinequalitybyadaptingittoyourownsituation.Inthe“processor

Usinga basicmodel

todefine quality

input process or throughput

system levelinstitutional levelprogramme level

course level

output, outcome, impact

context


27

throughputbox”,youcanconsiderdifferentlevels:suchasthesystemlevel,theinstitutionallevel,thestudy

programmelevelandthelectureslevelandinfactalsoanyprocess.Thecontextcouldbeforexampletoincor-

porateexternalqualityassurancesystemsbygovernments.Apartfromthatisimportanttogenerallykeepin

mindthefollowingwhensettingupyourframeworkmodel(Scheerens,Luyten,&Ravens2011,36etseq.):

Recognisethehierarchicalnatureofconditionsandprocesses(multi-levelgovernance).

Differentiateoutcomesinoutputs,outcomesandimpact(seebelow).

Includetheregional,nationalandownHEIcontextdimension.Thecontextisasourceofinputsandcon-

straintsbutontheotherhandaffectsandprovidesrequiredoutputs/outcomes/impacts.

ThemodelweusehereisalsoknownastheCIPOmodel(i.e.Context,Inputs,ProcessandOutput)andisfre-

quentlyusedinevaluationstudies.Othermodelscouldbeusedtoo:Chua(2004)forexamplebasedherstudy

ontheperceptionofQualityinHEontheI-P-Omodelcomingfromsoftwaredevelopmentthoughthisdoes

notconsiderthecontext.TheContext,Input,ProcessandProduct(CIPP)EvaluationModelofStufflebeam

(1971;2012),isanotherevaluationmodeloftenusedineducation(seemoreonevaluationtheoryandcon-

ceptsinModule2)thatcouldbeused.

1.2.1 Input Dimension Inputsinhighereducation,andingeneral,aretheresourcesavailablewhichareputinplacefortheowngoals,

servicesorproductsoftheinstitution,organisationorcompany.Inhighereducationthisbasicallymeanspro-

vidingtheenvironmenttostudentsfortheirindividualknowledgedevelopmentbutontheotherhandcan

alsomeantherecruitingofstudentsthemselves2.Generallytheinputscanbedividedintothreecategories

which we can add to our model:

1. financialandmaterialresources(budget,facilities,equipmentandmaterials,incentives,etc.),

2. humanresourcesandstaffqualifications(professors,lecturers,tutors,administration,

servicepersonneletc.),and

3.serviceresources(studentsecretariat,careercentre,studentcounselling,studentexchangeetc.).

Alsothestudentsthemselvesandtheirbackgroundconditions(socialbackgrounds,diversity,studentaccess

etc.)canbeseenasinput.Fortheframeworkmodel,youhavetoconsiderwhattherealityofinputsatyour

institutionisandwhatcould influencethequalityofteachingandlearning. Inanutshell:whichandwhat

inputdoIneedforteachingandlearningofhighquality?

As already explained with the traditional notion of quality, which sees excellence inmobilising the best

resourcesforthebeststudentsavailable,focusingoninputsdoesnotnecessarilyleadtotheimprovement

orenhancementofquality.Onthecontraryitissaidtohave“theeffectoflockingasystemintoasetwayof

doingthingsandinhibitinginnovation”(Horn&Mackey2011,1).

2Nottobeseenstrictlyinasenseofstudentsbeinginput(althoughsomemightthinkofitthatway),butstillwecanrecognisethatthe students’backgroundandintellectualcapacitymatterinhighereducation.

Input: What is needed for teaching and learning to beginwith?


28

1.2.2 Process DimensionTheprocessdimensiondescribeshowthingsaredoneandissometimesablackboxfororganisations,mean-

ingthereisnoknowledgeavailableabouthowtheinputsgettransformedintooutputs.

Figure 2 Process as a black box

Examplesoftheprocessofteachingandlearningandpossiblequestionstodefinequalitythereinare:

Teacherandstudentbehaviour–howistheprocessofteachingandlearningworkingandhowshould

goodteachingandlearningbedoneattheinstitution?Dolecturersconsiderdiverseformsoflearning

for example?

Administration–howdoestheadministrationsupportthestudentsandacademics

in teaching and learning?

Research–whatistheroleofresearchinteachingandlearning?Howaretheyconnected?

Qualityassurance–whatistheroleofqualityassuranceandwhatdoweexpectfromit?

Curriculum–howarecurricularunandwhatisagoodcurriculum,whatshouldithaveornothave?

Theprocessdimensionismostcrucial forteachingandlearningqualityastheteachingandlearning itself

aretobeseeninthisdimension.Constraininginputscanbeaddressedorbalancedandmodesofhowthings

shouldorhavetobedonecanbesettoachievetheobjectivesandgoals.

1.2.3 Output, Outcomes and Impact DimensionsSometimesinarticles,modelsorframeworksyouwillonlyseeoutputattheendoftheprocesses.Thiscould

besuitablefortheproductionofgoods,butforeducation(andothercasestoo)oneshouldwidentheview

and include outcomes and impacts .

Outputisgenerallythemoredirectresultoftheprocess.Intheproductionandserviceindustryitwouldbe

forexamplethegoodsattheendofproduction,theserviceofferedorrevenueandprofits.Consideraphar-

maceuticalcompany,whichasaresultofitsworkhasanewdrug.Thiswouldbetheoutput.

In comparison to outputs, outcomesareastepupthehierarchyladder.Outputsaretheendoftheprocess;

outcomesarechangesthathaveoccurredbecauseoftheprocess.Outcomesarewhattheoutputsinfluence

andachieve, thebenefitsothers receive fromtheoutputsor thechangestheystarted,bethey intended,

unintended,expectedorunexpected.Takingthepharmaceuticalcompany’sexampleagain,thiscouldbethat

people are cured thanks to the drug .

Output, Outcomes

and Impact: What is and shouldbeat

the end of the teaching and learning

process?

Process: How does

teaching and learning work

and how shoulditbe?


29

Impacts ontheotherhandarelongtermorindirecteffectsoftheoutcomesandthereforeveryhardtomeasure

andtolinktotheprocesses:“In the end, impacts are what we hope for but outcomes are what we work for”(Pen-

na2011,20)isafamouscitationinthecontextofthenon-profitsectorinthisregard.Stayingwithourexample,

theimpactcouldbereducedstatehealthcostsbecauseofthenewdrug.Thecommonalityofoutputs,outcomes

andimpactsisthatallofthemcanbeintendedorunintended,positiveornegativeandexpectedorunexpected.

Itissometimesnoteasytodifferentiatebetweenoutputsandoutcomes.Tohelp,thedifferencecanbeseen

asextrinsic(output)vs.intrinsic(outcomes)andinthecontentrelation:outputsarenotcontentrelatedand

arenotbenefitsorchangesachievedforthestudentsorstakeholders.

Thetablebelowwillgiveyousomemoreexamplesforthedifferentiationinhighereducation.Thedifferent

levelsonlyservetoshowdifferentimpactstheycouldbetargeting,butoutput,outcomesandimpactscould

bepersethesameforallofthem.

Level Output Outcome Impact

Lectures Studentswithpassedexam

Studentswithknowl-edge and skills on topic of the lecture

Studentssuccessfullymasterthefinalexamsandgraduation

Study programme Graduates with diploma Graduates with increased knowledge andskillswhofindarespectivejob

Graduateswhoserveandimprovesocietyandthe economy and are successfulintheirjob

System Increaseofnumberingraduates

Qualifiedworkforceforsocietyandlabourmar-ket

Highereducationalsta-tusofpopulationandadvancementofsocietyand the economy

Table 3 Comparison of output, outcome and impact in higher education

Thequestionofoutput,outcomeandimpactbringsusagaintothequestionofwhoshoulddefinethepur-

poseandqualityofhighereducation.Thegovernment,thestudents,theemployers,themanagersofinstitu-

tionsortheacademicprofessionalsoreventheparentsinsomecultures?(Tam2001,49)

Highereducationinstitutionsshouldnegotiateandunitetheviewsoftheirstakeholders(whichcanbedif-

ferentfromHEItoHEI)andmanagepossibleconflicts.Thismeansstakeholderinvolvementiscrucialforthe

definitionofqualityandneedstobemanagedinorderthatthestakeholdersformulateandinputclearexpec-

tationsandideas.Thisleadsustothenextpoint,thecontextdimension,asqualitycannotjustbedefinedin

theivorytower.

1.2.4 Context DimensionThecontextissometimesneglectedorunderestimated.Aswehaveseenintheintroductiontothischapterit

isnotalwaysincorporatedintheframeworks,modelsanddefinitions.Iftherewasnocontext,onecoulddo

copyandpasteinsystemsandmechanismsofqualityassuranceinhighereducationanditwouldworkany-

where in the world .


30

Therearemanycontextualfactorswhichhavetobetakenintoaccountwhichwillleadtodifferentwaysof

definingquality.Importantcontextualfactorscanbedemographics,culturalaspects,regionalcharacteristics

aswellastheleveloffreedomandautonomyofhighereducationinstitutions.Whendefiningquality,orinthe

caseofourCIPOframework,allpossiblecontextshavetobetakenintoaccount.Somecanberestrictive,oth-

erscanbeadvantageous.Stillthekeyistoadequatelyconsiderthemandshouldtheybefoundtoberestric-

tive,findcreativewaystobestaddressthem.

Contextinthequestforqualityinhighereducationcanbe:

theinstitutionalsetting,autonomy,missionandvision

thepoliciesandstateregulations(e.g.externalqualityassurance)withpossibleguidelinesorstandards

demographicchange(increasingasinSoutheastAsiaordecreasingasinmanyEuropeancountries)

globalisationandcompetition

communityand/orstakeholderneeds

Thelistaboveisnon-exhaustive.Yourowninstitutionmighthaveitsveryownspecialorexclusivecontext.

Itcanbeinfluencedorcontrolledfromoutside,itcanprovidespecialinputandstrengthsandadvantagesor

onthecontrarybeasourceofstrongconstraints.Allthesehaveincommonthatthedirectionofinfluenceis

alwaysfromthecontext.(Scheerens,Luyten,&Ravens2011,47etseq.)


1. BuildinguponyourreflectionyoudidafterChapter 1 .1,designyourownbasicframeworktodefine

quality for teachingand learning inyourhighereducation institutionespecially focussingonthe

contextofyourhighereducationinstitution.Youwillfindaneditabletemplateinthematerialsfold-

erofModule1ontheOLP.

2. Postyour frameworkontheplatformanddiscuss thedifferentcontextswithotherparticipants.

Whatarethedifferencesandsimilarities?Cannationalpatternsbeseen?

3. Thinkofpresentingyourqualitydefinition framework todifferent stakeholders.Whatwouldbe

theircritiqueandhowcouldyoureacttoit?

1.3 The Relation of Teaching and Learning with Services, Administration and Research

ThefocusoftheTrainIQAmodulesisqualityassuranceinteachingandlearning.However,aswehaveseenin

thepreviouschapteraboutthedifferentqualitydimensions,onehastoconsiderothercoreprocessesbesides

teachingandlearningattheinstitutionusuallybeingservices,administrationand,lastbutnotleast,research

whichwewillexemplarilydescribeinthenextsub-chapters.Otherexamplesofcoreprocessescouldbedif-

ferentfrominstitutiontoinstitutionorcountrytocountry,likeknowledgetransfer,entrepreneurshipandalso

communityservice.

Context: What needs to beconsidered

from the institutional internal and

external setting?


31

Itisimportanttoknowtheinterrelationsbetweenthesecoreprocesseswhensettingupqualitymechanisms

andsystems.Eachofthesefieldscanhavetheirownqualityassuranceandinthebestcasetheyareintegrat-

edintheoverallqualityassurancesystemofaninstitution.Onthenextpageswewillfurtherrelateteaching

andlearninganditsconnectionstothesefields.

1.3.1 ServicesWithservicewemeanthegeneralservicesofferedbythehighereducationinstitutionstotheirstudentsand

employees.ThequalityofservicescansupporttheprofilebuildingofaHEIifcertainfocusesareset.Other

servicesareaprerequisiteandhavetobeavailableandworksmoothly,becausewithoutthemHEIscannot

functionandfulfiltheirpurposesandgoals.Inthislightsomeoftheserviceslistedbelowmightbeindispen-

sableforaninstitutionandforothersthecherryonthetop:

infrastructure and maintenance

ITandbroadbandinternetaccess

libraryandaccesstoelectronicbooks/journals

sports&recreation

mobilityonandtothecampusaswellasbetweencampuses

laboratories

food and canteens

scholarships

foreignexchange(manageableintheprescribedperiodofstudies)

careerservices

start-up assistance

helpdesks,counsellingandmentoringondifferenttopicsforstudents

. .etc .

Thelistcouldgoonandon,andsomeinstitutionssurelywillbeabletooffermoreservicesthanothers,it

beingaquestionofsizeandbudget.Dependingontheinstitution’sspecialisationsandcontextaswellassur-

roundings,otherspecialisedservicesmightbeofgoodvaluetoo.TheHEIhastoprovidethenecessaryservic-

esandconstantlyadjustthemtotheneedsofstudents,employeesandfaculties/studyprogrammes.Some

services,likeagoodITinfrastructure,arenowadaysamustforteachingandlearningandnoonewouldargue

thecontrary.Servicesaredirectlyconnectedwithteachingandlearning.

1.3.2 AdministrationAdministrationisafurthermaintaskofHEIswhichisdirectlyrelatedtothequalityofeducation.Apartfrom

thebasicadministrativetaskseveryemployerhastocopewith(finances,humanresources,salariesandtravel

expensesetc.)institutionsneedtomanagemanythingsrelatedtoacademiclifeandeducation:

studentadmission(organisationandrecognitionofdegrees)

studentassessment(registrationandtiming)

lecturesandseminartimetables(nooverlapping)

awardingofdiplomas(intime)

dealingwithtuitionfees


32

All inall,administrationhastoworkforteachingandlearningandothercoreserviceswithaminimumof

bureaucraticeffort.

1.3.3 ResearchTheimportancegivenbyacademicstoresearchismostlystrongerthantheonegiventoteachingandlearn-

ing. That is one of the few areas of consensus in higher education research and literature. (Young 2006,

191–194)Thisisduetothebiggerrewardsandhigherreputationresearcherscanachieveinthecommunity.

Howeveritisahighlydiscussedtopic.Youwillfindmanydiscussionsandblogpostsonthebalancebetween

teachingandresearchonline.Itsuggeststhatmanylecturersarefindingithardorhavecontraryviews.

Highereducationinstitutionscanfocusonteachingandlearningorresearchdependingontheircontext–

forsomeitmightbethebetterchoicetosurviveinaglobalisedhighereducationmarket.Somedostrivefor

researchexcellencealthoughthebasicstructureisnotgivenandmaybetheyhaveahighlocaldemandfor

highereducation.Moreregionallypositionedandnotsoresearchorientedinstitutionscouldaskthemselves,

whetheritwouldbebettertoconcentrateonteachingandeducationofstudents.Othersmightquestionsuch

a focus, since, in their opinion, a HEI needs strong research .

Researchisapillarofhighereducationanditshouldfeedteachingandlearning,thesocalledresearch-led

teaching.Thismeansthatresearchisnotonlyessentialforitselfbutalsoforteachingandlearningaswellas

theoverallsuccessoftheinstitutionandevencountries/regions.Stillitdoesnotmeanthatresearchneeds

tobethemaingoalofeveryHEI.Thisisverycontext-specificandbyanalysingit,HEIscouldfindtheproper

balancefortheirsituation.

Research as in partially funding teaching and learning:researchisnotonlyimportantandamatterofrep-

utationbutitisamainsourceforexternalfunding.Althoughtherearethefirstsignsandattemptstogive

teachingmoreincentivewithexternalfunding,itisstillonlyasmallamountincomparison.Intimesofdwin-

dlingstatefinancesthisisoftenawelcomecompensationwhichalsomeansthatpartofthemoneyisusedto

completethegeneraltaskshighereducationinstitutionsareexpectedbythepublictofulfil.Thepressureis

increasingforacademicstogeneratethird-partyfundingtosupporttheirownsalariesbutalsoinsomecases

eventeachingandlearning.

Research as in reputation for teaching and learning:goodresearchbringsgoodreputationwhichalsotrans-

formsintoagoodreputationforstudyprogrammes.Thisisespeciallythecaseforrankingswhichareoften

stronglyresearch-orientedbutstillstudentsandsocietyseethisanindicationofgoodteachingandlearning

oratleastofahigherstatusdiplomaifachievedataninstitutewithgoodresearchreputation.Studentscare

aboutwhoisdoingtheteaching.ItisnotsolvedifHEIswhichwanttofocusonteachinghirealotofjunior

staffwhomerelyteachfromtext-books.Theinputfromresearchandprojectsaremostvaluableforteaching.

Allinall,HEIsmustfindtherightbalancebetweenresearchandteachingandlearninginordertoachieve

qualityineducation,whethertheinstitutionismoreresearchorteachingandlearningoriented.However,

oneimportantstepforqualityofteachingandlearningwouldbetohaveinstrumentsofrewardforteaching

inplace,thatsupportandstresstheimportanceofteachingandlearningattheinstitution.


33

1.4 The Shift from Teaching to Learning“A common criticism of quality assurance is that it pays little attention to educational process-

es, educational theory and/or student learning and as a result, improvement or enhancement

is only incidental”.

(Nicholson 2011, 8)

Qualitydefinitionscannotonlybeinfluencedbygoals,coreprocesses,contextetc.,butalsobylearningthe-

oriesanddidacticalapproaches.Theyareonepossibleanswertothequestionwhatqualityinteachingand

learningisandbringconsequencesforthequalityworkofinstitutions(seetable4below).

Whatisgoodteachingandlearning?Sageonthestageorguideontheside?Thelastquestioninthewords

ofAlisonKing(1993)showsthecurrenttwomainoppositeviews.Wehavealreadyseenthatfocusingon

inputsdoesnotnurturechangeanddevelopmentbut it isoutcomesthatdo(Chapter 1 .2).Theparadigm

shiftfromteachingtolearningwhichcanbeobservedglobally,canbeseenasashiftfrominputtooutput

and outcomes .

The shift has its origin in student-centred learning (SCL) research in the 1980s onwards, which by

consensus is based on the idea that the student or learner is at the centre of the learning process.

(Attardetal.2010,6)Student-centredlearningisaconstructivistapproachledbytheideasofJeanPiaget.

Constructivismseesthelearners’aspro-activelyconstructingtheirownknowledgeratherthanreceivingit

fromteachersandtextbooks.Theconstructivistviewisofthestrictopinionthatknowledgecannotbejust

transmittedtostudents, theyneedtoconstruct iton theirown.Hence, the focus isnoton theteachers’

knowledgethattheytransfertothestudents,butontheknowledgeandcompetencesastudentisableto

achieve.Thishasstrongimplicationsforteachingandlearning,andisnotcompatiblewithtraditionallearn-

ing,movingthefocusawayfromtheteachertowardsthestudent.(Stageetal.1998,35etseq.)

Oneofthemostinfluentialandcitedarticlesonlearninginthelast20yearscamefromBarrandTagg(1995).

Theyanalysedthecurrentstateof teachingtheycall the“InstructionParadigm” inundergraduateeduca-

tion.Theyarguethat“ourdominantparadigmmistakesameansforanend”(Barr&Tagg1995,12),because


1.What are the core processes of your institution? Which ones could be part of your quality

definitionandhowwouldyouintegrateitforqualityassuranceofteachingandlearning?

2. Choose one crucial service at your institution and describe the role it has for

qualityandqualitywork.

3.Wheredoyouseeconflictsbetweenadministration, researchandteachingand learningatyour

institution?Howdoyouseetheidealsituationandwhatcouldbedonetoovercometheconflicts?

Student centred learning


34

instructioncannotbethegoalofhighereducationbut“ratherthatofproducinglearningwitheverystudent

bywhatevermeansworkbest”(Barr&Tagg1995,12).

Thisinstructionparadigmisoftenalsoreferredtoastraditionalorconventionallearninginliterature.Itsees

thestudentsaspassivereceptorsofinformationwithoutconsideringactiveinvolvementofthestudentsin

thelearningprocess.Oftenthemotivationderivesfromcompetitionbetweenstudentsbasedongradeswith-

intraditionallearningsettings(lectureandlaboratories).Theteacherisresponsibleforthecurriculum,setting

tasksandtoformulatetheassessmentprocedurefocusedonthenextexam.(Attardetal.2010,8)Conven-

tionallearningbymeansoffrontlecturesisamethodthathadandstillhasitsreasonsandrighttoexist,but

withnewrequirementsaddressedtostudentsandthemassificationofhighereducationanddiversification

ofthestudentbody(seeChapter 2 .4 .2 .1),itcannotbetheonlyandmainone.

Student-centredlearningisdiametricallyopposedtothetraditionallearningconceptandseesthestudents

responsible toactivelyconstructandmaketheireducationalprocesses inan intrinsicmotivational setting

ratherthantheabovedescribedcompetitionofgradesinthetraditionalnotion.(Attardetal.2010,9)TheSCL

approachgivestheteacheranewroleofasupporter,facilitatorandguideforself-regulatedlearningwhich

ontheotherhandalsorequiresnewskillsoftheteachers.(VanEekelen,Boshuizen,&Vermunt2005,447et

seqq.)

Thenewlearningparadigmcanbepartlytracedbacktothedemocratisationandmassificationofhigheredu-

cation.Withwideraccessandincreasingbirthrates(insomecountries)verydiversestudentshaveentered

highereducationinstitutions,whichhascalledfornewformsofteachingandlearning.(Attardetal.2010,

10)Theparadigmshiftstartedonpaperinthe1990sintheEnglish-speakingcountriesandnorthernEurope.

ManymissionstatementsofHEIsnowadayshavethestudentatthecentreinsomewayoranother.Thereisa

strongerfocusonskillsdevelopment,corecompetencesandlifelong-learning.(Rust2002,146)Thequestion

howeverishowfarwillthechangeinteachingmethodsandassessmentsgo.

Instruction paradigm


35

Comparison of Educational Paradigms by Barr and Tagg (1995)

The Instruction Paradigm The Learning Paradigm

Mission and Purposes Provide/deliverinstruction Transfer knowledge from faculty to students Offercoursesandprograms Improvethequalityofinstruction Achieveaccessfordiversestudents

Mission and Purposes Produce learning Elicitstudentsdiscoveryandconstructionofknowledge Createpowerfullearningenvironments Improvethequalityoflearning Achievesuccessfordiversestudents

Criteria for Success Learningvaries Inputs, resources Quality of entering students Curriculumdevelopment,expansion Quantityandqualityofresources Enrollment,revenuegrowth Qualityoffacultyinstruction

Criteria for Success Learningvaries Learning&studentsuccessoutcomes Qualityofexitingstudents Learningtechnologiesdevelopment Quantityandqualityofoutcomes Aggregatelearninggrowth,efficiency Quality of students, learning

Teaching/Learning Structures Atomistic;partspriortowhole Timeheldconstant,learningvaries 50-minutelecture,3-unitcourse Classesstart/endatsametime One teacher, one classroom Independent disciplines, departments Coveringmaterial End-of-course assessment Gradingwithinclassesbyinstructors Privateassessment Degreeequalsaccumulatedcredithours

Teaching/Learning Structures Holistic;wholepriortoparts Learningheldconstant,timevaries Learningenvironments Environmentreadywhenstudentis Whateverlearningexperienceworks Crossdiscipline/department Specifiedlearningresults Pre/during/postassessments Externalevaluationsoflearning Publicassessment Degreeequalsdemonstrated

knowledge and skills

Learning Theory Knowledgeexists“outthere“ Knowledgecomesinchunksandbits; deliveredbyinstructorsandgottenbystudents

Learningiscumulativeandlinear Fits the storehouse of knowledge metaphor Learningisteachercenteredandcontrolled “Live“teacher,“live“studentsrequired Theclassroomandlearningarecompetitive andindividualistic

Talentandabilityarerare

Learning Theory Knowledgeexistsineachperson‘smindandis shapedbyindividualexperience

Knowledgeisconstructed,created, Learningisanestingandinteractingofframeworks Fitslearninghowtorideabicyclemetaphor Learningisstudentcentered&controlled “Active”learnerrequired,butnot“live”studentsrequired Learningenvironmentsandlearningarecooperative,col-laborative&supportive

Talentandabilityareabundant

Productivity/Funding Definitionofproductivity:costperhourof instructionperstudent

Fundingforhoursofinstruction

Productivity/Funding Definitionofproductivity:costperunitof

learning per student Funding for learning outcomes

Nature of Roles Faculty are primarily lecturers Facultyandstudentsactindependentlyandinisolation Teachers classify and sort students Staffserve/supportfacultyandtheprocessofinstruction Any expert can teach Linegovernance;independentactors

Nature of Roles Faculty are primarily designers of learning methods andenvironments

Faculty and students work in teams with each otherandotherstaff

Teachersdevelopeverystudent‘scompetenciesandtalents All staff are educators who produce student learning and success Empowering learning is challenging and complex Sharedgovernance;teamworkindependentactors

Table 4 Comparison of educational paradigms (Barr & Tagg 1995, 16 et seq.) (own table)

Learningvs. instruction paradigm


36

Anotherwaytodefinegoodteachingandlearningisinthelinesoftherelationshipbetweenteachingand

learningandresearch(seeChapter 1 .4). ItcouldbeWilhelmvonHumboldt’sideaoftheunityofteaching

andresearch(EinheitvonForschungundLehre).Itbuildsupontheresearchersgainingnewknowledgefrom

teachingand theexchangewithstudents, so tospeak incorporating them into their researchandmaking

researchpartoftheteaching.Thereisno“theteacher’spurposeisthestudent”,butthepurposeofbothis

sciencewhichiscontinuouslyevolving/emergingandneverterminated.(Humboldt1809/10)Thiswouldbe

awayonhowtodefinetherelationshipofteachingandlearningandresearchwehavediscussedinChapter

1 .4 .

Studentcentredlearningtogetherwitharesearchbasedidealcouldbeonewaytodefinequalityinteaching

andlearning.Teacherswouldbeabletoinputtheirresearchandhavethestudentsdopracticalexperience

withresearchontheirown,whichcanthenbefedbacktoresearchandbeofbenefitforbothteacherand

student .


1. Comparetheinstructionapproachtoteachingwiththelearningparadigm.Whichparadigmispre-

dominantinyourinstitutionandwhichconsequencesdoyouperceivefromitforyourinstitution?

2. Howwouldyoudefinegoodteachingandlearning?

3.Whichstepswouldyouundertakeandwhowouldyouincludetodefinegoodqualityofteaching

andlearningforyourinstitution?Isthatevenpossibleforthewholeinstitutionandifso,how?

4.Whichstepswouldyoutaketodefinequalityforyourinstitution,howwouldyoutackleitandwhat

needs tobeconsidered?Preparea shortactionplan including thestakeholdersandgroupsyou

wouldinvolveandwhy.

Further Reading

Attard,A.,DiIorio,E.,Geven,K.,&Santa,R.(2010).Student centered learning. An insight into theory

and practice.Bucharest:ESU.

Barr,R.B.,&Tagg,J.(1995).Fromteachingtolearning-anewparadigmforundergraduateeduca-

tion.Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 27(6),12–26.

Possible Deductions from Defining the Quality of Teaching and Learning

Installascholarshipand/orawardofteaching

Set-upacentreforacademicdevelopmentthatpropagatesyourprinciplesandvisionofgood

teachingandlearning(theory-based)

Deductprocessesandguidelinesforteaching(theory-based)


37

Chapter 2: Quality Assurance in Higher Education

38

2 QualityAssuranceinHigherEducation MainTerminology,OriginsandMotives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

2.1 MainQualityAssuranceTerminologyinHigherEducation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

2.1.1 Externalvs.InternalQualityAssurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

2.1.2 QualityAssurancevs.QualityManagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

2.1.3 QualityControl,Assurance,Enhancement&Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

2.2 OriginsoftheQualityTalkandQualityAssuranceConcept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

2.3 QualityAssuranceinHigherEducation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

2.3.1 TraditionalWaysofAssuringQualityandStandards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

2.3.2 TrustandAccountability– NewPublicManagementandtheEvaluativeState . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

2.3.3 NewFormsofQualityAssurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

2.4 MotivesforQualityAssurance–WhyEngageinQualityAssurance? . . . . . . . . . 54

2.4.1 MorethanAccountabilityandControl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

2.4.2 ImpactsofGlobalisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

2.4.2.1 Massification,WideningAccessandDiversification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

2.4.2.2 InternationalisationofHigherEducation–Competition,Mobility, MutualRecognitionand(Regional)CommonSpaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

2.4.3 TheConceptofHigherEducationInstitutionsasLearningOrganisations . . . . . . 61

Chapter 2

Quality Assurance in Higher EducationMain Terminology, Origins and Motives


39

describeanddifferentiatebetweenmainqualityassuranceterminologies,

describethedifferencebetweenexternalandinternalqualityassurance,

describetheoriginsofqualityassurance,

describetheriseofnewqualityassuranceformsinhighereducation,

describedifferentreasonsandmotivesforHEIstoengageinqualityassurance,

reflectthemainreasonsandmotivesfortheownHEItoengageinQA.



40

2 Quality Assurance in Higher Education Main Terminology, Origins and Motives

Inthefirstchapterwehaveshownthatqualityinhighereducationisacomplexmatterandthatitisimpor-

tanttoknowthedifferentnotionsofqualityinordertobeabletodefineitforone’sowncontexttouseasa

basisforqualitymanagement.

Havingdefinedqualityasafirststep,manymorequestionsarise:howcanqualitybemeasured,controlled,

assuredandenhanced?Forallthesequestions,itcannotbeemphasisedenoughthatagoodqualitydefinition

andconceptisatthecoreofeverythingrelatedtoqualitywork:

Tohaveacommon (minimal) understandingintheinstitutionandguidelinesforthelecturersbutalsofor

thestudentstoletthemknowwhattheycanandshouldexpect

(theyshouldbeinvolvedinthedefinition).

Tobeoutwardlytransparent,toshowandprovethattheinstitutioniscaringandengagedinquality,

andgenerallytobetransparentaboutwhattheHEIunderstandsunderquality.

Toproduceownershipofqualityintheinstitutionandsupporta“qualityculture”

andraiseawarenessonthetopic.

Tostructure quality assurance,methodsandinstrumentsaccordingly–withoutadefinitionyourquality

workcouldbeunsupportiveandforexamplefocusoncontrolinsteadofenhancement.

Tobeabletomeasure qualityoftheinstitution,programmesandlecturesetc.

Another generalmain foundation is thepresenceof awell formulated institutionalmission, a vision and

objectiveswhichleadtoastrategythatcanbefollowedandconnectedwiththedefinitionofquality.

Onecrucialchallengewhicharisesfromdefiningquality,andthereforechallengesqualityassessmentand

assurancetoo,istomanagethedifferentstakeholderviewsandvoicesofquality.Theyare(always)connected

withconflictingviews.Itischallengingtogiveeachstakeholdergrouptheirrespectiveimportanceandsetup

aqualityassurancesystemthatbuildsuponthat.Thisdiversityinviewsismirroredinthedifferenttypesof

qualityapproaches,systemsandinstrumentswhichallhavedifferentprioritiesandfocuses,andwhichcon-

centrateondifferentlevels.(Tam2001,49)

Inthefollowing,wewillintroduceyoutothemainterminologiesandqualityassuranceinhighereducation,

fromitsoriginsineconomicstothecurrentstateinhighereducation,discussingthemotivesforhigheredu-

cationinstitutionstoengageinqualityassuranceandcommittoquality.

Importance ofaquality definition


41

2.1 Main Quality Assurance Terminology in Higher Education

Thewordqualityisoftenusedasasynonymforqualityassurance,althoughaswehavelearnedinthefirst

chapter(Chapter1.3.1),oneistheconceptualunderpinningandtheotherisamethodologytocheckapro-

cessoroutcomeandcanhavethedifferentpurposesofcompliance,control,accountabilityand improve-

ment.(Harvey2012,6)

Theterminology inqualityassurance isoftenambiguousandlooselyused(Martin&Stella2007,33). It is

thereforeimportanttodefinesomeofthebasictermstobuildacommonground.LeeHarvey(2004-14)has

developedaglossarywhichbuildsthebasisforourmodulepublications.3

2.1.1 External vs. Internal Quality AssuranceOnemaindistinctionwhichcanbemadeinhighereducationqualityassuranceisbetweenexternal(EQA)and

internalqualityassurance(IQA).

Bydefinition,externalqualityassuranceislocalisedoutsideofthehighereducationinstitution.Itcanthere-

forebeanythingrelatedtoqualityassurancethatisdrivenfromoutsidetheinstitutionandwhichevaluatesor

assessestheinstitutionasawholeorinregardtoacertaintopicsuchasinternationalisation,genderequality

oraprogrammeaccordingtostandardsthatareeitheragreeduponorpre-set(Sanyal&Martin2007,5).EQA

canbecompulsory,asinregulatedbylaw,orvoluntary.

Compulsory EQA:isthemostcommonwayofusingthetermEQAanddescribestheexternalqualityassur-

ancesystemsandmechanismsthataredrivenbygovernments,statesandregionswhohavelegislativepower

anddeveloppolicies,proceduresandstandardstowhichHEIshavetocomplyto.Thenationalregulatorybod-

iesexternallyassessorreviewtheinstitutionsforpurposessuchasaccountability,controlandimprovement.

TheseEQAmechanismscangiveapprovalorhaveconsequencesontheprogrammeorinstitutionwhichhave

tobeadheredto.Intheworstcaseaprogrammeorinstitutioncouldbeshutdown.

Voluntary EQA:incontrasttocompulsoryEQA,voluntaryEQAdoesnothavetheauthoritytoquestionthe

rightofaninstitutionorprogrammetoexist.Beingvoluntary,ithasthemeansofimprovementoroftenalso

tocomplywithstandardswhicharesetbyanexternalorganisation.VoluntaryEQAactivitiesoftenresultina

labelorcertificatethat,incontrasttocompulsoryEQA,hasnocontrolordecision-makingpoweronthestudy

programmesforexample.Eitherthecertificateisgiven,ornot,buttheinstitutionhasnoobligationtoreact

orcomplywithanythingaccordingtotheoutcome.Voluntaryexternalqualityassurancecanbecomparedto

externalevaluation(seeModule2).

3 Itcanbeaccessedfreelyonthe internetunderhttp://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/glossary/and isconstantlybeingup dated.Onedistinctivefeatureoftheglossary is,that itgivesthemaindefinitionandexplanationandontopshowstheanalytical discussionofthetermsinliterature.Forthepurposeofourmoduleswediscussthemostcommonlyusedtermshereusingthecore definitionofHarvey(2004-14),mostlyleavingtheexplanatorycontextandextensiveanalyticalreviewtobereadonlineifinterestor needpersists.

Different formsof EQA


42

Figure 3 Differentiationbetweenexternalqualityassurance(EQA)andinternalqualityassurance(IQA)

ThemostcommonandknownexampleforacompulsoryEQAinstrumentisaccreditation(seeChapter3.3.4)

which though in somestatesor cases canbevoluntary too.Examples for voluntaryaccreditationare the

accreditationsystemintheUSandtheaccreditationbyinternationallyactiveagenciessuchastheAccredita-

tionBoardforEngineeringandTechnology(ABET).Generally,theinstrumentandprocessisthesameasfor

compulsoryEQA.Themaindifferenceisthatcompulsoryaccreditationcanapproveaprogrammeorinstitu-

tion,approvethemwithrequirementsordisapprovethemaltoghether.VoluntaryEQAcanhaveconsequen-

cestoo(i.e.notreceivingthelabelorcertificateanditsadvantages),butnonethatcouldforcerequirements

orshutdowns.

OtherformsofvoluntaryEQAcanbeauditsorassessmentsorganisedbyregionalorganisationssuchasthe

AfricanandMalagasyCouncilforHigherEducation(CAMES),theASEANUniversityNetwork(AUN,seecase

studybelow),theEuropeanUniversityAssociation(EUA)ortheInter-UniversityCouncilforEastAfrica(IUCEA).


43

Internal quality assurance:thistermsummarisesallmechanisms,instrumentsandsystemsforqualityassur-

ancewhicharewithinthehighereducationinstitutionandensurethatthe institutionorprogrammesare

meetingtheirownstandardsandobjectives(Sanyal&Martin2007,5).Internalqualityassuranceisinfluenced

bythegoverningexternalqualityassurancesystemofthecountry(andregioninsomecases).Butgenerally

institutionsareencouragedandfreetoimplementtheirownprocessesandsystemaslongastheycomply

AUN-QA – The Need for Corporate Governance in Quality Assessment

ASEANUniversityNetwork-QualityAssurance(AUN-QA)networkisagroupofChiefQualityOfficers

(CQOs)appointedbytheASEANUniversityNetwork(AUN)memberuniversitiesandassociatemem-

bers as the focal point for coordinating activities to realise themission of harmonising education-

alstandardsandseekingcontinuousimprovementofacademicqualityofuniversitiesinASEAN.The

AUN-QAactivitiesarecarriedoutbytheCQOsinaccordancetotheBangkokAccordadoptedin2000,

whichprovidesaseriesofguidelinestopromotethedevelopmentofaqualityassurancesystemas

instrumentsformaintaining, improvingandenhancingteaching,researchandtheoverallacademic

standardsofAUNmemberuniversities.

ThefirstAUNqualityassessmentwasinauguratedin2007.AftertheinitialyearsofcarryingoutAUN

qualityassessments,thenetworkenvisagedtheneedtoestablishasetofoperatingguidelinestospell

out the roles, responsibilities and requirements of the applying universities (assessees), assessors,

observersandstaffofAUNSecretariat.Theaimwastoprovideacommonframeofreference,corpo-

rategovernanceandaccountabilitytotheAUNqualityassessmentprocessandstakeholders.

In2011,amanualon“GuidelinesforAUNQualityAssessmentandAssessors”wasdeliberatedatthe

CQOsmeeting,approvedanddistributedtoallCQOs,assessorsandworkshopparticipants.Theguide-

lineswereformulatedtomeetSection3.8oftheStandardsandGuidelinesforQualityAssuranceinthe

EuropeanHigherEducationArea,ThirdEdition,2009.Theguidelinesresultedintheestablishmentof

theQualityAssuranceCouncilin2012.ThefunctionsoftheQACouncilare:

Formulate,governandreviewdirectionsandpoliciesfortheoperationoftheAUN-QAnetwork;

Formulateandreviewguidelines,criteria,anddocumentationforAUN-QAmodels,assessment

process,assessor’sappointment,membership,andcertificationschemeandfees;

AppointAUNassessorsanddevelopthesystemfortrainingandcertifyingthem;

Endorseassessmentreportsandcertificationstatus;

Revokecertificationstatusofuniversityifitfailstohonourandfulfilitspublicandsocialduties,

undertakingsandobligationstoitsstakeholdersincludingAUN-QAnetwork;and

ApproveandrevokestatusofassociatemembershipintheAUN-QAnetwork.

Themanual also spelt out AUN-QA processes, roles of various stakeholders, code of ethics and a

no-conflict-of-interestmechanismforitsassessors.

JohnsonOngCheeBin(2015)


44

withtheexternalregulationsandpolicies.IQAinstrumentsandmechanismscanbethesettingofprocesses,

standards,internalevaluation,assessmentetc.butforexamplealsomakeuseofexternalpeers.

Aswehave seen, there isoftenanoverlapbetween the twoEQA formsand IQA.The self-assessment in

preparationofanaccreditationforexampleisalsoaformofIQAbutimplementedintheprocessofanexter-

nalqualityassuranceinstrument.ItshowsthattheboundariesbetweenEQAandIQAarefluentintermsof

instrumentsandmechanisms.Anotherexamplethatillustratesthisistheuseofexternalpeersforthepur-

poseofadepartmentevaluation:althoughexternalpeersareattheheartoftheprocess,itistobeseenas

IQA,becauseitisinitiatedfromwithintheinstitutionandcarriedoutwithitsowninterestsand“rules”that

theexternalpeersareaskedtofulfil–givingtheirexternalviewonthematterinquestion.

Wherever there is judgement and things are at stake situations can be challenging. This sometimes

accounts to the relationshipbetweenEQAand IQA too. Possible challengesneed tobe takenaccountof

whenqualityassuranceisimplemented,beitexternalorinternal,andideallywaysshouldbefoundtocir-

cumvent them.Thisappliesmostly to thecompulsorygovernmentdrivenEQAactivities.Their judgement

can have rigorous consequences for the programmes or institutions. Higher education institutions often

criticise thebureaucracyandworkloadsetby thecompulsoryEQAsystemandsometimesargue that the

national regulatory bodies are not capable of judging the quality of programmes or institutions. Most

states have addressed the latter critique by adopting peer-review based instruments like accreditation.

ButstilltherearebarrierstobeovercomeandmanyseetheneedforastrongerbondbetweenEQAandIQA

tocomplementeachotherforthejointquestforquality.Inordertoreachthisgoalthough,thereismuch

stilltobedoneonbothsides,startingfrommutualtrusttoavailablehumanexpertiseandtoneworrevised

modelsandmethods.

Highereducationinstitutionsneedtovaluetheexternalexpertise,recognisetheimportanceofstakehold-

ersandunderstandthereasonsandgoalsbehindEQA.Theyshouldnotjusttrytocomplywiththeminimum

standardstheyarerequestedtodeliverbutmakeuseoftheroomformanoeuvretheyhave.Ontheother

hand,regulatorybodiesneedtobetterunderstandhighereducationinstitutionsandseetheownershipof

qualityinhighereducationinthehandsoftheinstitutionsthemselves.


1.WhatisthedifferencebetweenEQAandIQA?

2.ArethereformsofvoluntaryEQAthatyourinstitutionundergoesandforwhatreason?

3.WhatarethemeasurestakenbyyourinstitutionthatgobeyondthecompulsoryneedsofEQA?


45

2.1.2 Quality Assurance vs. Quality ManagementThetermsqualityassuranceandqualitymanagementareeitherusedinterchangeablyordefinedasquality

assurancebeingpartofqualitymanagement.(Vlăsceanu,Grünberg,&Parlea2004,15)Theuseoftheseand

otherqualitytermsareoftenambiguous,whichmakesitdifficulttofindaconsistentdefinition.Eventhecore

definitionsoftheanalyticalqualityglossarybelowexemplarilyshowtheoverlappingofthemeaningsanduse

ofthetermsqualityassuranceandqualitymanagement.

Thefocusofourcourseisinternalqualityassuranceattheinstitutionallevel.Internalqualityassuranceispart

oftheoverallsteeringandmanagementoftheHEI,ontheinstitutionalandprogrammelevel,toensureone’s

ownpurposesandgoalsaremet.Itdefinestheintentionsandproceduresalthoughsomemightbeexternally

prescribed.(Martin&Stella2007,34)

Inourmodulepublicationseriesweuse the termqualityassuranceasanall-embracing term,comprising

externalandinternalqualityassurance(withinandoutsidetheHEIs–seeChapter2above).Insidethehigher

educationsystemsthough,weseequalityassuranceasonemeasureofqualitymanagement.Qualityman-

agementatHEIs includesallnuancesandcomponentsofqualitywork:quality control,quality assurance,

quality assessment and quality enhancement(Vlăsceanu,Grünberg,&Parlea2004,74).

Themaindistinctionbetweenqualityassuranceandqualitymanagementisthatqualitymanagementisaway

tosteerhighereducationinstitutionsinordertoimprove,enhanceanddevelopqualitycontinuously.Quali-

tyassuranceontheotherhandstopsatensuringacertainpredefinedlevelofqualityinordertomaintainit.

Qualitymanagementcanbeseenasthemanagementofchangeinordertohavehighereducationinstitutions

adapttheirdoingtoaddresscurrentandfutureneedsofthestakeholders,firstandforemostthestudents.

(Bucher2012,94)ThetwocoredefinitionsoftheAnalyticalQualityGlossary(Harvey2004-14)belowdonot

reflectthisdifferenceinmeaningasyoucansee.Weneverthelesswilladoptthisdifferentiationinourmod-

uletextbooks.

(Quality) Assurance

„Assurance of quality in higher education is the collections of policies, procedures, systems and

practicesinternalorexternaltotheorganisationdesignedtoachieve,maintainandenhancequality.“

Source:Harvey(2004-14).Continuereadingonline...

Quality Management

“Qualitymanagementistheprocess,supportedbypoliciesandsystems,usedbyaninstitutionto

maintainandenhancethequalityofeducationexperiencedbyitsstudentsandoftheresearch

undertakenbyitsstaff.”


http://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/glossary/assurance.htm

http://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/glossary/qualitymanagement.htm


46

2.1.3 Quality Control, Assurance, Enhancement & ImprovementControl,assurance,enhancement,improvement,allofthemareaddressingqualityindifferentways.They

canbeallpartofthequalitymanagementofahighereducationinstitutionandareconnectedtothedifferent

qualitynotionswehaveintroducedinChapter1.ThesameaccountstoEQAinstrumentsandmechanisms,

wheresomemightbestrongerorientedtowardsqualitycontrolandotherstowardsenhancement.

Quality control isthefundamentalqualitymechanismthatchecksandmeasuresoutputsandaimsatelim-

inatingnon-qualityattheendofaprocess.Itfocusesoninspectionandismostlyaboutmeasuringoutput

accordingtostandardswiththegoaloffindingdefects.Theemphasisreliesonassessingwhetherapre-set

thresholdlevelofqualityhasbeenmet.Qualitycontrolshouldnotbemisunderstoodasanexternalcontrol

functioninthesenseofaccountability.

Bycontrastquality assurance(seeChapter2.1.2)emphasisesthe“doingitrightthefirsttime”andtherefore

isasetoftechniquesthatnotonlylookattheoutputlevelbutalsoattheinputandprocesslevel.Quality

assurance,takesmeasuresinordertomakesurethatthedesiredqualityandgoalsarepresentasanoutput/

outcomeandthisfromtheverybeginningandplanningstages.

Whenwespeakofquality improvement and enhancement (somemightalsosaydevelopment),wespeak

ofmeasures thataddress thequalitynotionof transformationand therefore focuson continuousquality

improvementandenhancement.

Thedifferencebetweenimprovementandenhancementisverysubtleontheinstitutionalorprogrammelev-

el:forexampleimprovementofaprogrammewouldmaketheexistingprogrammebetter,whereasenhance-

mentofaprogrammewouldmeantoaddsomethingtotheexistingprogrammetomakeitbetter.Bothcanbe

seenonthesamehierarchicallevel,meaningthatonecannotsayifimprovementisbetterthanenhancement

inthatcase.Theyareoftenusedinterchangeably.

Quality Control

„Qualitycontrolisamechanismforensuringthatanoutput(productorservice)conformstoaprede-

terminedspecification.“


(Quality) Improvement

„Improvementistheprocessofenhancing,upgradingorenrichingthequalityofprovisionorstan-

dardofoutcomes.“


http://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/glossary/qualitycontrol.htm

http://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/glossary/improvement.htm


47

Quality enhancementhowever,alsoreferstotheenhancementoftheindividuallearners,affectingchanges

inthemandtherebyenhancingthem.Thisunderstandingisoftenputonalevelwiththeenhancementofthe

institutionorprogramme.Bydoingso,itistakenforgrantedthattheenhancedqualityofeducationalpro-

visionandlearningexperiencesalsoaffectthelearner,thusmakingitanindirectprocessofenhancement.

(Harvey2012,26)

Should a HEI concentrate on one of these quality components and

whichoneis“stateoftheart”?Thereisnorightorwronginchoos-

ingoneofthesepurposesandmeasures.Ifyourinstitutionisnewto

qualitymanagement,itcouldbegoodtostartbyimplementingquality

controlmechanismsfirstbeforedirectlydiving intoquality improve-

mentandenhancement.Surelytherearecertainhierarchicalaspects

bywhichqualityimprovementandenhancementshouldbetheinsti-

tutionalfocusintheirqualitymanagement.Nevertheless,qualitycon-

trol,assurance,improvementandenhancementshouldallbeseenas

optionsandconsideredcasebycase.Theycanbeaggregatedtopur-

suecertainintentionsandgoalsbestadaptedtotheinstitutionandits

context.Figure4emphasisesqualitymanagementbeinganaggregate

ofqualitycontrol,assurance,improvementandenhancement.Itdepictsthatqualitycontrolispartofquality

assuranceandqualityassurancepartofqualityimprovementetc.,butthatitisnotthecasetheotherway

around.

(Quality) Enhancement

„Enhancementisaprocessofaugmentationorimprovement.“



1.Whatisthedifferencebetweenqualitycontrolandqualityassurance?

2.Howdoyoudefinequalitymanagement?

3.Whichqualitymechanismisyourowninstitutionmainlypursuing?Pleaseelaborateanddefine

whatthenextstepwouldbe.

Figure 4 Differentmechanismsofqualitymanagement

Further Reading

Harvey,L.(2004-14).Analyticqualityglossary.QualityResearchInternational.RetrievedonJanuary

22,2015,fromhttp://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/glossary/

Vlăsceanu,L.,Grünberg,L.,&Parlea,D.(2007).Qualityassuranceandaccreditation:Aglossaryof

basictermsanddefinitions.Bucharest:UNESCO-CEPES.

http://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/glossary/enhancement.htm


48

2.2 Origins of the Quality Talk and Quality Assurance Concept

Thefirstsignsofdealingwithqualitycanbefoundasfarashundredsandthousandsofyearsago.In13th

centuryEurope,medievalcraftsmenstartedorganisingthemselvesinguildsanddevelopingproceduresfor

productandservicequality.Atthattimeproductswereinspectedandfirstmarksofinspectionandofquality

introduced.(Fisher&Nair2009,2)Itwascommonpracticefortheworkerstodecidethemselvesifapartin

theassemblywasacceptableornot.Generallytheproductwasinspectedaftercompletionandifnotjudged

acceptable,itwouldbereworkedbeforebeingreassessed.(Hinckley1997,874)Figure5belowshowshow

theprocess,whichispartlystillinusetoday,couldlooklike.

Figure 5 Qualitycontrolprocessasusedbycraftsmenintheearly1900(adaptedfromHinckley1997,874)

ThismodelwasgenerallyfolloweduntiltheIndustrialRevolution.Withtheadventofindustrialisationinthe

early1900s,massproductionledtothefactorysystemandatotalnewwayofdealingwithquality:crafts-

menbecamefactoryworkersandworkwasdividedintospecialisedandrepetitivetasks.(Fisher&Nair2009,

2)Theindividualcraftsmenwerenolongermastersofawholeproductandtheycouldnotcheckthequality

themselvesanymore,whichwasafundamentalfeatureofthecraft.Thecraftsmenvouchingwiththeirname

forthequalityofaproduct,aswestillknowittodaymainlyfromadvertising,disappeared.(Sallis2002,5)

Themainaspectofqualityatthattimewasonhowtoensurethatproductsconformtoclearspecifications

andthat there isnooronlyminimalvariabilitybetweenthesamebatchofproducts.Underthescientific

managementapproachdevelopedbyF.W.Taylor(1856-1915)thismodelwasexpandedinordertobemore

efficient.Theroleofworkerstoassurequalitybecamelessimportantandinspectiondepartmentsbecame

increasingly important. (Fisher&Nair 2009, 2 et seq.) Thesedevelopments formeda detailed inspection

systemknownasqualitycontrolwhichwashoweverstillanend-of-the-lineinspection,butmoreefficient.

Stillqualitycontrolandinspectionareincreasinglyseenasuneconomicandwastefulastheworkersarenot

includedandpossibledamagesareonlyseenwhenitisalreadytoolate.(Sallis2002,5etseq.)

Quality and themedieval

craftsmen

Industrial Revolution &division oflabour

Inspection system: quality control


49

Contietal.(2003,XIVetseq.)havedividedthedevelopmentsinhandlingqualityintofourstagesoflearning

whichtheyalignwiththeriseofnewbusinessmodels.Theygiveagoodoverviewofthedevelopmentsfrom

the1900s,startingfromF.W.Taylorandqualitycontroltotoday:

1.Thefirststagewasthebasicbusinessmodelformassproductionasdescribedabove.Incontrasttothe

earliercraftsmanmodel,itemswereassuredinbatcheswithuseofstatisticalsamplingmethodinsteadof

eachbyitsown.Thisbecametobeknownasqualitycontrolandwasbasedonthescientificmanagement

principlesofF.W.Taylorwhomadetheunderlyingstatisticaldiscoveriesofstatisticalsampling.

2.Thesecondstageintroducedtheprincipleofprevention,testingqualityintheprocessofproductionasit

sawtheend-of-production-linetestasnolongerefficient.Previously,whenproductsfailedtheinspection

theyhadtobereworked,losingvaluabletimetodothecorrections.Now,withthechartandprocessman-

agementofShewhart´sstatisticalprocesscontrol (SPC),defectswerediscoveredrightwheretheyhap-

pened,providingthefundamentsofqualityengineering.

3.Thethirdstageincludedthecustomerinthedefinitionofquality,becausemerelyhavingaworking(non-de-

fect)productdidnotequalmarketsuccess.ThenewfocushasitsoriginsinJapan,whereitwasofmajor

importancetohavetheproductrightfromthecustomer’spointofview.

4.Thefourthstagewasamoreholisticapproachandinvolvedthewholeorganisationforqualitymanagement.

Theideabehinditwas,thatitwasnotpossibletoputtheresponsibilityofqualityonlyontheshoulders

oftheworkers.NewtoolsforthewholecompanywhereintroducedwithFeigenbaum’sconceptoftotal

qualitymanagement(TQM).ThisnewconceptledtoastrongeconomicgrowthinJapanafterWorldWar

II.TQMwasfurtherdevelopedsincethen,includingamongotherthingsISO9000standardsforthequality

managementsystemandstatisticaltoolsandmethodsforprocessanalysisduetotheadventofSixSigma4 .

Thefirsttothirdstagesseequalityinanarrowsense,equatingittomeetingrequirementsoftheproduceror

customer.ThefourthstageContietal.(2003)describe,hasbeendeployedsincethelate19thcentury,when

qualitybegantorefertothewayanenterprisedefineditsbusiness,withatheorybehindit.Qualityactedasa

guidingprincipleforbehaviourwithuseoftheknowledgeandknowhowneededforit.Fromthecurrentview

pointitisdifficulttounderstandhowqualitycouldbeachievedefficientlywithoutcontrolchartsandother

associatedstatisticalmethodstoassuretheprocessesbeforethat(Fisher&Nair2009,2).

Thequalitymovementtodaycanbeseentoincorporatealltheelementssummarisedabovetoasystemlevel

thatbearsinmindthestakeholdersinvolved(Conti,Kondo,&Watson2003,XV).Figure6givesyouashort

overviewofthehistoryofqualitymanagementanddepictsthehierarchyofqualityconcepts.

4SixSigmaisaqualityassurancemodelintroducedbyMotorolainthe1980swhichiswidelyusedinindustryandfocusesonprocess andproductimprovementwithstatisticaltoolsandtechniques.ThetermSixSigmastandsfor3.4defectspermillionopportunities (DPMO)instatistics.(Coronado&Antony2002,92)OnemajorshortfallofSixSigmahasbeenseeninthelackoftheoryandresearch beyondcasestudies,whichSchroederetal.(2008),however,haveattemptedtoaddress.

Fourstages ofhandling quality:

End-of- production line test

In-process management

Inclusion ofcustomer perspective

Involvement ofthewhole organisation (TQM)


50

Figure 6 Historyofqualitymanagement(adaptedfromZollondz2011,27)

2.3 Quality Assurance in Higher EducationHistorically, quality assurance is a quite newphenomenon in higher education in comparison to industry

andtheeconomicsector.Academicsinhighereducationresearchareindisagreementaboutwhenquality

(notassurance)wasconsideredinhighereducationinstitutions.Someargueithasalwaysbeenanelement

ofacademics’professionalresponsibilities,otherssayitonlyemergedinthe1980sandothersagainseethe

interestofhighereducationinstitutionsinqualitysincethemiddleagesasasortofethosoftheprofession.

(Bernhard2014,40)

Thefollowingsubchapterswill introducetypicalandtraditionalwayshowquality inhighereducationwas

assured,andthensummarisesthefactorsthatledtonewformsofassuringqualityfromthe1980stothe

presentday.

2.3.1 Traditional Ways of Assuring Quality and StandardsInthepast,manyacademics,thepublicandministriestookitasgrantedthatuniversitiesdeliverquality,high-

ereducationaccessbeingonlyforafewchosenones,forasmallelite.Furthermore,highereducationinstitu-

tionsthemselvesdidnotseetheneedtoquestiontheirwork,itbeingbackedbytheartofscienceandthusa

traditionalviewofquality(seeChapter1.1.2).Qualityinhighereducationwasseen,andispartiallystillseen

today,assomethingnotmeasurableandonlytoberecognisedbyacademicsthemselves(Campbell&Rozsn-

yai2002,15).Academicsweremoreusedtojudgethequalityofothers(thestudentsandcolleagues)rather

thanhavingtheirownteachingandworkbejudged.Thisdoesnotmeanthattherewerenotmechanisms,

practicesandtechniquesonhowtohandleandimprovequalityinhighereducationinstitutionsbefore(Dill

2010,377).


51

Inmanycountriesqualitywas,andinsomecasesstillis,traditionallyassuredbytheregulationandcontrolof

thestate,specificallyfromthenationalministriesofeducation.Newstudyprogrammesaretherebyapproved

byministriesandgrantedexistencebybureaucraticmeans(Altbach,Reisberg,&Rumbley2009,52;Schwarz

andWesterheijden2004a,30).

Thetraditionalwayisnotthesameineverycountry,butinessencewithithighereducationinstitutionsare

stronglysteeredbythestate.Besidestheapprovalofstudyprogrammesasmentioned,ministerialstaffset

theoutlinesforthelearningofstudentsandworkofacademicsincludingforexampletheprescriptionofcon-

tent,studentexaminationpracticesandsettingtheworkloadthathastobeaccomplishedbythestudents.

Otherstatesteeringmethodsaredonewithyearlylineitembudgeting,givingcivil-servantstatustostaffand

thushavingcontrolovertheirqualificationsaswellasaregulationofthestudentadmission.(Martin&Stella

2007,27)

Withthetraditionalwayofassuringquality,highereducationsystemsweremostlynationallyfocussedand

thereforerestrictedinsizeandscope.Underthesecircumstancesnationalstandardscanbeeasilysetand

reached(Altbach,Reisberg,&Rumbley2009,52).Thestatemoreorlessvouchedforthequalityofhigher

education:Inthatregardtherewasnostrongstakeholdertoquestionqualityinhighereducation,andaca-

demicsdidtheirownworkcopingwith(orworkingaround)theregulationssetbytheministries,whilemin-

istriesdecided(orstilldecide)tovaryingextent,aboutwhichstudyprogrammestoofferandwhichcontent

theseshouldhave.

Generally,thetraditionalwayofassuringqualitywithbureaucraticcontrol focuseson inputs(seeChapter

1 .2 .1),whereas thenew formsofqualityassurancewith instruments likeevaluationand the sub formof

accreditation,canfocusoninput,processandoutput(Schwarz&Westerheijden2004a,12)aswellasout-

comesandimpacts.

2.3.2 Trust and Accountability – New Public Management and the Evaluative State

Inrecentdecadestherehasbeenalossoftrustinpublicinstitutions,andespeciallyinhighereducationinsti-

tutions.Reasonsare tobe found,amongothers, inmassificationwhich lead toadiversificationofhigher

educationanditsoutcomesfollowedbyafallofprestige.Afurtherdrivingforceforthelossoftrustwasthe

stateregulationwithnewmarketinstrumentsandtheadventofnewpublicmanagement(NPM)thatques-

tionedthequalityofhighereducationinstitutionsandcalledforaccountability.(Amaral&Rosa2010,59et

seq.)NPMistheunderlyingideabehindthedriftfromtraditionalstate-controlledhighereducationsteering

tonewformsthatshifttheemphasistoastrongerself-regulationandself-steeringoftheinstitutions.With

that,thepromiseofmoreinstitutionalautonomywasmade.WhatHEIsreceivedwasthough,notonlythegift

ofautonomy,butastrongcallandrequestformoreaccountabilitytothegovernmentandsocietyatlargein

exchange.(Schwarz&Westerheijden2004a,33)Theshiftfromthetraditionalregulationtoaframeworkpol-

icyhasbeenfurtherashifttowardsamarketandstakeholderdrivenmodelandcanbemainlyseeninEurope

butalsoinotherpartsoftheworld.(Bernhard2014,41)

State approval &control

Riseof NPM &evaluative state


52

AccordingtoPollitt(1995),NPMcomprisesakindof‘shoppingbasket’fromwhichcountrieschooseelements

tomodernisetheirpublicsectorwiththeresultthatdifferentmixturesandelementsarepresentindifferent

countries(seeboxbelow).

Underthesecircumstancesinthe1980s,NeaveobservedtheriseoftheEvaluativeState.Thehighereduca-

tionsystemshadincreasedincomplexityandhadtobemoreflexibleinadjustingtochanges.Thiswasnot

possibletobeaccomplishedwiththetraditionalcentralisedsystemswhichoverlookedandcontrolledinstitu-

tionswithstrictregulations.Theevaluativestateisthusareactionandpartoftheexperimentationofpolicy-

makerstofindnewflexibleandlessbureaucraticwaysandmechanismsthatallowinstitutionalchangeinless

time.(Amaral&Rosa2010,59etseq.)

Neave(1998),inhismodel,arguesthatwhereverthereispubliccontroloverpublicinstitutionsthereisalso

aformofevaluation.Evaluationcanshowitselfintheroutineofinstitutionalreportingonexpensesoron

studentnumbersandalumnirequestedbygovernmentsthroughguidelinelaws,decreesandaliketocontrol

institutions.Statecontrolisnowadaysseenasbureaucraticandinefficienttoassuretheabilityofinstitutions

tomeetstakeholderrequirementsandeconomicandsocialdemandsinacomplexhighereducationsystem

withmuchneededflexibilityandtheevergrowingcompetitionofthelearningsociety.Themarketbycon-

trast,isoftenseenastheanswertothenewchallenges.(Neave1998,266)TheEvaluativeStatewasobserved

inthelate1980sandseenasawaytotrytogobeyondthetraditionalstatecontrolwehaveportrayedatthe

beginningofthischapter,insearchofmorepreciseandfastresponsesfromhighereducationinstitutionsto

allowbetterjudgementandguidanceandallowbetterandfasterinstitutionaladaptationtochange.Itwasan

alternativeconcepttothetraditionalregulationandsteering.However,remotesteering,self-regulationand

exfactocontrolstillco-existintheEvaluativeState.(Neave1998,282)

Elements of New Public Management according to Pollitt (1995)

“Costcutting,cappingbudgetsandseekinggreatertransparencyinresourceallocation(includingacti-

vityorformula-basedfundingand,mostrecently,ashifttoaccrualsaccounting).

Disaggregating traditional bureaucratic organizations into separate agencies (‘executive agencies’;

’governmentbusinessenterprises’;‘responsibilitycentres’;‘stateownedenterprises’,etc.)oftenrela-

tedtotheparentbyacontractorquasi-contract(‘performanceagreement’,‘frameworkdocument’,

etc.).

Decentralizationofmanagementauthoritywithinpublicagencies(‘flatter’hierarchies):

Separatingthefunctionofprovidingpublicservicesfromthatofpurchasingthem.

Introducingmarketandquasimarket-typemechanisms(MTMs)

Requiring staff to work to performance targets, indicators and output objectives (performance

management).

Shiftingthebasisofpublicemploymentfrompermanencyandstandardnationalpayandconditions

towardstermcontracts,performance-relatedpay(PRP)andlocaldeterminationofpayandconditions.

Increasingemphasisonservice‘quality’,standardsettingand‘customerresponsiveness’.”

Source:Pollitt(1995,134)

TheEvaluative State


53

2.3.3 New Forms of Quality AssuranceTheriseofnewqualityassurancepracticesstartedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica(USA).Asoneofthefirst

stateswithmasshighereducationinthe1980s,theUSAsetregulationsthatrequiredpublicfinancedhigher

educationinstitutionstodevelopteachingassessments.Francefollowedwithnewpoliciesin1984withthe

UnitedKingdomandtheNetherlandsjustshortlythereafterin1985:theFrenchwantedtoreducebureau-

cracyintheirqualityassurancesystem,theUnitedKingdomwantedtobuildabetterlinkbetweenthelabour

marketandhighereducationandtheNetherlandsimplementedanewframeworkofQAforregulatingand

supervisingHEIs.ThesechangesthenslowlyspilledovertootherEuropeancountries,Asiaandaroundthe

world.(Dill2010,378etseq.)

QualityassuranceinhighereducationhadbeenimplementedinalmostallnationsatthetimeoftheUNE-

SCOWorldConferenceonHigherEducation in1998.Mostly, the focuswas toevaluate thequalityof the

institutionsandprogrammesofhighereducationbutthesystemsvariedsubstantially.Thischangedinthe

2000swithmany countries implementing comparableexternalquality assurancemechanismsand frame-

worksinordertovalidatetheirownhighereducationsystemandtosupportstudentmobility,joint-degree

programmesandrecognitionofprofessions.(Altbach,Reisberg,&Rumbley2009,51)Oneofthebestexam-

plesforsuchanimplementationonregionallevelistheBolognaDeclaration(1999)andwithittheprocess

startedbytheEuropeanUnionwithitsmainintentoftheEuropeanHigherEducationArea(EHEA).

Generally,anearuniversal shiftcanbeobserved inhighereducationqualityassurance,whichwent from

establishingstandardsandregulationsbeforehand(ex-ante)tomeasureandevaluatetheoutputandout-

comesafterwards (ex-post) (Altbach,Reisberg,&Rumbley2009,52).Figure7belowshowsacomparison

madebyJongbloed(2003)thatexplainsandsimplifiestheshift:hecomparesthetraditionalregulationwitha

crossingwithtrafficlightsthatregulatethetraffic(theinput),whereasthenewstatesupervisioniscompared

witharoundabout,whichgivesaframeworkwhereinstitutionscanmovefreelyaslongastheydeliverthe

wantedoutputandoutcomeswhichcouldbeseenintheexitroads.

Figure 7 Coordinationsystems:thecrossingversustherounded(Jongbloed2003,130)

Thenext chapterwill elaborateon furtherexternaldrivers that called for implementationofnewquality

assuranceformsandunderlinetheneedofhighereducationinstitutionstoengageinqualityassuranceand

implementit.

Newform ofQA introduced world-wide

From ex-ante toex-post


54

2.4 Motives for Quality Assurance – Why Engage in Quality Assurance?

Highereducationhasmanynewandrapidlychangingchallengessuchasglobalisation,technologicaldevelop-

ment,socialandpoliticaltransformation,theconceptsoflifelonglearningandofaknowledge-basedsociety.

Ontheotherhand,highereducationisnotonlyfacedwithchallenges;giventhekeyimportanceofitinour

times,manynewopportunitieshaveemerged(Bernhard2014,39).

Withallthedemandsandrequirementshighereducationinstitutionshavetofulfil,onemightaskwhyqual-

ityassuranceshouldbeoneofthem:whyisitimportantandwhatitisusefulfor?Therearemanyreasons

whyinstitutionsshoulddomorethanpolicymakersexpectthemtodoinregardtoqualityassurance.Wewill

furtherelaboratethemostimportantintrinsicandextrinsicmotivationshighereducationinstitutions(could)

havetoengageinqualityassurance.Thesereasonscanvaryfrominstitutiontoinstitution.

2.4.1 More than Accountability and ControlIntheverydiversesettingofhighereducationinstitutions,whereindividualacademicspaymuchattention

totheir freedom,noteveryoneseestheneedforqualityassurance.Often it isarguedthathighereduca-

tionhasproducedqualityforhundredsofyearsandthatqualityhasalwaysbeenthereevenwithoutquality

assurance.Sowhycommittowhatmightseemalotofpaperworkandeffortontopofallthedutiesthatare


1.Describetheoriginsofqualityassuranceandtheirdifferentstages.

2.Whydidthenewformsofqualityassuranceemergeinhighereducation?

3.Whatformofexternalassuranceofqualityispredominantinyourcountry?

4.Canqualityassuranceasexperiencedineconomicsandproduction,beamodelforhighereducation

inyouropinion?

5.Pleasedescribestateregulationofhighereducationinyourcountry,anddiscusshowautonomous

yourinstitutionisandhowmuchautonomyitneeds.

Further Reading

Dill, D. (2010). Quality assurance in higher education: practices and issues. InMcGaw, B., Bak-

er, E., & Peterson, P. (Eds.), The 3rd International Encyclopedia of Education (pp.377–383).

Oxford:Elsevier.

Neave, G. (1998). The evaluative state reconsidered. European Journal of Education, 33(3),

265–284.

Olssen,M.,&Peters,M.A.(2005).Neoliberalism,highereducationandtheknowledgeeconomy:

fromthefreemarkettoknowledgecapitalism.JournalofEducationPolicy,20(3),313–345.


55

alreadypresent?Forthetraditionalformsofqualityassuranceitwasoftenarguedthatbureaucratsarenot

abletodefineorjudgethequalityoftheirteaching,programmeandsoon.Wecouldlistmanymoreargu-

mentsthatarecommonlyusedagainstqualityassurance.

CriticismhasalwaystobeaddressedandshouldnotbeneglectedbyexternalandinternalQA.Ifyoucompare

newformsofqualityassurancetotraditionalstateregulation(seeChapter2.2)inthecaseofthelastcriticism

exampleabove,youwillfindthatsomeofthenewformsofqualityassuranceareaddressingthem:instru-

mentslikeaccreditationmakeuseofpeerswhoarefromacademiatoassessstudyprogrammesinsteadof

relyingonministerialdecisionsoncurriculaetc..

Asananswertowhyyoushouldengageinqualityassurance,wecouldjusttellyouthatthereisjustnoway

arounditforhighereducationinstitutionsinmostcountries.Giventheimportanceofhighereducationfor

societyandtheeconomyaswellasthehighamountofpublicfunding,highereducationinstitutionsneedto

beaccountabletothestateandsocietyatlarge.Statesupervisionwithcompulsoryformsofaccreditationand

standardassessments,aswehavelearned,aretherealityinmanycountriesnowadaysandinstitutionshave

toabidetoexternalqualityassuranceandshowtheyhavequalityassurancepracticesinplace.Publicinsti-

tutionsareaccountabletothestate,notonlybecausepublicmoneyisusedbutalsobecauseofthegeneral

importanceofhighereducationforsociety.

Tounderstandhowandwhyqualityassurancecanbegoodfortheindividual,theprogrammes,departments

andtheinstitution,onemustreflectonthereasonsandgoalsbehindexternalandinternalqualityassurance

withoutonlyseeingthecontrolmechanisms.Theemphasisofreflectionshouldbeaboutwhatqualityassur-

ancecoulddoforyourowninstitutional(etc.)goals.Itisimportanttounderstand,thatqualityassuranceis

notonlyaboutaccreditationandmeansofcontrolbyministriesorsuperiors.Itcanbepartofthestrategyand

thesteeringprocessesofahighereducationinstitution(seeModule5)inordertoaddressnewchallenges

andrequirementsofhighereducationwhicharegrowingandchangingatafastpace.

Thenewformsofexternalqualityassurancewithinstrumentslikequalityassuranceframeworksandaccredi-

tationcanleadtomoreautonomyandfreedomfromstateregulation.Foronceitiscrucialthatincomparison

totraditionalhighereducationregulation(seeChapter2.4.1), the institutionscan,withinacertainframe-

work,definequalityforthemselvesanddonothavetosilentlyabidebyexternalregulations.Thiscanbeseen

persealreadyasagainofmorefreedomandautonomy.

Thenextchapterswillmoredeeplyanalysewhyqualityassuranceisreceivingalotofattentioninhigheredu-

cationandanswerswhyhighereducationinstitutionsshouldandhavetoengageinit.

2.4.2 Impacts of GlobalisationGlobalisation isconstantlychanging theworldwe live in througheconomic, technologicalandsocial forc-

es.Newwaysofthinking,livingandworkingemergedwithmoretechnological,flexibleandmarket-driven

approaches.Intheareaofhighereducationsomeofthemostimportantimpactscanbeseenin

QA as responseto globalisation challenges

QA is morethan accountability

QA in exchange formore autonomy &freedom?


56

“advancedinformationtechnology,newwaysofthinkingabouthighereducationfinancing,open-

ingupformarketforcesandcommercialization,unprecedentedmobilityforstudentsandprofes-

sors,theglobalspreadofcommonideasaboutscienceandscholarship,[and]theroleofEnglish

asthemaininternationallanguageofscience”

(Altbach 2008, 2)

Theseimpactsareleadingtonewcontexts,functions,expectationsandexternaldemandsofhighereducation

institutionswhicharenotdirectlycontrollablebyanyone(Altbach,Reisberg,&Rumbley2009,23).Internal

andexternalqualityassurancesystemscanbeawayforHEIstoadapttoasteadilyandrapidlychangingworld

andtoassurethatqualityisdelivered.

Withglobalisation,differentchallengestohighereducationinstitutionsandespeciallytothequalityofhigh-

ereducationhavearisen.Assuringqualityandgivingitakeyrole,allowsinstitutionstoreflectonitsgoals,

constantlyevaluateitsowndoingandthereforebeingmorecompetitiveandmoreflexiblyadaptableinaglo-

balisedworldwithagrowingcommonlabourmarket,agrowingneedtowidenaccesstohighereducation,

withrisingstudentmobilityandchallengessuchas“braindrain”5forsomecountries,averydiversestudent

population,massificationormoregenerallychangesinthedemography.

2.4.2.1 Massification, Widening Access and DiversificationTheUnitedStatesofAmericawerethefirsttoexperiencethemassificationofhighereducationinthe1920s.

Europe(1960s)andpartsofAsia(1970s)followedthereaftermakingmasshighereducationsystemsaglob-

alphenomenon.Thegrowthinstudentnumberscanbeseenworldwidenowadaysandthereisnosignofit

stoppingifseenonagloballevel.(Altbach2008,3)Thenationalframeworksofhighereducationhavebeen

radicallyreformedsincethen(1990s).Withhumancapitalbeinganincreasinglycrucialfactorforeconom-

icdevelopmentandcompetitionworldwide,manycountriesshiftedtheirhighereducationsystemsfroman

elitistone,grantingaccessonlytoachosenfew,toademocratisedmasshighereducationsystem.(Dill2010,

377)

“Significantly,theideaofmassaccesstohighereducationhasmeantunprecedentedexpansionof

highereducationeverywhere-thereareabout134millionstudentsinpostsecondaryeducation

worldwide,andmanycountrieshaveseenunprecedentedandsustainedexpansion in thepast

severaldecades.Theseglobaltrendsareforthemostpartinevitable.Nations,andacademicinsti-

tutions,mustconstructivelycopewiththeimplications.”

(Altbach 2008, 2)

Massificationisdrivenbydemographicsandgrowingpercentagesofstudentscompletingsecondaryschool

withtheplantoenterhighereducation.(Altbach,Reisberg,&Rumbley2009,67)

5 “Braindrain”isatermfortheinequalityofexchangeinknowledgebetweencountriesmostlytowardsthewest.Studentsstudyabroad togainnewknowledgeandinsteadofgoingbacktotheirhomecountriestosupporttheeconomyandpoliticalsystem,theyremain abroad.(Job&Sriraman2013,83etseq.)Altbach(2008)arguesthatwithglobalisationit“hasbecomemoreofa“brainexchange”, withflowsofbothpeopleandknowledgebackandforthacrossbordersandamongsocieties”(2008,3etseq.),althoughbraindrain remainsarealityformostoftheAfricancountries.

QA as responseto

massification


57

Aresultofmassificationandwideningaccessisthediversificationofstudents(Altbach,Reisberg,&Rumb-

ley2009,100etseq.),comingfromdifferentbackgrounds,withdifferentknowledgestartingpoints,ideasof

studyandgoals.Thisdiversificationismostprobablygoingtobegrowingevenmorebecauseoftheneedsof

agloballabourmarketandthedesireandneedforlife-longlearning,forwhichhighereducationinstitutions

areopening(orneedtoopen)theirdoorstoallagesandlifesituations.

Massificationhasfurtherledcountriesandthereforeinstitutionstofacebudgetarychallenges,asithasdriven

upunitcostsforinstructionandresearch.Thisontheotherhandhasledto(part)privatisationofinstitutions

andtheneedtofindnewsourcesofincomesuchas(higher)students’fees,third-partyfunding,servicesfor

economyandindustry.(Altbach,Reisberg,&Rumbley2009,67,87)Withtheincreaseddemandmanyprivate

institutionshaveemerged,oftenwelcomedbygovernmentsbecauseitallowedthemtoreduceorholdpub-

licfundingforhighereducationconstant.Althoughthepercentagesofprivatehighereducationinstitutions

varystronglycountrybycountry,itraisescompetitioninhighereducationbutalsobringsupthequestionof

quality,especiallyinfor-profitinstitutions.Thesamechallengesapplytoe-learninganddistancelearningin

general,whichhavebeengrowingthankstoglobalisationandfurtherdevelopmentofinformationandcom-

municationtechnology(ICT).(Shin&Harman2009,6etseq.)Distanceeducationis importanttofulfilthe

highdemandforhighereducationwhichgrewduetomassificationinsomecountries,forexampleinAfrica,

LatinAmericaandtheCaribbean,theMiddleEastandeastern/centralEurope.However,ontheotherhand,

thereisthemajorchallengeofquestionableandillicitprovidersofhighereducation,socalleddegreeordiplo-

ma-mills6.Evenwhereexternalqualityassurancesystemsarewellinplace,suchmillsdoexistduetothelack

ofcross-borderregulations,astheyoperatefromothercountrieswithoutregulationsandarenotunderthe

jurisdictionofthestudent’scountry(Altbach,Reisberg,&Rumbley2009,123–134).Becauseofthis,e-learn-

inganddistance learningare,ontheonehand,verychallengingtostatesandqualityassurance,butalso

harmfultolegitimatedistanceeducationprovidersandhighereducationingeneralontheotherhand(Piña

2010).Privateanddistanceeducationareafurthercompetitorfortraditionalhighereducationinstitutionsin

aglobalisingmarket.Astrongfocusonqualitycanbeveryimportantforsomeinstitutions(betheyprivate,

publicordistance)inordertosurvive.

Another effect of massification was that students, professors and the institutions alike, became more

heterogeneous (Trow 1996, 11 et seq.). The academic profession is nowadays very diverse, segmented

andhardtodescribe,withdifferencestobefoundinworkingconditions,salaries,academicqualificationsetc.

(Altbach,Reisberg,&Rumbley2009,90).AsTrow(1973)hasargued,massificationinhighereducationdoes

notonlymeanariseinstudentnumbersbuthasalsoleadtoagrowingdiversificationofthestudentpopula-

tionandacademiaingeneral.Thisbringsevernewchallengestohighereducationinstitutionswhichhaveto

addressverydiverselearnerswithdifferentpredispositionswhenstartingtheirstudiesanddifferentlearning

typesandpaces,goalsandexpectations.

Massificationhaschangedeverythinginthehighereducationinstitutions,fromtheprofessors,thestudents,

curriculumandmethodstothesocialmeaningofhighereducation(Trow1973,6).Toengageinthequestion

6 Adiploma-millisawidetermreferringtohighereducationinstitutionsthatrangefromawardingdegreesforsubstandardacademic workandefforttosellingdegrees.(Piña2010,121etseq.)

QA as responseto dwindling finances

QA as responseto illicit providers

QA as responseto more heterogeneous studentbody


58

ofqualityandusemechanismsofqualityassurancegiveshighereducationinstitutionsthechancetocope

withthediversestudentgroupsandtherapidlygrowingandchangingexternaldemands.Qualityassurance

instrumentscanhelptoaddressthechallengeofdeliveringqualityunderthesecircumstancesandtomain-

taincertainqualitystandards,byidentifyingthediversityandaddressingit,therebypromotingchangeinthe

institution.

Many consequences of massification and especially the diversification led to a loss of trust in higher

education by the states and the public (Amaral & Rosa 2010, 60), which was confronted with new

phenomena and challenges andmore diverse requirements.With new needs coming from globalisation

andmassification,ademand fornewpractices forqualityarosealongwithotherneedssuchasfindinga

goodfinancialbalanceandadjustingtothelabourmarket(Bernhard2014,28).Thesituationhasprofoundly

changedhowstatesandhighereducationinstitutionsrelateandhasledpolicymakerstoseekanddevelop

newexternalqualityassurancepractices(Dill2010,377).

Incontrasttothegloballyseenmassification,somedevelopedcountriesareinastagefacingdemographic

challengesinanotherwayduetoanageingpopulation.Insteadofafurthermassification,tofulfiltheneeds

ofthelabourmarket,theyareexperiencingadeclineofdemographywhichtranslatesintolesstraditional

studentsbetweentheagesof19-24attendinghighereducationinstitutions.Whilebetween1960and1980

enrolmentratesinEuropeincreasedbytentimes,nowadaysmanycountrieshavetoseektoopentheirinsti-

tutionstosocallednon-traditionalstudents7andsearchfornewstudentparadigms(Altbach,Reisberg,and

Rumbley2009,99etseq.;Endersetal.2011,71etseq.).Thiscanbeevenmoredifficult,ifinstitutionshave

tocompetegloballyandwithcross-borderproviders.

7 “Non-traditionalstudents”refersontheonehandtotraditionallyexcludedsocialoreducationalgroupslikeworkingclassmembers, immigrantsorwomenbutontheotherhandtoolderstudentswhoaccessHEwithvocationaltraining,workexperienceoranyother unconventionaleducationalprerequisite.Thus,thetraditionalstudentsdifferfromcountrytocountry,butthenon-traditionalones too.ForexampletheaccessofwomentoHEinmostdevelopedcountriescouldbejudgedtodefinewomenastraditionalstudents wadays,whereasinothercountriesitisstillnotthecase.Ifyoulookatsingleprogrammesorinstitutionsetc.thisviewcouldbeeasily destroyed,duetothefactthatwomenarestillstronglyunderrepresentedatthislevel.(Schuetze&Slowey2002,311–315)Generally inthischapterweseetheterminthecontextofwideningtheaccesstohighereducationwiththelogicalconsequenceofbreaking downbarriersandadaptingtoamoreheterogeneousstudentbodyforthehighereducationinstitutions.

Further Reading

Teichler,U.(1998).Massification:Achallengeforinstitutionsofhighereducation.TertiaryEduca-

tion&Management,4(1),17–27.

Trow,M.(2007).Reflectionsonthetransitionfromelitetomasstouniversalaccess:Formsand

phasesofhighereducationinmodernsocietiessinceWWII.InForest,J.J.F.(Ed.),International

HandbookofHigherEducation 18,243–280.Dordrecht:Springer.

Välimaa,J.(2001).Analyisingmassificationandglobalisation.InVälimaa,J.(Ed.),FinnishHigher

EducationinTransition:PerspectivesonMassificationandGlobalisation.Jyväskylä:Institutefor

EducationalResearch.

QA as responseto

declining demographics


59

What are the consequences of massification for higher education?

Altbach(2008)discussesfivemainconsequences:

1. “Publicgoodvs.privategood.Stimulated inpartby thefinancialpressuresofmassificationand

alsobybroaderchangesineconomicthinking,includingtheneoliberalagenda,highereducationis

increasinglyconsideredineconomictermsaprivategood—abenefitaccruingmainlytoindividuals

whoshouldpayforitratherthanapublicgoodthatcontributesbenefitstosocietyandthusshould

befinanciallysupportedbythestate”.

2. “Access.Postsecondaryeducationhasopeneditsdoorstopreviouslyexcludedpopulationgroups—

women;peoplefromlowersocioeconomicclasses;previouslydisadvantagedracial,religious,and

ethnicgroups;andotherpopulations.Whilemanycountriesstillcontaindisparitiesinenrollment,

massificationhasclearlymeantaccessandthusupwardmobilityandincreasedearningpotential.

Accessalsogreatlyexpandedtheskillsofpopulations,makingeconomicexpansionpossible”.

3. “Differentiation.Allmasshighereducationsystemsaredifferentiated systems. Institutions serve

variedmissions,withdifferingfundingsourcesandpatternsandarangeofquality.Successfulaca-

demicsystemsmustensurethatthevarioussegmentsofthesystemaresupportedandsustained.

Whileresearchuniversitiesneedspecialattention,mass-accessinstitutionsdoaswell”.

4. “Variedfundingpatterns.Formostcountries,thestatehastraditionallybeenthemainfunderof

highereducation.Massificationhasplacedgreatstrainsonstatefunding,andinallcasesgovern-

mentsnolongerbelievetheycanadequatelyfundmasshighereducation.Othersourcesoffund-

ingneedtobefound—includingstudenttuitionandfees(typicallythelargestsource),avarietyof

government-sponsoredandprivateloanprograms,universityincomegeneratingprograms(suchas

industrycollaborationorconsulting),andphilanthropicsupport”.

5. “Decline inquality and conditionsof study.Onaverage inmost countries, thequality of higher

educationhasdeclined.Inamasssystem,topqualitycannotbeprovidedtoallstudents.Itisnot

affordable,andtheabilitylevelsofbothstudentsandprofessorsnecessarilybecomemorediverse.

Universitystudyandteachingarenolongerapreservefortheelite—bothintermsofabilityand

wealth.Whilethetopofadiversifiedacademicsystemmaymaintainitsquality(althoughinsome

countriesthetopsectorhasalsosuffered),thesystemasawholedeclines“.

Source:Altbach(2008,3)

2.4.2.2 Internationalisation of Higher Education – Competition, Mobility, Mutual Recognition and (Regional) Common Spaces

Althoughthereismassificationandinmanycountriesagrowingstudentbody,oneofthemainconsequences

ofglobalisationforhighereducationinstitutionsisthatcompetitionrises.Qualityassurancecanbekeyforthe

survival of institutions and in further attracting students. By 2025 it is estimated that over 8million stu-

dentswillstudyabroadandtheglobalcirculationofacademicsis increasingdaybyday(Altbach2008,3).

Globalisationhasmadeinternationalisationandcross-bordereducationofhighereducationanimportantfac-

torforhighereducationinstitutionsinmanyregards.Mosthighereducationinstitutionshavebeensetupin

nationalpoliticalframeworksandareusedtomeettheneedsofthedomesticeconomyandculture(Damme

2001,416).Todaytobecompetitive,institutionsneedtointernationaliseandadapttoexternalinfluencesof

globalisationbeitwithinternationalisationstrategies‘athome’or‘abroad’(Knight2003,24etseq.),meaning

activitiesontheirowncampusorabroadandacrossborders.

QA as response togrowing global competition

Impactof massification onHE


60

Withstudentmobilitygrowingyearbyyearand increasingnumbersofcross-bordereducation(franchise,

branchesanddouble/jointdegrees)orevenvirtualinstitutions,qualityissuesareachallengeofinternationali-

sation.Between2000and2012 thenumberof foreign students in tertiaryeducationmore thandoubled

(OECD2014,361).Studentmobility,butalsothemobilityofgraduateshasraisedthequestionofrecognition,

thecomparabilityofstudentachievements(credittransfer)anddegrees.Inanincreasinglycompetitivewor-

ld,highereducationinstitutionsneedtoenabletheirstudentstostudyandworkabroad.Ontheotherhand,

HEIsneedtobeattractivetointernationalstudentstocompeteforthebeststudents.

Withinternationalisationasaresponseandcatalystforglobalisation(Knight2003,77)verydiversestates,

institutions,labourmarketsandprofessionalbodiesneedtobuildtrustandmutuallyrecognisetheirgoals

andmechanismsandmakethemcomparable.Generally,mobilityandrecognitiondependonthestatesand

existingexternalframeworks(formobility,credittransfer,academicandprofessionalrecognition)ormutual

agreementsbetweenstatesandaccreditingbodiesorthehighereducationinstitutions.Allthesemechanisms

though,builduponinternalqualityassuranceandtransparencyofthehighereducationinstitutions,who,in

short,havetoprovetransparentlythattheirqualityishighandcomparable.

Anexampleofmutual recognition is theWashingtonAccord (InternationalEngineeringAlliance2014),an

internationalagreementbetweenaccreditingengineeringbodies,mutuallyrecognisingengineeringqualifica-

tionsandprofessionalcompetencesoftheprogrammesaccreditedbythesignatories.

Onaregionallevel,theBolognaDeclarationisanexampleoftheimportanceofqualityassurancemechanisms

andguidelines topromoteand implementmobility andmutual recognition in a regional common space,

theEuropeanHigherEducationArea(EHEA-seeChapter3.1.1).TheEHEAhasacommonqualityassurance

framework(QAF)andqualificationsframework(QF)tosupportmobilityandmutualrecognition(seeChapter

3.1).Likewise,withtheintegrationprocessoftheAssociationofSoutheastAsianNations(ASEAN),themem-

berstatesareexpectedtohavemutualrecognitionimplemented(seeChapter3.1.2)andtheInter-University

CouncilforEast-Africa(IUCEA)isaswellintheplanningstagesofacommonqualificationsframework.

ThemajorinfluenceHEIshaveonquestionsofrecognition,issolidqualityassurancework,transparencyand

alignmenttoexistingnationalorsupranationalframeworksinordertoallowmobilityandmutualrecognition.

Otherthanthatstrategiescanbetochooseaspecialaccreditingagencyforacertainstudyprogrammewhich

allowsmutualrecognitionandsigningcooperation-agreementswithsingleinstitutionsforstudentexchange.

Muchdependsonthestatesthemselves,ifanexternalframeworkandagreementsexistornot,butthetrend

istowardsregionalisationandinternationalisationinthatregard.SolidgroundworkandengagementinQAis

thebasisfortransnationalrecognitionandcreatestrustbetweennationsandHEIsaswellasrecognitionfrom

thelabourmarket.Internalqualityassurancesystemsareindispensable,inordertomakeone’sownquality

transparenttoothersandmakestandardscomparable.

Qualityassuranceiskeytobuildingtheneededtrustandstandardstoallowmobilityandrecognitionacross

bordersandisthereforealsoacrucialmechanismforcommonhighereducationspaces.Withsuchcommon

spacesandmutualrecognitionagreements,studentandgraduatemobilitycanbeachieved,andinstitutions

areexpectedtohaveareducedworkloadinaspectsofstudentmobility(Hou2012,913),astheywouldnot

needtoapproveorassessstudentachievementsanddegrees.

QAto support mobility

&recognition


61

Further Reading

Altbach,P.G.,&Knight,J.(2007).Theinternationalizationofhighereducation:Motivationsand

realities.JournalofStudiesinInternationalEducation,11(3-4),290–305.

Altbach,P.G.,Reisberg,L.,&Rumbley,L.E.(2009).Trendsinglobalhighereducation:Trackingan

academicrevolution.Paris:UNESCO.

Portnoi,L.,Rust,V.D.,&Bagley,S.S.(2010).Highereducation,policy,andtheglobalcompetition

phenomenon.NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan.

VanDamme,D.(2001).Qualityissuesintheinternationalisationofhighereducation.HigherEdu-

cation,41(4),415–441.

2.4.3 The Concept of Higher Education Institutions as Learning Organisations

Onereasontoengageinqualityassurancethatcouldbesetforallhighereducationinstitutionsistheintrinsic

motivationoforganisationaldevelopmenttosurviveinachangingenvironment.Oneconceptofknowledge

andchangemanagementthathasgainedmuchattentionoverthe lastdecades istheconceptof learning

organisations.

The termmight lead to confusion though. The learningorganisationhas tobeunderstood in the lightof

organisationallearningandnottobeconfusedwithalearninginstitution,whicheveryhighereducationinsti-

tutionisperse.Justbecauseaninstitutionprovides learning, itdoesnotmeantheorganisationitselfhas

organisationallearning.(Lawler&Sillitoe2013,495etseq.)

Pedleretal.(1991)definethelearningorganisationasfollows:

“Anorganisationwhichfacilitatesthelearningofallitsmembersand

continuouslytransformsitself”

(Pedler, Burgoyne, and Boydell 1991, 1)

Asimplisticwayoftacklingorganisationallearningistohaveasystemandproceduresthatsupporttheirinsti-

tutioninlearningfromownandothersworkprocesses,challengesandmistakes.Theemphasishererelieson

doingthiscontinuously.(Lawler&Sillitoe2013,495)Callingitasystemmeansthatsupportingstructuresand

methodsexistforthecontinuousevaluationandimprovementandthuslearningoftheorganisation.

Asecondmoreadvancedapproachtoorganisationallearningisattheindividuallevel.Itseesindividuals,in

theorganisationbeingengagedinlearning,deeplynestedasacultureoftheorganisation.Staffworkersand

managerswouldbeequallyempoweredandcommittedtothelearningoftheorganisationbyidentifying,

solvingandlearningfromtheirownprocesses,challengesandoutcomes(Lawler&Sillitoe2013,496).

Buthowcanorganisations learn?Does itwork like the learningof individuals,whichwouldmean seeing

organisationsasonecognitiveentityordoesitallbeginfromsingleindividualswhofunctionasmultipliers?

QAto facilitate learning &continuous transformation


62

Researchaboutknowledgeandlearninginorganisationsisstillatanearlystage,buttheshiftistowardsanew

paradigmwhichanalyseshoworganisationsprocessinformationandgenerateknowledgeinsteadofseeing

learninginorganisationsastheprocessofacquiring,distributingandstoringknowledgeintheorganisation.

(Curado2006,4)Garvin(1993)proposesfivemainactivitiesinordertostimulateorganisationallearning:

1 . Systematic problem-solving: reliesheavilyonthephilosophyandmethodsofthequalitymovementand

isthusanotherconnectionbetweenqualityassuranceandthelearningorganisation.Itmeansrelyingon

scientificmethodstodiagnoseproblemssuchasthePlan-Do-Check-Actcycle(seeChapter3.3.1),relying

onhypothesis-testingand-generatingmethods(seeModule2),relyingondataandnotassumptionsfor

decisionsandusingsimplestatisticstodoso.

2 . Experimentation:meanstosystematicallysearchforandtestnewknowledge.Incontrasttoproblem-solv-

ing,experimentingisnotdrivenbydifficultiesofthemomentbutbyexpandinghorizonsandopportunities.

3 . Learning from past experiences:reviewandevaluatesuccessandfailuressystematicallyandrecordthe

lessonslearnt,sothatmembersoftheinstitutioncaneasilyaccessthisknowledgeinordernottorepeat

pasterrors.

4 . Learning from others:oftennewinputandpowerfulinsightsderivefromothersoutsidetheirownworking

environment.

5. Transferring knowledge:isneededtomultiplytheacquiredknowledgeandthusliftingitupfromjusta

localaffair.Itshouldbedonequicklyandefficientlythroughtheorganisationasideashavestrongerimpact

whenbroadlyshared.

Aswehaveseentherearemanycommonalitiesbetweenthequalitymovementandtheconceptoflearning

organisations.Thequestforqualityandqualityassurancecanbeonewaytofacilitatesystematiclearningin

organisations.Evaluationandimprovementcanbekeyfactorsforhighereducationinstitutionsinacomplex

anddynamicworldwithnewchallengesarisingforhighereducationinstitutions.Qualityassuranceisthus

alsoawaytosecuretheirownexistenceandontheotherhandtosolvechallengesandproblems.AsCurado

(2006,2)states,qualityassuranceasamethodandsystemcanbeauniquesustainedcompetitiveadvantage

andfosterstrategicdevelopmentforhighereducationinstitutions.

Wehaveshownthattherearemanyreasonsandmotivsforhighereducationinstitutionstoimplementqual-

ityassurance,beitbecauseoftheirowninterestsorexternalrequirements,demandsorobligations.Inorder

tobesuccessful,andinsomecaseseventosurvive,institutionsneedtocareabouttheirquality.Thefollow-

ingtableisanattempttosummarisethereasonsandmotivshighereducationinstitutions(could)have.The

reasonsandcategoriesarenotmeanttobeexhaustivenormutuallyexclusive.

5activities tostimulate

organisational learning


63

Reason/Motive Explanation

Learning Organisation & Intrinsic Motivation (Internally Driven)

Maintain and enhance standards

and quality

Qualityassuranceisfirstandforemostawayforinstitutionsto

maintainstandardsandcontinuouslyimprovethestandardofedu-

cation,facilities,supportetc.

Increase credibility and prestige Qualitypracticesandcommitmenthelphighereducationinstitu-

tionsandtheindividualsinittodistinguishthemselvesfromothers

gaininghighcredibility,andprestige.

Increase image and visibility Qualityaffectsyourimageandvisibility.Bothcanleadtostronger

stakeholdersupport(donations/grants/funding),theinterestofstu-

dentsinyourinstitutionandofemployers.Employerinteresttrans-

latestoagoodplacementofyourgraduateswhichfurthersupports

yourimageandvisibility.

Increase staff motivation and

morale

FocusingonqualityandQAcanmaintainandincreasethemotiva-

tionandmoraleofyourstaffmembersthroughsystematicprocess-

esanddivisionoftasks.

Increase autonomy Mosthighereducationsystemswithnewformsofqualityassurance

grantmoreautonomyforthepriceofqualityassuranceasameans

ofaccountability.Institutionshavemorefreedomandautonomyin

developingtheportfolioofstudyprogrammesandcurriculumques-

tions,forexample.Withinstrumentslikeaccreditationthatrelyon

peerassessments,institutionsarealsolessdependentonministeri-

al/politicalwill.

Increase internal transparency QAcanleadtomoretransparencyinprocessessothatstaffand

departmentsarebetterinformedabouteachotherandsynergies

canbebetterused.

Be up to date, flexible and respon-

sive

QAsystemscankeepyourinstitutionuptodateandhelptoadapt

tochangingcontexts.

Build trust QAinstruments,mechanismsandcaringaboutqualityininstitu-

tionsbuildstrustfromsociety,politicsandtheeconomy.

Summaryof reasonsand motivesfor QA/QM


64

Reason/Motive Explanation

Context and Accountability (Externally Driven)

Be financially accountable Thereisanincreaseddemandforaccountabilityduetotheimpor-tanceofhighereducationintheeconomyandsocietyandtheuseofpublicand/orprivatefunds.Inexchangeforaccountabilitymoreautonomyandfreedomarepromised.Makingqualityvisibleandtransparentisameanstobeaccountabletostakeholders.

Be socially, politically or privately accountable

QAcanbeaninstrumenttointroduceandanchorsocial,politicalorprivategoalsintheinstitutionsuchasaccess,inclusionormobility.

Stakeholder awareness QAcansystematicallyidentifyandaddressdemandsandrequire-mentsofstakeholders(students,alumni,parents,employers,etc.).Withaglobalisedmarketforexample,alumniareunderstrongercompetition,whichraisesexpectationsof“employability”amongstudents .

Increase outward-oriented trans-parency

QAcanraisetransparencyofstudyprogrammes,theinstitutionandthequalityofeducation.Thisaddressesdemandsofstakeholdersandcanleadtobetterfunctioningandmorecompetitiveness,pres-tigeandvisibility.

Increase/implement internationali-sation and mobility

QAinstrumentsandmechanismsfosterinternationalisationofhigh-ereducationbeingafundamentaltooltoallowstudentmobilityaswellasmutualrecognition.

Address increasing competition Engaginginqualityhelpstobeandremaincompetitive.Globalisa-tionhasincreasedcompetitionforstudentsandfundswithother(transnational)highereducationinstitutions,aswellasnewtypesofprivateprovidersofhighereducationandnewmodesofeduca-tionsuchase-learning.

Fulfil grown expectations QAcanhelptofacethegrowingrangeofexpectationstowardsHEIsbyidentifyingthemandprovidingmechanismsandinstrumentstoaddress them .

Address more heterogeneous stu-dent body

QAcanidentifyandhelptoaddresstheneedsofamoreandmoreheterogeneousstudentbodythatinstitutionsarechallengedwith.

Cope with restricted budgets StaticordwindlingfundingofpublichighereducationleavesHEIswithlessbudgetperstudent.WithQA,resourcescanbeusedmoreeffectivelyandefficiently.

Table 5 Reasonsandmotivesforhighereducationinstitutionstocommittoqualityandengageinqualityassuranceofteachingandlearning–anoverview(onthebasisof:Campbell&Rozsnyai2002;Schwarz&Westerheijden2004a;Mishra2007;Altbach,Reisberg,&Rumbley2009)


65

Further Reading

Garvin,D.A.,Edmondson,A.C.,&Gino,F.(2008).Isyoursalearningorganization?HarvardBusiness

Review,86(3),109-116.

Lawler,A.,&Sillitoe,J.(2013).Facilitating‘organisationallearning’ina‘learninginstitution’.Journal

ofHigherEducationPolicyandManagement,35(5),495–500.

Rowley,J.(2000).Ishighereducationreadyforknowledgemanagement?InternationalJournalof

EducationalManagement,14(7),325–333.


1.Whyisqualityassuranceimportantforhighereducation?

2.Howhaveglobalisationandmassificationchangedyourinstitutionandwhatarethechallengesyou

areconfrontedwith?

3.Whatarethereasonsforyourinstitutiontoengageinqualityassurance?

4.Thinkofdifferentgroups in your institutionand theirprejudicesagainstquality assurance.How

wouldyoudescribetheirargumentsandgroupthem?

5.WhichargumentscanyouprovideforeachofthesegroupstohavethemengageinQA?

6.Whatwouldyousayisthemainreason(challenge,goal,contextetc.)foryourowninstitutionto

engageinquality?

Chapter 3: Introduction to Quality Management Systems, Models and Instruments

66

3 IntroductiontoQualityManagementSystems,ModelsandInstruments–HowtoDesignaQuality ManagementSystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

3.1 ExternalQualityAssuranceSystems– FrameworksforInternalQualityAssurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

3.1.1 ExternalQualityAssuranceinASEAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

3.1.2 ExternalQualityAssuranceinEastAfrica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

3.1.3 ExternalQualityAssuranceinEurope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

3.2 InternalQualityManagementModels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

3.2.1 ModelsfromBusinessandIndustry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

3.2.2 ModelsfromHigherEducation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

3.3 IntroductiontoMainQualityManagementInstrumentsandTools . . . . . . . . . . 77

3.3.1 TheQualityLoop–PDCAasaRoleModel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

3.3.2 Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

3.3.3 Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

3.3.4 AccreditationandAudit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

recognisetheimportanceofnationalandregionalEQAforinternalqualitymanagementsystems,

weighupthepossibilitiesofdesigningandmodellinginternalqualitymanagementsystems,

describetheuseofmainqualityassuranceinstrumentsandtheirdifferences,

describeandapplythePDCAcycleandknowitsimportanceforQA.


Chapter 3

Introduction to Quality Management Systems, Models and InstrumentsHow to Design a Quality Management System


67

3 Introduction to Quality Management Systems, Models and Instruments – How to Design a Quality Management System

Inthefirsttwochapterswehavesetthestageforqualityandqualityassurancewiththedefinitionofquality,

themainterminologyofQAaswellastheoriginsandreasonsforinstitutionstoengageinqualityassurance

practices.Themaingoalofthethirdchapteristoconcentrateonhowtosetupqualityassuranceathigher

educationinstitutions.Wewilldepictdifferentmodels,instrumentsandpossibilitiesonhowtodesignquality

managementsystemsinhighereducationinstitutions.

3.1 External Quality Assurance Systems – Frameworks for Internal Quality Assurance

Theshiftfromthetraditionalwaysofstateapprovalinhighereducationtonewformsofqualityassurancehas

alreadybeendiscussedinChapter2.2.EQA,especiallythecompulsoryversion,mustalwaysbeconsidered

whensettingupandfurtherdevelopingaqualitymanagementsystematHEIsinordertoformasmanysyn-

ergiesaspossibleandavoidduplicationofworkandresources.

Externalqualityassurance systemsaremostlynationally setupbut there is a trend to regionallyorganise

them,suchasalreadyimplementedinEuropethroughtheBolognaProcess(seeChapter3.2.1)orthecooper-

ationandvalidationofacademicdecisionsinfrancophoneAfricaundertheroofoftheAfricanandMalagasy

Council forHigherEducation(CAMES)withstudyprogrammeswhichunderwentaccreditationtopromote

mobilityinthe19countrieswhichadheretoit(Sanyal&Martin2007,8).Inotherregionsalotofefforthas

goneintoregionalharmonisation.ForexampleintheASEANregion,whereacommonhighereducationspace

isbeingpromotedwithqualityassuranceasamainmechanism(seeChapter3.1.2) .

Inordertofacilitatemobilityandrecognition,statesandregionshaveorareimplementingqualityassurance

frameworksandqualificationsframeworks.ThesearetwoimportantexamplesofEQAthatshouldbeconsid-

eredandreferencedfortheinternalQAsystems.

Quality assurance frameworks (QAFs) aredesignedtogiveinstitutionsanexternallycommonsetoftoolsand

guidelinesforqualityassurance,teachingandlearningimprovementandacademicstandards.Theycanbeon

anationalorregionallevel.ThemainpurposeofQAFsistomakesurethathighereducationinstitutionshave

certainminimumstandardsofqualityassurancemechanismsinplacewhichmakethemcomparable.Quality

assuranceframeworksdonotusuallysetwhichmechanismsinstitutionsshouldhave,butprovideageneral

guidelineforinstitutions.

Quality assurance frameworks


68

Qualifications frameworks (QFs)existmostlyonanationallevelbutexistonacrossnationalleveltoo,suchas

theEuropeanQualificationsFramework.QFsarenottobeconfusedwithqualityassuranceframeworks.They

showallpossiblequalificationshierarchicallywithgeneraldescriptionsofrequiredachievementsandtheir

purposeistosupportthedesignofcurriculaandstudyprogrammes,supportmobilityandtherecognition

ofdegreesandstudyperiods(Vlăsceanu,Grünberg,&Parlea2004,68etseq.).Furtheritisaninstrumentto

makequalificationstransparenttosocietyandlabourmarketaswellasmakingthemcomparablebetween

countries(seealsoModule3).

Table6showsthedifferentinstrumentsusedbythestatetoenforceexternalqualityassuranceandtoinflu-

enceacademicstandards.Dill(2010,378)hasdividedtheavailablepracticesinthreedrivingcategories:1.

Professional(self)regulation,2.State(direct)regulationand3.Marketregulation.

Locus of Authority Professional (Self) Regulation

State/Regional (Direct) Regulation

Market Regulation

Practices Professionalaccredi-

tationandlicensure

Voluntaryinstitutional

accreditation

Externalexamining

Qualifications

frameworks

Qualityframeworks

Subjectassessments

State-conducted

accreditation

Academicaudits

Performance-based

fundingorcontracting

Nationalexamina-

tionsorsurveys

Commercialinforma-

tionprovision,institu-

tionalorprogramme

performancedata,

assessments,and

rankings

Table 6 External assurance of academic quality (adapted from Dill 2010, 378)

Thetableshowsthatthereisavarietyofexternalinstrumentsthatcanbemixed.Thechallengestatesare

facingistofindtherightmixturebetweenself,stateandmarketregulation8anddevelopaneffectiveandeffi-

cientpolicyframeworkforhighereducationqualityassuranceandtheassuranceofstandards.(Dill2010,379)

HEIsneedtofulfilwhatevertheirresidentcountryandresidingregionetc.expectsandthusneedtoconsider

thebiggerpictureandintegrateitintheirownsystem.

Afteroutliningcasestudiesofregionalqualityassurance,wewillgiveaquickoverviewonthemostcommon

and important instruments, namely accreditation, assessment and audits that formexternal and internal

qualitysystems.Alltheseinstrumentscanbeusedinnational,regionalorinternationalsettingsandcanbe

partoftheinternalsystemofaHEI.

8 Theinstrumentsofthemarketregulationsuchasperformancedata,assessmentsandrankingswillnotbecoveredmoreindepth becausetheyarenotimplementedbyexternalqualityassuranceornationalregulationbodies,butcanonlybereinforcedbylawsor supportedbythestates.Theyarenonethelesspartofnewexternalqualityassuranceformsandcanbeimportantespeciallybecause theycanproducetransparency.Asinthecaseofrankingsthough,theyhavetobecriticallyreflectedinhowfartheygiveinformation onhighereducationqualityandinhowfartheycontributetoqualityassurance,controlorimprovement.

Qualifications frameworks

EQA instruments

&mechanisms


69

3.1.1 External Quality Assurance in ASEAN


1.WhichinstrumentsdoesyoucompulsoryEQAsysteminyourcountryadopt?

2.WhichmechanismsoftheEQAsystemofyourcountrydoyouseemainlyforcontrolandwhichfor

improvement?

3.WheredoyouseepossiblesynergiesandtiesbetweentheEQAsystemandyourinternalQMS?

External Quality Assurance in the Changing Landscape of Higher Education in ASEAN

The emergence of external quality assurance (EQA) in the Asia Pacific region began in Japan, fol-

lowed by the Philippines over half a century ago with the establishment of voluntary self-regu-

lation by associations of universities or by private organizations. The rest of the South-East Asi-

an nations formed their government-driven EQAs in the 1990s. The EQA systems in the ASE-

AN countries are at different stages of development. New EQA bodies are intended to support

and be aligned with the changes in the national higher education policies and strategies, which

have been outlined for nation-building endeavours - politically, socially and economically.

The more mature EQA systems are geared to strengthening institutional accountability, effective-

ness,efficiencyandadaptability;thatmatchthematurity-stateofhighereducationsystem,address

the ever-changing stakeholders’ expectations and correspond to the dynamism of national strate-

gies.Therehasbeenanotablewide-acceptanceandpractice,inmanyASEANcountries,oninter-or-

ganizationalsharedresponsibility inassuringqualityofprogrammes,qualificationsand institutions,

involving ministries, quality assurance agencies, professional bodies and certification authorities.

EQA systems in ASEAN countries vary in terms ofmandate and policy dimensions; sector covera-

ges; typesofestablishment;qualityassurancepractices–-programme/ institutions/systemic;qua-

lity standards; use of peer assessors and types of decision. It is significant to recognise that the

EQAs of the 21st century must have an intense commitment to ensuring that its National Qua-

lifications Frameworks be underpinned by robust quality assurance and qualification systems.

TheinternationaldimensionofASEANEQAbodiesisoftenbasedontheneedtoensurethatnational

quality-assuredqualificationsarerecognizedacrossborders.


70

TheASEANMinistersofEducationin2008recognizedthatEQAbodiesmustshareresponsibilityandcon-

tributetowardsestablishinganASEANHigherEducationAreawhichfocusesonharmonizationoftheHE

systemsandtheASEANagendaforintegrationandformationofanASEANEconomicCommunityby2015.

Nationalqualityassurancesystemsareexpectedto inspireconfidenceandrecognitionfromothers

on itsqualificationsandeventually facilitate studentandworkermobilitywithinASEAN.This stan-

ce has been emphasized inmany ASEAN dialogueswith its trading partners -- Australia and New

Zealand, plus-three countries (China, Japan and Korea), the East Asia Summit group and Europe-

anUnion through the Asia EuropeMeeting (ASEM). This critical agenda has been addressed regi-

onally throughtwo landmark initiatives.First,an initiative facilitatedby theSEAMEORIHEDonthe

formationof theASEANQualityAssuranceNetwork (AQAN),which, amongst others, in 2011,was

tasked to develop the ASEAN Quality Assurance Framework in Higher Education (AQAFHE) and

engage in QA capacity building programs. The second initiative is the development of the ASE-

ANQualificationsReferenceFramework (AQRF), aproject supportedby theEconomicCooperation

WorkingGroupof theASEAN-Australia-NewZealand FreeTradeAgreement, 2010.AQRFhasbeen

endorsed in principle by the ASEANMinisters of Education andASEANMinisters of Trade in their

respectiveministerialmeetings in2014.The regional framework isexpected toprovidebetter sys-

tem-wideandneutralconnectivitybetweennationalqualificationsandqualityassurancesystemsin

the region,whicheventuallywill lead to the formationofa regional zoneof trust forqualification

comparability and communitymobility.Other initiatives include studies on credit transfer systems

Thus,therolesofEQAsintheASEANregion,intheyearstocome,areexpectedtocontinuouslyunder-

gochangesnotablyinthemodesofcooperation,co-existenceandco-creationastheystrivetobein

abetterpositiontoaddress institutionalaspiration,nationaldevelopment,regional integrationand

inter-regionalconnectivity.

Zita Mohd. Fahmi & Concepcion V. Pijano (2015)


71

3.1.2 External Quality Assurance in East Africa

Regional Quality Assurance Initiative on the Road to a Common Higher Education Area in East Africa – The East Africa Quality Assurance Initiative

AsstrategicinstitutionoftheEastAfricanCommunity(EAC)theInter-UniversityCouncilforEastAfrica

(IUCEA)isresponsibleforthedevelopmentandcoordinationofhighereducationandresearchinthe

region.In2006,IUCEAstartedaninitiativetodeveloparegionalqualityassuranceframeworkforEast

Africa. This initiativewas foundedonanAfrican-Europeanpartnershipwith theGermanAcademic

ExchangeService(DAAD)andGermanRectorsConference(HRK).Theideaofacommonqualityassur-

anceframeworkwastosetregionalhighereducationbenchmarkqualitystandards,basedoninterna-

tionalrecognisedstandardsandwithitstreamliningnationalandinstitutionalqualityassurancesys-

temsaccordingtotheregionalneedsandrequirements.

Akeymilestonethathasbeenachievedbasedonthisinitiativeisthe“HandbookforQualityAssurance

inHigherEducation”, theso-called“RoadMaptoQuality”.Thishandbookcomprises fourvolumes,

focussingon:

Guidelinesforself-assessmentatprogrammelevel(Volume1)

Guidelinesforexternalprogrammeassessment(Volume2)

Guidelinesforself-assessmentatinstitutionallevel(Volume3)andthe

Implementationofaqualityassurancesystem(Volume4).

ThefourvolumescanbedownloadedfromtheIUCEAwebsite:http://www.iucea.org/index.php?op-

tion=com_content&view=article&id=106&Itemid=238(RetrievedonJanuary31,2015)

Thenextsteptobecomeacommonhighereducationareaistheestablishmentofaregionalqualifi-

cationsframeworkinEastAfrica.Thepurposeofthisframeworkistofacilitatethecomparabilityand

recognitionofdifferentqualificationlevels,creditsystemsandpriorlearning.

YoucanfindfurtherinformationaboutthecurrentstateontheIUCEAwebsite“DevelopingaRegional

QualificationsFrameworkforHigherEducation inEastAfrica”:http://www.iucea.org/index.php?op-

tion=com_content&view=article&id=317&Itemid=279(RetrievedonJanuary31,2015)

Solveig Randhahn (2015)

http://www.iucea.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=106&Itemid=238





72

Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (EHEA)

TheEuropeanHigherEducationAreabecameformalisedin2010,10yearsafterBolognaDeclaration

(1999)hadinitiatedtheprocesswith29-30countrieswhovoluntarilycommittedtoregionalharmo-

nisationofhighereducation.Sincethen,differentCommuniquésexpandedtheobjectivesofthepro-

cess.Themainideabehindtheso-calledBolognaprocessisthathighereducationandlife-longlearn-

ingarecrucialfortheeconomicdevelopmentoftheareaandthusneedtobepromoted.Todaythe

processincludes47countries.

DuringtheimplementationoftheBolognaprocess,specialemphasiswaslaidonqualityandquality

assurancewhichdevelopedtooneofitsmaingoals.In2003,theBerlinCommuniquéincludedthepro-

motionofqualityassuranceintotheobjectivesoftheprocess.Furthermore,differentorganisations

wereinvitedtodrafttheEuropeanStandardsandGuidelinesforQualityAssuranceintheEuropean

HigherEducationArea(ESG).Theprocessseesqualityassuranceasamechanismtosupportthemobil-

ityofstudentsandacademics,therecognitionofstudyperiodsandqualificationsandacompetitive

highereducationinEuropeingeneral.(Sursock2012,107)TheESGareasetofstandards,procedures

andguidelinesforinternalandexternalqualityassuranceforinstitutionsandagencies.TheESGcan

beunderstoodasaguidanceandtoolbox:theymerelysetstandardsandguidelinesanddon’tgive

importancetowhetherinstitutionsoptforaprogrammeorinstitutionalapproachorwhetheracoun-

tryisimplementinganaccreditationorauditapproachforEQAforexample.Bydoingso,theESGsup-

porttheideathatdifferentsituationsandcontextsmightdemanddifferentsolutionsandapproaches

toenableassuranceandimprovementofquality.Afurtherinstrumentofmobilityandrecognitionin

EuropeistheEuropeanQualificationsFramework(EQF),anoverarchingframeworkforthenational

qualificationsframeworkswhichallowsthecomparisonofdescriptionsoftheprogrammesandthe

competenciesacquiredbystudents.Hereagain,qualityassuranceandtheESGensurethatcompeten-

ciesandqualificationsaretrustableintheEHEA.(Kohler2012a,120–123)TheEuropeanQualityAssur-

anceRegisterforHigherEducation(EQAR)liststrustworthyagencieswhichoperateinEuropeandhas

beenestablishedtopromotemobilityandallowinstitutionstochooseagenciesoutsideoftheircoun-

tryforaccreditationetc.(notcompatiblewitheverynationalregulationyet).Theagenciesapplyingto

EQARhavetoundergoanadmittanceprocedure.(Kohler2012b,78)

TheESGhavebeenrevisedandapprovedbytheMinisterialConferenceinMay2015.Onemainnovelty

isthestrongeremphasisontheteachingandlearningprocesswithfocusonthestudentandthusstu-

dent-centredlearning.Apartfromthat,anothergoalwastomaketheESGclearer,easierinterpretable

andapplicable.(ENQAetal.2014)

3.1.3 External Quality Assurance in Europe


73

3.2 Internal Quality Management ModelsUptonowwehavesetthestageofdefiningquality, introducingtoqualityassurance, itsterminologyand

externalmechanisms.Buthowdoyoudesignaqualitymanagementsystem?

Sofarwehaveshownthatqualityisstronglytiedtochange(Harvey2012,30)andthemanagementofchange:

fromexternal forcessuchasmassificationandtheneedto identifyandaddresssocio-economictrendsto

internalneedstoenhancetheinstitution,departmentsandprogrammes(seeChapter2.4).Changecantake

placeattwostronglyinteractingandinterdependentlevels:attheindividualandattheorganisationallevel.

Organisationalchangehoweverneedssingleindividualsandtheircommitment.Likewisechangeonanindi-

viduallevel(eg.oftheirbehaviour)willhardlyhappenifemployeesdonotunderstandthevalueofitand

iftheydon’tfeeltheirownneedsandbeliefsarereflectedintheorganisation.(Bucher2012,94)Aquality

managementsystemanditsinstrumentsshouldthusconsiderandaddresschangecomingfromoutsideand

inside,aswellasfacilitatechangeinsideattheindividualandorganisationallevels.

Manyofthequalityassurancemodelsusedinhighereducationhavebeenadaptedfromindustryandfrom

businessmodels.Totalqualitymanagement(TQM)isthemodelthatservesasabasismostfrequentlyseen

onaninternationallevel.Inthenextsub-chapterswewillsummariseexistingmodelsthatcomefromindus-

tryandbusinessthathavebeenappliedinHEIstothendiscussmodelsthathavebeenspeciallydevelopedfor

highereducation.MuchlikethediscussionaboutthedefinitionofqualityinChapter1.1,manyprofessionals

arguethatmodelsfromindustrycannotjustbeimplementedoreasilyadaptedforhighereducation(Srikan-

than&Dalrymple2003,133;MariaJ.Rosa,Sarrico,andAmaral2012,129).


74

3.2.1 Models from Business and IndustryWhilesomeacademicshavearguedthatTQMandmodelsfromindustryarenotsuitableforhighereducation,

BecketandBrookes(2008,45)havesummarisedcasestudieswithfindingsthatstatethecontrary.Thereis

aquiteimportantlimitationthough,whichprobablygivesthesupportersunsuitabilityofTQMandindustry

modelsforhighereducationstrongerbacking:TQM,asstatedbySrikanthanandDalrymple(2002),worksfor

theservicefunction(seeChapter1.3.1)ofHEIsasstudentscanbeseenascustomersforadministrativeservic-

esandfacilitiesjustlikecustomersofanyserviceinbusinessandindustrybutitisnotsuitablewhenitcomes

totheeducationalandacademiccoreprocessesofteachingandlearning(Srikanthan&Dalrymple2002,215

etseq.).ThusmodelscomingfromindustrylikeTQMcanbebeneficialforservicesandadministrationofa

HEI(Becket&Brookes2008,45etseq.).Teachingandlearninghowevercannotbeseenasarelationbetween

“businessprovider”and“customer”.Thestudentisanintegrativepartoftheteachingandlearningprocess

andcanhardlybeperceivedasacustomerinthatregard.Whatmodelsfromeconomyandbusinesslack,“is

theirrecognitionofthecentralityofthestudentlearningexperience”(Becket&Brookes2008,45).Todoso

wouldforexamplemeanseeingqualityastransformation(seeChapter1.1.2),enhancingandempowering

thestudentwhichcallsforashiftfromtheinstructionalparadigmofteachingtostudent-centredlearning(see

Chapter1.4)anddesigningasystemaroundthiscentrality.

“The main difficulty with the application of the industrial version seems to stem from the nature

of the processes. Industrial quality systems are clearly process oriented, focussed on the needs of

the customer. This is based on the assumptions that process characteristics are measurable and

maintaining and improving them would adequately meet the customer requirements and give a

competitive edge. But these aspects are far too subtle in relation to education, and have invariably

been the source of controversy”

(Srikanthan and Dalrymple 2003, 133)

Hereyoucanseeagainthemulti-dimensionandcomplexityofqualityineducationaswehavediscussedin

thefirstchapter.Amodelworkshoweveronlyforasmallpartofhighereducation.Apremiseforafunctioning

systemthataccountsforbusinessandhighereducationmodelsalike,istheexistenceofseniormanagement

commitmentandofstrategicobjectives.(Becket&Brookes2008,44)

Thefindingsmightbeanindicationthatinstitutionsneedtocreatetheirownmodelormixtoadequately

assureandmanagequalityinhighereducation.Nevertheless,theindustrymodelscanprovideideasforyour

ownsystemandbeastartingpoint.Table7belowsummarisesthemostcommonmodelsfromindustrythat

havebeenusedinhighereducation.Foramoreextensivesummaryincludingfindingsofcasestudiesforeach

modelseethetableinAnnex2takenfromBecketandBrooks(2008).

AreTQM andother

modelsfrom business

&industry applicable

inHE?


75

Model Definition

TQM Acomprehensivemanagementapproachwhichrequirescontribu-tionfromallparticipantsintheorganisationtoworktowardslong-termbenefitsforthoseinvolvedandsocietyasawhole.

EFQM excellence model Non-prescriptiveframeworkthatestablishesninecriteria(divid-edbetweenenablersandresults),suitableforanyorganisationtoassessprogresstowardsexcellence.

Balanced scorecard Performance/strategicmanagementsystemwhichutilisesfourmeasurementperspectives:financial;customer;internalprocess;andlearningandgrowth.

Malcolm Baldridge award Basedonaframeworkofperformanceexcellencewhichcanbeusedbyorganisationstoimproveperformance.Sevencategoriesofcriteria:leadership;strategicplanning;customerandmarketfocus;measurement,analysis,knowledgemanagement;humanresourcefocus;processmanagementandresults.

ISO 9000 series Internationalstandardforgenericqualityassurancesystems.Con-cernedwithcontinuousimprovementthroughpreventativeaction.Elementsarecustomerqualityandregulatoryrequirements,andeffortsmadetoenhancecustomersatisfactionandachievecontinu-ousimprovement.

Business process re-engineering Systemtoenableredesignofbusinessprocesses,systemsandstruc-turestoachieveimprovedperformance.Itisconcernedwithchangeinfivecomponents:strategy;processes;technology;organisationandculture.

SERVQUAL Instrumentdesignedtomeasureconsumerperceptionsandexpec-tationsregardingqualityofserviceinfivedimensions:reliability;tangibles;responsiveness;assuranceandempathy;andtoidentifywheregapsexist.

Table 7 Quality management models coming from industry and business (Becket & Brookes 2008, 44) (own table)

3.2.2 Models from Higher EducationInresponsetothecritiqueofthemodelscomingfromindustryandbusinesstherehavebeenmanyeffortsto

developtailoredmodelsforhighereducationanditscharacteristicsandparticularities.Somehavetherefore

usedthemodelsonlyasabasistodeveloptheirown(fromISO9000toTQMandMalcolmBaldridge).They

allrecogniseandconsidertheparticularitiesofthecoreprocessofteachingandlearningandthussetthem-

selvesapartfromindustryandbusiness.(Becket&Brookes2008,52etseq.)

Thefirstmodelinthetablebelowforqualitymanagementineducation(QME)ofSrikanthanandDalrympleis

anexceptionasitoriginatesfromeducationaltheoriesandliterature,usingmodelsofmanagementofhigher

educationinsteadofindustry.Themodeldrawsonthefundamentalconceptofthestudent-learningexpe-

Qualitymodels frombusiness &industry

Modelbased oneducational theory& literature


76

rience,seeingstudentsasacrucialpartofthelearningprocessandrelyingonthefollowingcoreelements:

“Aclearfocuson`transformation’ofthelearners,enhancingthemthroughaddingvaluetotheircapability

andultimately`empowering’them.

Asynergisticcollaborationatthelearninginterfacewhichtranscendsnotonlythetraditionalpowerrela-

tionships(forexample,teacher±student,betweenacademicunits)butbreaksthebarriersamonginstitu-

tionsandreachesoutintodevelopingnewexternalpartnershipswithcommunity.

Thereisaclearroleforseniormanagementinhighereducationinstitutionsto`encouageandensure’such

a`collegialculture’”(Srikanthan&Dalrymple2002,220).

AdetailedsummarylistofmodelsdesignedforhighereducationcompiledbyBecketandBrookes(2008)can

befoundinAnnex3.Whichevermodelyoumaychooseordevelopyourself,weencourageyoutoconsider

thateveryhighereducationinstitutionhasitsownparticularities,andthatitneedstobeembeddedinthe

contextandoverallvisionandmissionoftheinstitution.Highermanagementcommitment,ownershipand

empowermentaswellasstakeholderinclusionare,furthermorecrucialforasuccessfulimplementation.


1. Reflectingonthecontentsofthecoursebooksofar,whichfactorsshouldtobeconsideredwhen

designingaqualitymanagementsystem?

2. Howdoyouassesstheuseinhighereducationofqualitymanagementmodelscomingfromthe

industry?

3. Chooseonequalitymanagementmodelforyourinstitutionandexplainwhyitissuitableforyour

context(independentlyofanymodelsthatmightalreadybeusedinyourinstitution).

Further Reading

Redding,P.(2005).Theevolvinginterpretationsofcustomersinhighereducation:Empoweringthe

elusive.International Journal of Consumer Studies,29(5),409–417.

Srikanthan,G.,&Dalrymple,J.(2004).Asynthesisofaqualitymanagementmodelforeducationin

universities.International Journal of Educational Management,18(4),266–279.

Rosa,M.J.,Sarrico,C.S.,&Amaral,A.(2012).Implementingqualitymanagementsystemsinhigher

educationinstitutions.InSavsar,M.(Ed.),Quality assurance and management (pp.129–146).In-

Tech.

Sallis,E.(2002).Total quality management in education(3rded.).NewYork/Abingdon:Routledge.

Tahar, S.,Niemeyer,C.,&Boutellier,R. (2011). Transferralofbusinessmanagement concepts to

universitiesasambidextrousorganisations.Tertiary Education and Management,17(4),289–308.


77

3.3 Introduction to Main Quality Management Instruments and Tools

WhattoolscanaHEIusetoimplementandadoptqualitymanagement?

Manyinstrumentscanbeadoptedexternally(EQA)orinternally(IQA)(seeChapter2.1.1).Onemaininstru-

mentisevaluation.Itisthebasisofqualitymanagementinhighereducationandcanbeexternallyorinternal-

lyconducted.Specialformsofevaluationhavebeenconceptualisedwhichhavedifferentaims:accreditation,

auditandassessment.Whileaccreditationisusuallyanexternalinstrumentimplementedbynationalregula-

torybodies,auditandassessmentcanbebothexternalandinternalinstruments.

Itisimportanttonotethatthereisno“singleway”ofdoingaccreditation,auditandassessment,butthatall

ofthemhavedifferentformswhichsometimesminglebetweenthethreeinstrumentsandconcepts(Wood-

house1999,33).

Besidestheinstrumentsintroducedinthischaptertherearemanyothertools,proceduresandmechanisms

forqualitymanagementinhighereducation,forexample:

avisionstatementthatdefinesqualityofteachingandlearningincludingguidelines,

aqualitymanagementmanualthatdescribestheimplementationstrategyoftheinstitutionincludingpro-

cessdescriptionsofteachingandlearningandclearlydefinedresponsibilitiesofactors,or

staffdevelopmentprogrammesforlecturers.(Pohlenz&Mauermeister2013,6etseq.)

Afurtherselectionoftoolsandprocedureswillbeintroducedintheremainingfourmodulecoursebooks.

3.3.1 The Quality Loop – PDCA as a Role ModelPDCAisanabbreviationthatallqualityassuranceprofessionalsareabletodecipherforyouinanycircum-

stances:Plan-Do-Check-Act!Thatisvitalforabasicevaluationtoolthatcanbeattheheartofallprocesses

inaninstitution.

FirstlyintroducedbyWilliamEdwardsDeming(1900-1993)astheShewhartCycleitisnowadaysadjudicat-

edtoDemingandforthisreasonalsocalledtheDeming-CycleorPlan-Do-Study-Actashelaternameditto

emphasiseanalysisoverinspection.ThePDCAconceptisatoolandfoundationforthequalitymanagement

oforganisations,institutions,programmes,processesandprojectsemphasisingcontinuousimprovement.

P:asplanyouridea

D:asdowhatyouhaveplanned,executeyourplan

C: ascheckandanalysewhetheryourhavereachedyourgoalandobjectivesandifyouhavestuckto

theplan

A:asactaccordingtowhatyouhavelearned,developimprovementsandenhancements

…andrepeatthisagainandagain.

PDCA: basic evaluation modeland rolemodel


78

DemingfirstintroducedPDCAinpost-warJapanandsincethentheconcepthasbeenwidelyfollowedinindus-

trywithalotofsuccess.IthelpedtheJapaneseindustrytoraiseitsproductioninordertowinalargeshareof

theAmericanmarketwithitsexports.(Bucher2012,95)Sincethan,theconcepthasfurtherdevelopedand

beenusedindifferentqualitymanagementmodelssuchasintheSix-SigmamodelwithDefine-Measure-Ana-

lyse-Improve-ControlandinKaizenemphasisingonstandardsasStandardise-Do-Check-Action.(Sokovic,Pav-

letic,&KernPipan2010,477etseq.)

ThesimplelogicofPDCAcanbeexplainedasfollowsforacertaingoal,objectiveorprocessyouwishtoreach

andimplement:

Figure8depictsthecontinuousimprovementideaandthustheideaofchangebehindthecycle:

Figure 8 The PDCA cycle of continuous improvement (CC Johannes Vietze)

Nomatterwhichqualitydefinitionandqualitymanagementmodelaninstitutionchooses,PDCAcanbethe

coretodefineitsprocess.PDCAasasimpletoolcanbeusedbyeveryoneintheinstitutionfortheimplemen-

tationofprocesses,beittheimplementationofqualityassurance,aQAinstrument,astudyprogrammeor

alectureforexample.QualityassuranceofficerscanpropagatethePDCAconceptintheinstitutiontobethe

basisoftheindividualsworkandthusmakingitarolemodel.

3.3.2 EvaluationEvaluationusessocialresearchmethodsandcanbeseenasthebasisforallqualityassuranceinstruments.As

wehaveseen,thePDCAcycle(seepreviouschapter)isabasicevaluationmodelandtoolandisthereforevital

fortheimprovementindifferentsettings.Morecomplexevaluationmodelsanddesignscanbetailoredtothe

evaluationgoal.Youwillfindthatthefollowinginstrumentsarealltypesofevaluationoratleastrelatedand

thatqualitymanagementandassuranceisgreatlybasedonevaluation.

Evaluation: fundament

ofmanyQM instruments


79

Contrarytowhatsomewhoarebeingevaluatedmightthink,thepurposeofevaluation,isandshouldnotbe

controlorpurejudgementonthelevelofqualityorstandards,butimprovement.ThedefinitionoftheAnalyt-

icalQualityGlossaryisshort-sightedasitstopsevaluationatthecheckingorjudgementphase.Whathappens

afterexaminationandjudgementisthemostimportantpartofevaluation.ThisiswherethelogicofthePDCA

cyclecanbehelpfulagain:afterthecheck,actionhastofollow,otherwiseevaluationwouldbedoneforthe

purposeofexaminingandjudgingonly.

Evaluationathighereducationinstitutionscanbedoneatdifferentlevels(e.g.department,studyprogramme,

lectureetc.)oronaspecifictopic(studentworkload,studentsatisfaction,internationalisation,projectetc.),

internallyorexternally.Itusesdifferentmethodstocollectdatafromwhichresultsandactionsarederived.

Evaluationcanbedoneaccordingtodifferentmodelsandshouldbetailoredtothepurposeofevaluation.In

thebestcaseevaluationshouldbeconsideredex-ante(meaningbeforetheevent)allowingtheuseofacer-

tainmodelaccordingtotheobjectives,resultsandimpactsandthecollectionofnecessarydataduringthe

process.

AmoredetailedintroductiontoevaluationwillbemadeinModule2,toolsandprocedures.

3.3.3 AssessmentAssessment isaverybroadtermoftenusedasasynonymof“evaluation”and“review”andsimilartoallthe

otherterminologiesinthischapter,notaninstrumentperse.

The only purposeof quality assessment is tomeasure and judge the performanceof an institution, pro-

gramme,unitorindividualwithout,initially,anyfurthermeans.Inordertodoso,itusesdifferentmethods,

forexamplesocialscienceresearchmethodsorpeerreviews.Sincepureassessmentwithafinalgradingor

rankingisnotofmuchbenefittoqualityimprovement,manygovernmentshavestartedtogiverecommenda-

tionsaftertheassessments(Sanyal&Martin2007,35).Still,themainobjectiveofanassessmentistoreview,

measureandjudgequality.

Assessment can be done in the form of a self-assessment or external-assessment. Self-assessments (or

self-evaluation)areparticularlyhighlyregardedintermsofusefulnessfortheassessedunit,departmentor

programmeetc.Self-assessmentcanbepartofevaluationoraccreditationprocedures,asabasisforpeersto

furtherfindoutaboutandjudgetheprogrammeorinstitution(seebelowandModule2).

Assessment

„Assessmentisageneraltermthatembracesallmethodsusedtojudgetheperformanceofanindivi-

dual,groupororganisation.“

Source: Harvey (2004-14). Continuereadingonline...

Assessment: measure andjudge performance (asinCofPDCA)

http://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/glossary/assessment.htm


80

Onerecurringchallengeofqualityassessmentofteachingandlearningistomeasuretheoutcomeofhigher

education:thecompetencesofthestudentsgainedthroughtheirstudies.Differentmethodsarebeingdevel-

opedtohaveadequatedata,butstillthereisnoreliablepracticethatprofessionalsaresatisfiedwith,that

reflectthegainedcompetences.Oneofthemisquasi-experimentallongitudinalstudentsurveys(seeModule

2) .

3.3.4 Accreditation and Audit Accreditationisoftenwronglyseenasqualityassurancealthoughit isonlyoneofmanyqualityassurance

instruments.Itmaybemainlyduetothefactthatitisthemostcommonusedinstrumentthatacademicsare

directlyconfrontedwith.

Accreditationandauditsaregenericprocessesthatcanbevoluntarilyconductedwithprofessionalorgani-

sationsandunions,suchastheAmericanBoardofEngineeringandTraining(ABET), inthecaseofaccred-

itation, or the European University Association (EUA), for audit; or they may be compulsory process-

es, being enforced by national policy and carried out by agencies commissioned by the state (for exam-

pleaccreditedthemselves)orregulatorybodieswhicharepartofthestate.(Dill2010,379)Governments

and ministries in some countries have given the right to assess and accredit institutions and their pro-

grammestoprofessionalaccreditationagencies.Asaformofprofessionalregulation,theyactasago-be-

tween,between the state and the institutions, andareoftendrivenby academicmembers and societies

inorder toguaranteepeer-expertiseand impartiality.Theseagenciesmostlyactonanational levelbuta

trendtoactinternationallyandbeingrecognisedinothercountries,isgrowing.Theagenciesarethemselves

made accountable and have to prove that theywork according to set policies, guidelines and standards.

Accreditationismostlyassociatedwithaccountabilityandfocusesonagatekeeperrole,“evaluatingwhether

something–e.g.aninstitutionorprogram–qualifiesforacertainstatus”(Woodhouse2012,5),bysetting

minimumstandardsforhighereducationinstitutionstheyhavetocomplyto,tobeaccredited.Forvoluntary

accreditations,studyprogrammescanchoosetobeaccreditedornot,withoutconsequencesforthestudy

programmetooperate.Incontrast,stateregulatedaccreditationfocusesonaccountabilityandhasapass,fail

orpasswithconditions,asaconsequenceleadingtointheworstcasethatstudyprogrammesorinstitutions

maynolongercontinuetooperate.AswehavelearnedinChapter3.3.4,accreditationschemeshaverapidly

spreadasthemostusedinstrumentforexternalqualityassurancebythestates.

Thereare“fitness-for-purpose”basedaccreditationschemesand“standard”basedones.Thefirstschemes

haveastrongerfocusonimprovement,whereasthesecondemphasise,thatallhighereducationinstitutions

havetocomplywithminimumstandards.Itisthetwodifferentcampsofarelativistandobjectivistsbased

viewonqualitythatwehaveseeninourChapter1.3.2ondefiningquality.Accreditationcanfocusonsingle

Accreditation

„Accreditationistheestablishmentofthestatus,legitimacyorappropriatenessofaninstitution,pro-

gramme(i.e.compositeofmodules)ormoduleofstudy.“


Accreditation:mostcommon HEregulation

instrument ofstates

http://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/glossary/accreditation.htm


81

studyprogrammesorentireinstitutions,thushavingadifferentfocusbutbothbeingcomplementaryasboth

cannotentirelyignoretheother(Sanyal&Martin2007,7–10):

Institutional accreditation for example looks at themission, goals, governance, programmes, teaching

staff,resources,students,servicesandfacilities.Itfocusesonthesystemasawhole,whetheritissuitable

toassurequalityforitselfwithmechanismsandpractices,andhascertainstandards.

Programme accreditationreliesonsinglestudyprogrammesand,forexample,looksatcertaincriteria

andstandardswhicharesimilartotheoneswehavelistedfortheinstitutionalaccreditation,butjustona

programmelevel.Itconcentrates,forexample,onteachingandlearningstrategy,learningoutcomesand

goalsofthestudyprogrammeetc.

Programmeaccreditationcanalsobean instrumentwhich isbeingusedand implementedwithinHEIs, in

thecaseofaninstitutionallyaccreditedinstitution.Itisthenaninternalinstrumenttoself-accreditthepro-

grammes,whichgivestheinstitutionacertainfreedominthedevelopmentandimplementationofthepro-

grammeaccreditation,thusmakingitforexamplelessbureaucraticandtimeconsumingandbetterintegrat-

edinthequalitymanagementsystemthanexternalprogrammeaccreditation.

Accreditationisconcededforaspecifictimeframeonly(suchas5years)andsometimesthereisahalf-timeassess-

mentinthesefiveyears.Afterthefiveyears,institutionsorprogrammeswouldneedtobereaccredited.

Accreditationprocesses usually follow a three stepmodelwith a self-evaluation report handed in to the

accreditingbodywhichwillthenanalyseit,andconductasitevisitwithpeersattheinstitutioninordertover-

ifyopenquestions.Onthisbasis,areportisproduceduponwhichacommissionwillusuallymakeaverdict.

Thereafter,institutionsusuallyhavethechancetogivefeedbackonthereportandappealagainsttheverdict

byprovidingnewevidenceforexample.Thepeerscanthenreconsidertheresult.

What makes accreditation less useful for quality improvement over time, is the involuntary nature and

accountabilityfocus.Ifastudyprogrammedoesnotgetaccreditedtheconsequenceisthatitwillbeshut-

down.This leads toattempts tohideweaknessesand therefore towindowdress theobjectbeingunder

accreditation.Thisprocedurecanbeincontrasttoevaluation(seeChapter3.2.2andModule2)whichisnot

necessarilyconnectedtoaformalsummaryjudgementnoranyformofformalapproval.(Schwarz&Wester-

heijden2004b)

Accreditationissometimesconnectedtoevaluationassupplement,inawaythattheycomplementeachoth-

er.Followingtheargumentabove,thelinkbetweenevaluationtoaccreditationcoulddefectthepurposeof

evaluation,andproduceonlyresultsthattrytowindowdress.(Schwarz&Westerheijden2004a,16)Evalu-

ationisapartandprerequisiteofaccreditation,becauseself-assessment,asaformofevaluation,isthefirst

stepleadingtoareportthatundergoesexternalreviewandasitevisitinanaccreditationprocess.(Schwarz

&Westerheijden2004a,12)

Audits in contrast to accreditation, are associated with improvement of institutions which have already

reachedacertainthresholdinsteadofaccountability.Thisdoesnotimply,thataccreditationcannotleadto

improvementorthatthefocusofauditsmaynotbetoholdinstitutionsaccountablefortheirownsetgoals.

Institutional vs.programme accreditation

3stepsof accreditation: 1.self- evaluation report 2.sitevisit 3.peerreport &verdict


82

(Woodhouse2012,5)Thecriticismofthewindow-dressingriskdiscussedwithregardtoaccreditation,isless

imminentwithaudits,asitjudgesthesystemandnottheprovisionofthesinglestudyprogrammeforexample.

Qualityauditsassessthequalitymanagementsystemandnotthequalityoftheinstitution,inordertodiscov-

erstrengthsandweaknesses.(Martin&Stella2007,36)Theauditscanonlybecarriedoutbyindividualswho

arenotinvolvedintheauditingprocesses.Thereasonforauditscanbetomeetinternalorexternalgoalsand

theresultsarewrittendowninreport.(Vlăsceanu,Grünberg,&Parlea2004,50)

Audit

„Audit,inthecontextofqualityinhighereducation,isaprocessforcheckingthatproceduresarein

placetoassurequality,integrityorstandardsofprovisionandoutcomes.“


Audit systemsand procedures: lesswindow -dressing?

Academic Auditing at Kwame Nkrumah University of Science & Technology (KNUST), Kumasi, Ghana

BasedonitsQualityAssurancePolicyKNUSThasdefinedvarioustoolsandprocedurestoensureand

enhancequalityinthecorefieldsofteachingandlearning,researchandorganisationalstructuresof

theuniversity.Concerningexternalqualityassurance,KNUSTfollowstheaccreditationstandardsand

guidelines,setandconductedbytheNationalAccreditationBoard(NAB)andtheNationalCouncilfor

TertiaryEducation(NCTE).Forinternalqualityassurance,KNUSTusesdifferentinstruments.Oneisthe

InternalAudit.

KNUSTdefines this InternalAudit as “an independent, objective, assuranceand consulting activity

designedtoaddvalueandimproveanorganization’soperations.Ithelpsanorganizationaccomplish

itsobjectivesbybringingasystematic,disciplinedapproachtoevaluateandimproveeffectivenessof

riskmanagement,control,andgovernmentprocesses.”(KNUSTWebsite,AboutAudit).

Basedonthisdefinition,KNUSTusestheInternalAuditasatooltoascertainthevalidityandreliability

ofinformationandalsotoprovideanassessmentoftheadequacyandeffectivenessofmanagement’s

internalcontrolsystems(cf.KNUSTQualityAssurancePolicy).Thescopeoftheinternalauditincludes:

Reviewingthereliabilityandintegrityoffinancialandoperatinginformationandthemeansusedto

identify,measure,classify,andreportsuchinformation.

Reviewing the systemsestablished toensure compliancewith thosepolicies,plans,procedures,

laws,andregulationswhichcouldhaveamaterialimpactonoperationsandreports.

Reviewingestablishedsystemsofinternalcontroltoascertainwhethertheyarefunctioningasdesi-

gned.

http://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/glossary/audit.htm


83

Reviewing themeansof safeguardingassetsand,asappropriate, verifying theexistenceof such

assets.

ReviewingspecificoperationsattherequestoftheAuditCommittee,theViceChancellor,orother

managers,asappropriate.

Discoveredshortcomingsanddiscrepanciesarediscussedandrevisedtodevelopappropriatemeas-

uresbytheso-calledQualityAssuranceandPlanningUnit(QAPU).Thisunitisinchargetopromote

andsuperviseinternalqualityassuranceprocessesatKNUST.TheresultsarepresentedtotheAcadem-

icBoardoftheuniversity.ThisCommitteeisthefinalauthoritytoapproveanyrecommendationsor

suggestionswithregardtothemaintenanceorenhancementofacademicqualitystandardsatKNUST.

Toguaranteeeffective,reliablyandtrustfulauditingproceduresKNUSTunderlinesthattheauditorin

chargeshouldfulfilthefollowingessentialcharacteristics(cf.KNUSTWebsite,AboutAudit):

Beingindependentandobjective.

Beingknowledgeableintheoperationoftheorganisation.

Beingtrustfulandrecognisedwiththejobasconsultant.

Solveig Randhahn (basedonKNUSTqualityassurancepolicyandwebsiteoninternalaudit.Retrieved

onJanuary31,2015,fromhttp://audit.knust.edu.gh/about-audit )


1. ArethereanyexamplesofprocessesatyourHEIthatarebasedonthePDCAcycle?Ifso,please

describe.

2. DiscusswaystoimplementthePDCAcycleasarolemodelofeverydayteachingandlearninginyour

institution.Howcouldtheprinciplebepropagatedinthefaculties?

3.Whatisthedifferencebetweenevaluation,accreditationandaudit?

4. Summarisewhichtoolsandinstrumentsforqualitymanagementareinuseatyourinstitution.

Further Reading

Sanyal,B.C.,&Martin,M.(2007).Qualityassuranceandtheroleofaccreditation:Anoverview.In

GlobalUniversityNetworkforInnovation(Ed.),Higher education in the world 2007. Accreditation

for quality assurance: What is at stake?(2nded.).NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan.

Sokovic,M., Pavletic,D.,&KernPipan, K. (2010).Quality improvementmethodologies – PDCA

cycle,RADARmatrix,DMAICandDFSS.Journal of Achievements in Materials and Manufacturing

Engineering, 43(1),476–483.

http://audit.knust.edu.gh/about-audit

Chapter 4: Structures and Roles in Quality Management

84

4 Structures and Roles in Quality Management – How to Implement a Quality Management System . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

4 .1 Structuring Quality Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

4.1.1 TheStructureofHigherEducationInstitutionsAccordingtoMintzberg . . . . . . . 86

4.1.2 ExemplaryTypesofInstitutionalQualityManagementStructures . . . . . . . . . . . 87

4.1.3 GeneralConsiderationsforStructuring Quality Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

4.2 RolesandResponsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

4 .2 .1 Role of the Senior Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

4 .2 .2 Role of the Quality Unit and Quality Manager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

4.2.3 RoleofFaculties,Departments,StudyProgrammesandLecturers . . . . . . . . . . . 96

4.3 ImplementingaQualityManagementSystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

4 .4 Case Studies of Quality Management Systems and Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

4 .4 .1 Quality Management System of the Vietnam NationalUniversityHoChiMinhCity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

4.4.2 QualityManagementSystemoftheMultimediaUniversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

weighupthepossibilitiesonhowtostructureQMinthecontextofyourown

institutionalframework,cultureandtradition,

describeandallocaterolesandresponsibilitiesinQM,

weighpossiblerolesandresponsibilitiesofaQAunitatyourownHEI,

reflecttheprocessofimplementationorrevisionofaQMsystem.


Chapter 4

Structures and Roles in Quality Management How to Implement a Quality Management System


85

4 Structures and Roles in Quality Management – How to Implement a Quality Management System

Afterallwehavediscussedsofar,onecansummarisethatmanagingqualityinhighereducationanddriv-

ingchangeisademandinganddelicatetask.Havingdiscussedthedefinitionofquality,possiblemodelsand

somemaininstruments,thenextstepwewanttoaddresswhendesigningaQMS,istobuildthestructures,

settherolesandconceptualisetheimplementationprocess.Aswhenconsideringadefinitionofqualityand

amodel,thereisnopatternorsingleapproachtofollow.Thequalitydefinitionandmodelhowever,willgive

youmoreorlessdefinedrequirementsandprerequisitesforyourstructures,andwheretolocatethemin

yourorganisationinordertosupportandimplementyoursystem.Similartodefiningqualityandweighingup

modelsandinstruments,institutionshavetostronglyconsiderandincorporatetheirowncontext(external

andinternal),traditions,cultureaswellaslimitationswhensettingupandchangingstructures.Additionallyit

isimportanttokeepinmind,thateverymodelorstructurehasitsstrengthsandweaknesses.Wewilldiscuss

some of them in the following paragraphs .

4.1 Structuring Quality ManagementEveryorganisationneedstohaveaplanonhowtoorganiseanddividetheworkinordertoruntheprocess-

essmoothly,fulfilitsowndutiesandreachthesetgoals.Withstructuresofqualityassuranceweunderstand

thedefinitionofrelationshipsandallocationofresponsibilities,thedivisionandgroupingofworkaswellas

thecoordinationandcontrolofthetasks.Itisgenerallythestructuringofpeopleandprocessesconcerned

withqualitymanagementintheinstitution.(Senior&Fleming2006,78)Afirstdeductionfromthisdefinition

isthatthestructuresshouldservethegoalofyourqualitymodel,beitmainlydirectedatcontrol,assurance

orenhancement,andsecondlysupporttheprocessesthroughwhichtheinstitutionwantstoreachitsquality

standardsandobjectives.

Thedesignoforganisationalstructuresisadutyoftheseniormanagement9.Itdefineshowtheorganisation

shouldfunction,takingintoaccounttheorganisationalcontext,itsspecificsanditsenvironmenttodeduct

howtheobjectivescouldbeachievedandwaysthatareunlikelytobesuccessful.Therefore,structuresof

qualitymanagementvaryfrominstitutiontoinstitution.Structuresarenotfixed,theycanbeenhancedand

theyshouldadapttochangeinordertofulfiltheirfunction(Bose2012,94).Thisdoesnotmeanthatthey

shouldbehastilyreworkedandcontinuallychanged.Changesinstructuresshouldbethoroughlyconsidered.

Theexistenceof“informal”structuresshouldalsobetakenintoaccount.Theyare“theoutcomeoffriendship

andinterestgroupingsaswellasthosewhichservepoliticalpurposes,sometimesnotrelatedtotheorganiza-

tion´sgoals”(Senior&Fleming2006,79),buttheseareoftendifficulttopredict.

9 Inthiscontext,seniormanagementreferstotheRector,President,ViceChancellororaVice/Deputyresponsibleforteachingand learning for example .

Define structures aligned to quality notionand model

Structures need adjustment overtime

Informal structures


86

Aswearenotdiscussingstructuringhighereducationinstitutionsasawhole,butonlythelocalisationofqual-

itymanagementwithinthem,afirststepistoconsiderandanalysetheexistingstructureofyourinstitution

whichisusuallylaidoutinanorganisationalchart.Thechartcanhelptodefinewherequalitymanagement

structuresshouldcomeintoplay.Itcouldbeatonesingleoratmultiplelocationswithinthechartandwith

differentreasonsfororagainstit.

Forbackgroundknowledgeonhowtostructureyourqualitymanagement,wewillnowfirstgiveanoutlineof

Mintzberg’sprofessionalbureaucracywhichisoftenseenasthespecifictypeoforganisationalstructurethat

characteriseshighereducationinstitutions.Thiswillthenbefollowedbyexemplarywaystostructurequality

managementandsomefurtherpointsthatshouldbeconsideredforthedecisionmakingprocess.

4.1.1 The Structure of Higher Education Institutions According to Mintzberg

Therehavebeendifferenttaxonomiesoforganisationalstructuresandoneof themost influentialones is

Mintzberg’s(1980)‘structureinfives’.Mintzbergseeshighereducationinstitutionstobemostlywhathe

callsthe‘professionalbureaucracy’.Followingthistype,highereducationinstitutionsareinastablebutcom-

plexenvironmentandarecharacterisedbyprofessionals(thelecturersandresearchers)withahighlevelof

specialisedskillsandknowledge.Thecoordinationofworkintheorganisationisnotdividedororganisedby

processesbutthroughthestandardisationofskillsandknowledgeoftheemployees,whichtheyobtainedin

theirhighereducationstudies.AuthorityisstronglydecentralisedinHEIsgivingalargeshareofpowerand

autonomytotheacademics,workingfreelyeveninrelationtotheircolleagues.Asaresultthecentralsen-

iormanagementisnotverypowerful.Formalisation,standardisationandregulationareminimalduetothe

complexityofworkinteaching,learningandresearch.Therelativelylargesupportstaffhasmostlyaback-up

functionandishighlydependentontheacademics.(Mintzberg1980,333etseq.)

Mintzberg’staxonomyoforganisationalstructuresmightnotbefullyuptodateinregardtohighereducation

institutionsinourtimes(Steiger,Hammou,&Galib2014,44)becauseoftheemergenceofNPM(seeChapter

2 .3 .2)resultingintheintroductionofmanagerialisminhighereducation.Stilltheprofessionalbureaucracy

canbeconsideredasbeingthetraditionofhighereducationinstitutionsand,toadifferentextent,isstillpres-

entstilltoday.Youwillprobablyhaveobservedthatsomeofthedescriptionsaboveexisttoacertainextent

inyourowninstitutions.Notwithoutreason,highereducationinstitutionshavebeendescribedas‘loosely

coupledsytems’(Weick1976;Orton&Weick1990)oras‘organizedanarchy’(Cohen,March,&Olsen1972).


1. Howisthegeneralstructureofyourinstitutionorganised?

2.WhatcharacterisestheprofessionalbureaucracyofMintzberg?

3. TowhatextenddoesyourinstitutionresembleMintzberg’sprofessionalbureaucracyandwhatare

thedifferences?

4. Howwouldyoudescribetherelationshipandcooperationbetweenseniormanagementandthe

facultiesinyourinstitution?

HEIs as a special

type of organisation

Mintzberg’s professional bureaucracy

and HEIs


87

4.1.2 Exemplary Types of Institutional Quality Management Structures

Structuringqualitymanagement ismostly aquestionof centralisation vs. decentralisation.Where should

quality bemanagedandbywhom?Should it be locatedunder the central seniormanagementor in the

decentralisedlevelsofpower(faculties,departments,etc.)toreachthehighestpossibleimpact?

Nomatterwhetheryourqualitymanagementapproachhasastrongercentralisedordecentralisedapproach,

thereisaneedforclearresponsibilitiesalsoonthecentralinstitutionallevel.

Kaufmanndifferentiatesbetweentwomainvariablesthatdistinguishtheimplementationofqualityassur-

ance:theorganisationalstructureandthesteeringapproach.Allinall,theyallowfourconfigurationswhich

youcanseeintable8.

Steering of Senior Management

Content

Centralised Decentralised

Org

anis

ation

al S

truc

ture

Cent

ralis

ed Contentspecificationbyseniormanage-mentandcentralimplementation

Contentautonomybyfacultiesandcen-tralimplementation

Dec

entr

alis

ed

Contentspecificationbyseniormanage-mentandindependentimplementation

Contentautonomybyfacultiesandinde-pendentimplementation

Table 8 Steeringoptionsofqualityassurance(translatedfromKaufmann2009,26)(owntable)

ThefollowingexamplesadaptedfromKaufmann(2009)arethreefrequentlyimplementedtypesofquality

managementstructuresfoundinGermanhighereducationinstitutionsandshowhowtheyareintegratedon

acentralorganisationallevel.

1. Administrative unit under senior management: locatestheunitforqualitymanagementdirectlyunder

seniormanagement,oftenundertheresponsiblepersonforteachingandlearningtherein(e.g.VicePresi-

dent/RectororDeputyViceChancellor).Bydoingso,theunitisdirectlyresponsibletotheseniormanage-

mentandnotpartoftheremainingadministrativehierarchy.AccordingtotheprinciplesofTQM,theunit

designsanddevelops thequalitymanagement system, forexample implementingnew instrumentsorby

offeringworkshops for staff development. In this case the central responsible unitwould not be directly

involvedinthequalitycontrolandenhancementbutonlyincoordination,supportingthefaculties,depart-

mentsandlecturers.However,theproceduresarefrequentlycarriedoutbythecentralunitanyway,since

competenciesandresourcesonthedecentralisedlevelsmightnot(yet)beabletodoso.

Centralised vs.decentralised QM structures


88

Advantages Challenges

Directlinkandcommunicationtoseniormanage-

ment and thus easier strategic management with

results gained from the QMS

Easy to implement without need of restructuring

orbigchanges

Independencefromadministrationallowsgreat-

erfreedominthefieldofadministrativeevalua-

tionsandreforms

Animositiesfromtheadministrationthatcould

fearalossofinfluence

Higherriskofbeingaformalestablishment

tosatisfyexternaldemands.“Talk”insteadof

“action”

Unitmightbeseenastheextendedarmof

seniormanagement,leadingtosuspicionsand

fearofcontrolandthusnotsupportingquality

enhancement

Difficultytoinstallpermanentstaff,lesssustaina-

ble

Table 9 Advantagesandchallengesofaunitunderseniormanagement(adaptedfromKaufmann2009,21etseq.)

2. Unit under the administration: the outputmeasurement and process control are traditionally located

intheadministrationofHEIs.Thistypeofstructuralintegrationlocatestheuniteitherinanadministrative

departmentorestablishesitasitsowndepartment.Thelatterfrequentlybundlesqualitymanagementwith

aplanning,developmentandcontrollingdepartment.Whennewlyintroducedqualityassuranceresponsibil-

itiesareoftenplacedindifferentadministrativedepartments,forexamplebydividingtasksforteachingand

learning from those of planning and controlling .


Easiercoordinationwithotheradministrative

departmentsthroughthegivenproximityand

similarity

Betterintegrationintothewholeinstitution

couldbereachedthankstotheadministrative

linkandlinktoseniormanagement

Permanentpostscanoftenbecreatedwhich

leadtogreatersustainability

Onlyindirectlinktoseniormanagement

Riskconcentratingoncontrollingaspectsandlos-

ingstrategicdirection

Riskofstrongercommunicationdifficultieswith

faculties,academicdepartmentsandlecturers

Riskofmakingorganisationaldevelopmentand

consultingmoredifficult,forexamplebecauseof

lackofindependencefromotheradministrative

departments

Difficultytodoresearch

Table 10 Advantagesandchallengesofaunitunderadministration(adaptedfromKaufmann2009,20etseq.)

3. The independent centre: isoftenaunitonitsownthatisresponsibleforqualityassuranceandevaluation

withagoodportionofautonomyfromsenior-management,administration,committeesetc.Itfunctionsas

anentitybetweenseniormanagementandthefacultiesanddepartments.Seniormanagementisoftenthe

directorindirectprincipaloftheprocessesandprocedures.Anexamplewouldbetheevaluationofteaching

andlearningorthesupportforprogrammeaccreditationofstudyprogrammes.Thestrongindependenceby


89

design,allowsthebetterprovisionofscientific(research-based)adviceandsupportandappeasesthepercep-

tionofbeingtheextendedarmofseniormanagement(ascouldbeseeninmodel1).Sometimesthesecen-

tresarelinkedtospecificacademicdepartments,forexampleofpsychologyorempiricalresearchmethods,

inordertoallowcontinuityandthenecessaryscientificcompetencies.Acentrewouldfurtherallowresearch

withthe(usuallyhighamountof)collecteddata.Onanorganisationallevel,thecentrecanbeintegratedat

differentpositions,forexampleunderthesenateortheuniversitycouncil.


Independence from senior management which

cansupportamoreindependentview

Strongerscientific-ledworkthatismoreappro-

priatefortheteachingandlearningenvironment

ofscientists

Strongertrustintheunit,notseemingtofollow

the senior management agenda

Possibilityofresearchcansupportquality

enhancementwithnewfindingsandtechniques

Strongerreputationwithinandoutsidetheinsti-

tution

Expensivemodelusuallyonlyfittingtolarger

sizedinstitutions

Oftennotalltheorganisationaldevelopment

andcontrollingfunctionscanbecovered,leaving

someofthemintheadministrationorelsewhere

Difficulttoinstallpermanentstaff,lesssustaina-

ble

Table 11 Advantagesandchallengesofanindependentcentre(adaptedfromKaufmann2009,19etseq.)

4.1.3 General Considerations for Structuring Quality Management

Onedeductionofhowtostructurequalityassurance fromMintzberg’sProfessionalBureaucracy (Chapter

4 .1 .1),couldbethat“thequalitybusiness”hastobeinthehandsoftheacademicsgiventhehighamountof

autonomyandownershipofknowledgeandskills.Still,therewouldbeaneedforstructuresontheinstitu-

tionallevelthatsupporttheindividualsorassureandsetcertainstandardsandproceduresthatallowbench-

markingforexample.Itwouldalsobeimportanttoconsiderwhichstructurescansupportyoubestinachiev-

ingthegoaltoincludeeveryoneandtocreateafeelingofstakeholderownershipofqualityenhancement.

Especiallyinanacademicenvironment,“overstructuring”mighthavetheundesiredeffectofoverloadingor

overburdeningtheinvolvedactors.


1.Whichoftheexemplarystructuralconfigurationtypesdoyouseeasbeingmostsuitableforyour

institution?Pleaseelaboratewhy.

2.Whichofthethreeconfigurationswouldsupportqualityenhancementinteachingandlearning

mostinyouropinion?

3. Pleasedescribethequalitymanagementstructuresatyourinstitutionspecifyingsimilaritiesand

differencestotheaboveintroducedmodels(table8).


90

Thefollowingpointsgiveyousomeguidelinequestionsyoucanusewhensettingupordevelopingyourqual-

itystructuresandincludeexemplarystructuraldecisionsthatcouldbederivedfromthem.

Size of the institution-howbigisyourinstitution?Thebiggertheinstitutionthemoredifficultitistocen-

trallyrunqualitymanagement.Whereasifyouinstitutionissmall,acentralisedstructurewillbesuitable.

Sizehasfurtherrepercussionstothemanpoweryouwillhaveandneed.

Diversity-howmanyfaculties/departmentsanddifferenttraditionsandculturesarepresentinyourinsti-

tution?Aninstitutionwithonemainfield,suchaseconomics,couldmoreeasilycentrallydefinequality

andquality assurancemechanisms.A centralisedone-for-all approach could be suitable.On theother

hand,itwouldbedifficulttoonlyhavecentralstructuresforadiverseinstitutionwhichwillprobablyhave

manyconflictingviewsonwhatisqualityandhowtoassureit.Qualitydefinition,assuranceandenhance-

mentcanbelocatedaslowasinthehandsofprogrammesorevenlectures.Inthiscasehavingacentral

structurethatdefinesminimumstandardsandallowsstrongdecentraliseddecisions,mightbeabetter

choice .

Geographic dispersion-howmanycampusesdoesyourinstitutionhave?Aretheyallnearby,indifferent

citiesorevencountrieswithdifferentjurisdictions?Ifyourinstitutionneedstomanagethequalityofa

numberofbranches,thesetupmustconsiderhowtomakesurethesamequalitystandardsarepresent

inallofthelocationsandhowyoucanfosterenhancement.Geographicdispersionautomaticallycallsfor

strongerdecentralisationwithacertainstandardtobefulfilledcentrally.

Quality notion and model –whichqualitynotionandmodeldoesyourinstitutionpursue?Furtherdeduc-

tionsonthestructurecanbederivedfromthequalitynotionandthemodelyouwanttoimplement.Again,

ifweseequalityastransformation(Chapter 1 .1 .2),qualitymanagementmightbebetterdecentralisedand

implementedbythefaculties/departmentsandindividuallybythelecturers.Withacontrolorienteddefi-

nitionontheotherhand,amorecentralisedapproachmightbemoreuseful.

Context, institutional setting and tradition–e.g.howautonomousaretheinstitutionanditsemployees?

Ifthereisatraditionofstrongacademicfreedom,itmightbedifficulttorunqualitymanagementcentrally.

Itmightbewisetosupporttheacademicsintheirownershipofquality.

External rules and demands–doesthecountry’sEQAsystemrequireyoutohavecertainstructures?Itis

importanttoknowifthereareanydemandsorguidelinesfromtheexternalassurancebodywhichhaveto

bemet.Usuallythough,itisuptotheinstitutiontostructureQAaslongastheyhaveaunitandasystem

in place .

Budget and resources–howmuchbudgetshouldbeallocated?Budgetisalwaysarestriction,butitdoes

notmean that qualitymanagement cannot bepart of your institutionsdailywork and routines. Exist-

ingresourcesandstructuresthatareclosetoqualityassuranceandmanagementcouldbebundledand

topped-up. However, just allocating qualitymanagement duties and responsibilities on top of existing

departments/individualswouldbecounter-productive.Eithernewresourcesareallocatedorothertasks

shouldberearrangedordropped.

Choosing the right structure


91

There are no strict guidelines or rules on which model to choose and what structure to implement for QM .

Themanycasestudies,thatshowhowQMisbeingimplementedinhighereducationinstitutionsallaround

theworld,canbeusedtogainideasandfoodforthought,buttheyshouldalwaysbemirroredinone’sown

institutionalsettingandcontext(seealsoChapter 1 .2 .4) . Chapter 4 .4 will introduce you to two exemplary

systems .

4.2 Roles and ResponsibilitiesClearlydefiningrolesandresponsibilitiesforthestaffthatisperformingqualitymanagementproceduresis

acrucialpartof implementingyourqualitysystem.Questionsthathavetobeansweredrangefrom“who

shouldinitiatethequalityprocess?”or“whoactuallydefines,implementsandrunsqualitymanagement?”to

“whichknowledge,supportandhumanresourcesareneeded?”.

WehavealreadyemphasisedtheimportanceofleadershipinChapter 4 .1 and will further discuss the senior

managementroleandthatofthequalitymanagers,thequalitymanagementunitandthefacultiesinthefol-

lowing chapters .


1.Whichcontextualfactorswouldyouconsiderforthequalitystructuresofyourinstitutionandwhat

doyoudeductfromthem?

2.Wouldacentralisedordecentralisedapproachbettersuityourinstitutionalsetting?Pleaseelabo-

rate why .

3. Arethereanyexternalrulesanddemandsforqualitystructuresorguidelinesforsystemsthatyou

needtofollow?HowcouldtheybemadesuitableforyourinternalQM?

Further Reading

Billing,D.(1998).Qualitymanagementandorganisationalstructureinhighereducation.Journalof

HigherEducationPolicyandManagement,20(2),139–159.

Cohen,M.D.,March,J.G.,&Olsen,J.P.(1972).Agarbagecanmodeloforganizationalchoice.Ad-

ministrativeScienceQuarterly,17(1),1–25.

Mintzberg,H.(1980).Structurein5‘s:asynthesisoftheresearchonorganizationdesign.Manage-

mentScience,26(3),322–341.

Orton,J.D.,&Weick,K.E.(1990).Looselycoupledsystems:Areconceptualization.TheAcademyof

ManagementReview,15(2),203–223.


92

4.2.1 Role of the Senior ManagementEspeciallyintheinitialphasesofqualitymanagementimplementation,thecommitmentandsupportofsenior

managementiscrucial.Thedesignandkeystructuresforqualityinhighereducationinstitutionscanonlybedefined

bytheseniormanagement,beingtheonesintheinstitutionwiththemeansandauthoritytoimplementthem.In

contrast,facultiesanddepartmentswouldlacktheresourcesandcompetenciestodoso.(Kaufmann2009,18)The

modelofthefirstexemplarystructurewehavedescribed(seeChapter 4 .1 .2),withclosetieoftheunittosenior

management,wouldthereforebeasuitableoption,especiallyfortheinitialphase(Kaufmann2009,25).

Seniormanagementhastobecommittedandhastosupportthequalitymanagementsystemfirstandforemost

bymakingsuretheHEIhasaclearandrealisticmission,visionandgoalsuponwhichtheQMScanbebased.An

additionalmainroleistosetaclearstrategyfortheintroductionandimplementationofthequalitymanagement

system(Becket&Brookes2008,44).Italsoneedstosecurethefundingofhumanresourcesandfacilityneeds,with

acleargoalofsettingupsustainablestructuresandtosupportthefacultiesanddepartmentsintheirqualitywork.

Itmightmakesensetouseexistingresourcesandplacenewtasksontheirshoulders,forexampleinthefaculty.

However,thiscannotmeanthatitcanhappenwithoutmakingadjustmentseitherresourcewiseorbyrelievingthe

faculties(orindividuals)inothertasks.

Afurtherroleofseniormanagementistobeaninitiatorwhosetsnewtopicsonthequalityagenda.Forthispur-

pose,theyshouldalwaysbewellinformedaboutexternaldemandsandchangesintheuniversity’senvironment.

Thestrategyshouldreachfartherthanthemeregoalof“fulfillingtheexternallysetdemandsandstandards”and

shouldoccupytopicsandchallengesthatwillconcerntheinstitutioninfuture.

Withalltheseduties,seniormanagementsurelycannotbeleftunaided.Itshouldthereforemobilisehumanand

structuralresourcesthatsupportthestrategy.Dependingonthecontextandhistory,thestartingpointcanbevery

differentcasebycase:someHEIsmightalreadyhaveaunitfromthebeginning,othersmighthavecertaindepart-

mentsclosetoqualitymanagementsuchascontrollingorevaluationorhavealreadyasysteminplace.Whatever

thesituationis,itisimportantthatthecompetencesofthesestructuresareclearlydefinedandverifiedinorderto

realisticallyimplementthequalitymanagementsystemanddefinethesupportandstructureswhicharefurther

needed to do so .

Wheretherearenoqualitymanagementstructuresinplace,thefirststepcouldbetochooseamainresponsibleagent

fortheinstitution:aqualitymanagerinformofanassistant,deputy,directororheadofqualityunit.Thequalitymanag-

er’sroleandresponsibilityshouldbeclearlydefinedandlaiddowninthejobdescription.Whenchoosingtheresponsible

person,seniormanagementshouldmakesurethatthequalitymanagerfulfilstherequiredprofileandincaseofneed,

allowthedevelopmentofthemissingskillsinformoffurtherindividualtraining.Seniormanagementmustkeepinmind

theimportanceofthequalitymanagerforthesuccessfulimplementationoftheQMSandconsidertheenvironmentin

whichthedailyworkwillhavetobedone.Beinganacademicenvironment,itshouldbeconsideredthatthequalityman-

agershouldtosomeextentbesenior,possiblywithacademiccredibilityandbackground.Thissupportstheindividual

credibilityandwillallowthequalitymanagertounderstandtheneedsandconcernsoftheacademicsmoreeasily.The

qualitymanagermustfurtherbeabletocountonthesupportofseniormanagementandviceversa.

Whatwehavejustoutlinedalsocountsforqualitymanagementunits:theseshouldalsohaveaclearlydefinedrole

andresponsibilities.Theimplementationofproceduresshouldhappentransparentlywithinclusionofthefacul-

ties,departmentsandotherrelevantstakeholderssuchasstudents,employersandsociety.Seniormanagement

Initiator of QM

Clear and realistic vision&

mission as a fundament

Strategy& resources

Agenda setter

Clearly definerole ofquality manager

Consider working

environment


93

needstomakesurethatespeciallyfacultiesanddepartmentsbutalsootherstakeholdersknowtheirpartofthe

responsibilitiesandroles,too.

Fromallthefindingsaboutthesuccessofqualitymanagementsystems,comingfrombusinessorhighereducation,

theimportanceoftheroleofleadershipcannotbeemphasisedenough(Becket&Brookes2008;Steiger,Hammou,

andGalib2014):

“leadership is theprimefactor responsible foranorganisation’sdevelopment,actinguponthe

definitionof itspolicy,strategyandculture,makingavailabletheresourcesneededfor itspro-

cesses,establishingculture,makingavailabletheresourcesneededforitsprocesses,establishing

necessarypartnerships,interveningintherecruitment,andtrainingofitsdifferentactorsandcon-

tributingtoitsstructureandinternalorganisation”.

(Maria João Rosa & Amaral 2007, 195)

4.2.2 Role of the Quality Unit and Quality ManagerNoteveryhighereducationinstitutionhasthesizeandtheavailableresourcestosustainanexplicitlyassigned

qualityassuranceunit.Therefore,thefollowingreferstoanykindoforganisationalsetupofqualitymanage-

ment,whenwementiontheroleofthequalitymanager.

Qualitymanagers,especiallywhentheyarecloselytiedtotheseniormanagement,shouldfunctionasagents

whoontheonehandsupportthestrategicorientationofqualitymanagementandontheother,advisewith

necessaryexpertise,suchaswithknowledgeaboutthecontext,aboutexternaldemands(e.g.EQA),about

methodsandinstrumentsandabouttheinstitutionalculture.Thisroleassupportersoftheseniormanage-

mentisespeciallyimportantduringtheinitialintroductionofqualityassurancemechanisms,butalsoduring

itscontinuedimplementation.

Theroleofqualitymanagers for the institutionasawholecanvarydependingonthequalitynotionand

modeladoptedaswellasthecontext(forexamplethesizeandresources).Generally,thefunctionistooffer

supportandtocoordinatequalitymanagementattheinstitutionallevelandtoliaisewiththenextlowerlev-

elsuchasfacultiesanddepartments.Thequalitymanageristhestrategicinterfacewhereallqualitythreads

converge.

Qualitymanagershave,ontheonehand,anexpertandservicefunctionintermsofEQA(suchassupporting

externalaccreditationandaudits)andIQA(suchasself-evaluationandfollowup)facilitatingandassistingthe

institutionforboth.Theyareagentsofchangewhoneedtosecuretransparencyandparticipationinorderto

motivateandincludethedifferentstakeholderstocooperate(e.g.individualteachers).

Ontheotherhand,qualitymanagersneedtomakesurethatthesystemisworkingproperlyandiswater-tight

byusingrobustscientificmethods,mechanismsandtechniques.Theyneedtobeinsteadyexchangewiththe

facultiesanddepartments,thedifferentcommitteesetc.andtomakesurethatqualityisactuallycontrolled,

assuredandenhanced.Inthisregarditisfurtherimportantthatthequalitymanagementsystemiswellbal-

ancedbetweenEQAandIQA.

Importance of leadership

Agentof change

Service, support& coordination QM interface

Scientific- based workand methods


94

Athirdpossiblefunctionreferstoresearchofteachingandlearning:thedatacollectedandavailableforthe

qualitymanagementsystem,canbeusedasameansofresearchtothenfeedthefindingsintothesystem

toallowqualityenhancementinteachingandlearning.Thisthirdfunctionissurelyverydemandingandnot

practicablewithouttheresourcesofastandingunit.However,theworkofthequalitymanagersshouldbe

basedonup-to-dateresearchfindingsandscientificmethods,whichdoesnotmeanthattheyactuallyhave

tobeactiveinresearchaboutteachingandlearningorqualitymanagementthemselves.

Inconstantexchangewiththeinstitutionanditsstakeholders,oneofthefundamentaltasksofthequality

manageristojointlyidentifyanddevelopthequalitynotionwhichtranslatesintothequalitymanagement

systemandframeworkbyfacilitatingdiscussions,dialogueanddecisions.Afurtherdutyistodocumentthe

qualitymanagementsystemandpossiblytheprocessesofteachingandlearninginordertomakethemtrans-

parentandhaveacommongroundfortheirownandespeciallytheworkofothers.Theinstitutionwillneed

guidelinesandpoliciesthatdescribetheprocessesandresponsibilitiessuchasaQMhandbook,thedescrip-

tionofprocessesandinformationflows(seeModule4)andevaluationpolicies.

Qualitymanagersmustalsobepreparedtohandlechallengeswhichcanariseinconnectionwiththeirwork,

bothinsideaswellasoutsidetheinstitution.Theywilloftenfindresistanceofdifferenttypesandatdifferent

levels.Atypicalformofresistanceistocriticisemethodsandinstrumentsasnotbeingadequateorscientifi-

callyprovenortorelyon“academicfreedom”forhavingadifferentviewand/ornotbeingabletobejudged

bythesystemorbeingpassive.Othersmightonlyfulfiltheircriteriaanddutiesonpaper.(Kaufmann2009,

29)Externalchallengescouldbethatcertaindataorresultsarewronglyinterpretedandputtheinstitution

inawronglight.Generally,manyofthechallengesthatqualitymanagersandunitshave,showtheneedfor

provenscientificinstrumentsandmechanisms.

SursockandVettori(2012)haveexaminedqualityculturesinEuropeanhighereducationinstitutions.Their

findingshaveunderlinedtheneedfornewrolesforqualitymanagers,whichemphasisethefacilitatingfunc-

tion.Theyshould:

examine quality culturesoftheinstitution.Howdotheindividualsintheinstitutionhandlequalityand

qualityassurance?Arethererepeating,similarordifferenttypes?

facilitate organisational reflection, change and dialogue in the institution. This function goes

beyond amere coordinating function and emphasises the role as a facilitator,whichwe have already

addressedabove.

translate between languages. It isnoteasytobringtogetherdifferentactorsofhighereducation insti-

tutionsandthereisoftenaneedtotranslatethelanguagesusedinordertohaveacommongroundand

understanding.ThetranslationwouldbeforexamplebetweenthelanguageofQAandtheoneoftheinsti-

tutionorthelanguageoftheacademicsandtheoneofseniormanagement.

be “cultural brokers”inthesenseoflinking,mediatingandbridgingideasandhelpactorstotaketheirper-

spectives.

be “meaning agents”whosupportmanagerswithintheHEIinsense-makingprocessesandhelptogener-

atemeaningfulinformation.

Research in teaching &learning

Partici- patively develop

qualitynotion and system

Handle/ address

challenges and foster

QM support ininstitution

Newroles?


95

ThecontentsoftheTrainIQAcoursewithitsfivemodulesfurtherreflecttheareasofexpertisequalitymanagers

shouldhave.Thisdoesnotmean,thattheyhavetobeanexpertinallofthesefields,buttheyshouldknowthe

basicsofsomeandbespecificexpertsinothers.Ineverydaywork,qualitymanagersshouldneverforgetthatqual-

itymanagementshouldnotbecomeaburdenfortheindividualsintheinstitutionbutactuallyenhanceitwithout

beingtoodemanding.Thisalsohelpstomakesurethata“burdenconnotation”withintheinstitutiondoesnot

arise,whichcanhappen,evenwhenitisnotalotofrequiredwork.

Tosupportthelonglistoftasksaqualitymanagerhas,andtobetterbackupandpromotetheinstitution’sown

viewandmodelofqualitywithinit,theinstitutioncansetupsupportstructuressuchassettingupacentralstaff

developmentdepartmentforteachingandlearninginthequalityunitandfacilitatethepropagationofqualitywith

focusgroupsinthedepartmentsorfaculties.Thesemeasurescouldalsobelocatedoutsidethequalityunit.Inthat

case,thereshouldbeaclosecooperationbetweenthetwounits.Theseformsofcooperationandlinkswithoth-

erdepartmentsshouldbescannedanddetected(seeModule5).Theycanbevitalforthequalityofteachingand

learning.Anotherpossibilityforcooperationcouldbewithqualityassurancerelatedscientificfieldstheinstitution

has,suchassocialscienceresearchmethods,psychologyordidactics.

Allinall,qualityunitscanhaveaverydiversesetupwithcoretasksandsupportivetasksthatmightbededuct-

edfromyourqualitydefinitioninordertoenhanceteachingandlearning.Thefollowingtablegivesyouan

ideaofwhatthesecouldbe.

Core Tasks Supportive Tasks and Special Topics of Interest

Evaluation

Accreditation

Didacticsandfurthereducationandtrainingfor

lecturers

Datamanagement/knowledgemanagement

Controlling and monitoring

Coordinationandorganisationofteachingand

learning

E-learning(e.g.trainingandsupportfor

lecturers)

Employability,careerservice

Dealingwithdiversityofstudents

Internationalisation

Highereducationresearch

Transferfunction(knowledgeandservices)

Communityservice

Etc .

Table 12 Possiblecoretasks,supportivetasksandspecialtopicsofinterestofqualitymanagementunits

Qualitymanagerscanbeseenasblendedprofessionals,“whohavemixedbackgroundsandportfolios,com-

prisingelementsofbothprofessionalandacademicactivity”(Whitchurch2008,377).Asarelativelynewtask

inhighereducationinstitutions,therolesofthequalitymanagerandqualityunitarecontinuouslyevolving.

Inpracticeitwillnotalwaysbeclearwheretheresponsibilityofthequalitymanagerstartsandwhereitends.

Sometimesanimositieswillariseduetoconflictsinroleswithotherdepartmentsandunits.Aclearcutfor

qualitymanagers inteachingand learningwouldbetheactual implementationofsolutionsandenhance-

mentswhichareclearlytobeseeninthehandsoftheactualprovidersofteaching,althoughthequalityman-

agermightbeinvolvedinthefollow-upprocess.

Possible tasksofa quality manager/unit


96

4.2.3 Role of Faculties, Departments, Study Programmes and Lecturers

“AsDill(1995)stated,wecannotachievehigherqualitybyinspecting;qualityhastobe‘made’

painstakinglyintheinteractionbetweeneducatorsandstudentsatthework-floorlevel”

(Westerheijden, Stensaker, & Rosa 2007, 6).

Lastbutnotleast,thequalitymanagementsystemneedstoincludetheroleofthefaculties,departmentsand

studyprogrammesaswellasofthesinglelecturers.Whataretheyexpectedtodo?Inwhichprocessesare

theybeinginvolvedandwhichnot?Whataretheirdutiesandresponsibilities?Howshouldtheygetinvolved?

Howcantheybesupported?

Theroleoftheindividuals,studyprogrammesanddepartmentsinthefacultiesmightbeactuallythemost

difficultandprobablyalsomostimportantone.Thesystemandstructuresneedtofacilitatethemtoevaluate

andenhanceteachingandlearning,incorporatingsometimesconflicting,stakeholderdemandsandexternal

regulations.Sincethequalityofteachingandlearningismainlyintheirhands,themotivation,attitudeand

actioniskeyforqualityassuranceandenhancement.It isthereforeimportanttoincludetheminthepro-

cessesofsettingupthesystemandimplementation,informthemabouttherequirements,needs,goalsand

especiallyaboutthebenefits.Individuallecturersshouldmakeuseofqualityinstrumentsinformofevalua-

tionandtoolslikethePDCAcycle(seeChapter 3 .3 .1)whichsupportthemintheirendeavourforquality.In

theend,thefaculties,departmentandstudyprogrammesareakeystakeholderwhenitcomestodefining

thespecificqualityofteachingandlearning.Theyknowwhereproblemsandchallengesaretobefoundand

wherepotentialforenhancementexists.Thequalitymanagementsystemshouldsupportthemindoingso.

Afundamentalrequirementistheiractiveparticipationandmotivationwithqualityenhancementbeingpart

oftheireverydaywork.Thiskindofcommitmentisoftenseenasoneofthenecessarypillarstoestablisha

“qualityculture”.

Thinkingand setting the roles inqualitymanagement shouldbe seenasa continuousprocess.Roles can

changeovertimeastheinstitutionsandexternaldemandsandrequirementschange.Weencourageyouto

includeallrelevantstakeholderssuchasthestudents,theemployers,thestateandsocietyatlargeinyour

considerationsaboutrolesandresponsibilitiesforqualityinyourinstitutionandyourqualitymanagement

system .


1. Howwouldyoudescribetherelationshipbetweenyouandyourseniormanagement?

2. ReflectanddescribetherolesforqualitymanagementforyourownHEIs.

3.WhoelsedoyouseehavingaroleandresponsibilitiesinQA?Pleaseelaborate.

Define roles of faculty

down to individuals

Actorsas in“A”of

PDCA


97

4.3 Implementing a Quality Management SystemHavingdiscussedthepossiblestructuresandroles,wewillgiveyouashortexampleonhowtheprocessof

implementationofaQMScouldlooklike.HowcanaQMSactuallybeimplementedandrevisedandwhat

needstobeconsidered?Whohastobeinvolved?Whichresourcesareneeded?

Beforegoingintogreaterdetailaboutthephasesofimplementation,therearesomefundamentalquestions

thatshouldbetakenintoaccountbytheinitiatoroftheprocess,whichisusuallyseniormanagementwith

supportofaqualitymanager.Theycanbelaiddowninapersonalactionplanordraftconceptbeforeinvolv-

ing other actors:

Define the goals and objectivesoftheQMS:whatdoestheinstitutionwanttoachievewiththesystem?

Andfollowingfromthat,whichqualitynotion,definitionandparadigmisthesystembasedon(tobegin

with)?

Define the timeline and milestonesofimplementation:howlongisthegeneraltimelineforthedevelop-

mentphase,theimplementationphaseanduntilshort-,middle-andlong-termgoalsareachieved?

Define partners and actors:whohastobeinvolvedintheimplementationorrevision?Atwhichpointand

howintensely?Forexample:whichrolesdoseniormanagement,thefaculties,administrativedepartments

orthestudents’unionplay?

Define resources:whichresourcesareneededtoimplementandrunthesystem?Thisappliestohuman

andfinancialresourcesaswellasinfrastructureandInformationTechnology(IT)forexample.

Define how to measure the success ofthesingleimplementationphases:themilestonessetfortheimple-

mentationorrevisionshouldbetransparentandclearlydefinedinordertoknowiftheyhavebeenreached

ornot.Inordertonotlosemotivationduringthemostlylonganddemandingprocess,itisadvisabletorun

a“policyofsmallsteps”whichleadstomanysmallerachievements,wheremilestonesshouldbecelebrat-

ed.Don´tthinktoobig!

Further Reading

Anderson,G.(2006).Assuringquality/resistingqualityassurance:Academics’responsesto“quality”

insomeAustralianuniversities.QualityinHigherEducation,12(2),161–173.

Sursock,A.(2011).ExaminingqualityculturepartII:Processesandtools-participation,ownership

andbureaucracy.Brussels:EuropeanUniversityAssociation.

Whitchurch,C. (2008).Shifting identitiesandblurringboundaries:Theemergenceofthirdspace

professionalsinUKhighereducation.HigherEducationQuarterly,62(4),377–396.

Winter,R.(2009).Academicmanagerormanagedacademic?Academicidentityschismsinhigher

education.JournalofHigherEducationPolicyandManagement,31(2),121–131.

Definean actionplan of implemen- tationor revision

Funda- mental questions


98

Basedonthesebasicpreliminarydefinitions,theimplementationorrevisionprocessofaQMScanhavethe

following6phases:

1 . Conceptual phase: thepreliminarydefinitionswehavelaidoutabovecanbealreadyseenasbeingpart

oftheconceptualphase.Thefurthertaskintheconceptualphaseistofindanswerstofundamentalques-

tionssuchasthemainpillarsofthesystem,thedefinitionofthekeyelementsandinstrumentsandtheir

development.Attheendofthisphasethereshouldbeanactionplanwhichincludesactivities,milestones,

responsibilities,involvedactorsandoutputs/outcomesforexample.Themoredetailedthebetter.Itshould

beclearthoughthattheactionplanwillbeconstantlyevolving.

2 . Activation phase:thisisthephasewhereyoucoordinatewiththemostimportantstakeholdersandcreate

awarenessfortheneedofaQMSoritsrevision.Youwillneedtofindalliesforthepoliticaldecision-pro-

cessesinyourinstitution.

3 . Implementation phase I: Youstartimplementingyourplanbydevelopingtheinstruments,settingupthe

communicationinfrastructuretodiscussachievements,todevelopmechanismsetc.

4 . Reflection phase:itisimportanttoreceivestakeholderfeedback,makeadjustmentstotheconceptand

locatethesourceofcurrentimplementationchallengestomakeadjustmenttotheimplementationplan.

5 . Implementation phase II:withthenewknowledgeofthereflectionphasethefurtherimplementationof

instrumentsandmechanismscanbestarted.Instrumentsshouldbelinkedandprocessesdocumentedfor

example .

6. Evaluation phase: finally,thesystemshouldbeevaluatedinternallyorexternally.Thelattercouldbedone

withanaudit,accreditationorevaluation.Withanewsystemyouwouldgenerallyfirstlookatthefunc-

tioningofthesystem.Ifitisalreadyquitematuretheevaluationphasecouldconcentrateontheoutcomes

and impact of the system .

Whicheverphasesyouchooseforyourimplementationplan,itshouldbebasedonthePDCAcyclelogic(see

Chapter 3 .3 .1),meaningthattheprocesswouldre-startfromthebeginningonceended.Qualitymanagement

systemsshouldneverbeseentobe“complete”,onthecontrarytheyshouldbedevelopedcontinuously.This

isamaindifferencetoaprojectimplementationprocess,whichhasapredefinedend,butgenerallythesteps

andphasesarecomparable(seehand-outonprojectmanagement).

4.4 Case Studies of Quality Management Systems and Structures

Thefollowingaretwoshortexemplarycasestudies thatshowhowqualityassuranceandmanagement is

beingimplementedindifferenttypesofinstitutions.

6implemen- tationphases

basedon PDCAcycle

logic


99

4.4.1 Quality Management System of the Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh City

Withover50,000studentstheVietnamNationalUniversityHoChiMinhCity(VNU-HCM)isoneofthebiggest

universitiesofthecountry.Itwasestablishedasamergerofdifferentinstitutionsin1995andhastheparticu-

larityofbeinganumbrellaorganisationofcurrentlysixuniversities,oneschool,oneresearchinstituteanda

numberofcentres.Eachmemberinstitutionhasitsownfacultiesanddepartments.

TheQAsystematVNU-HCMisbasedupontheimportanceofagoodbalancebetweencentralisation

anddecentralisation.Itconsistsofthreelevels:theoverarchingVNU-HCMlevelwithaQAcounciland

theCenterforEducationalTestingandQualityAssessment(CETQA),thememberinstitutionleveleach

withitsrespectiveQAUnit,andthequalityunitatfacultylevelwithintheinstitutions(seefigure9).

CETQA is a standing unit of

VNU-HCM’s QA Council and

servesastheQAunitonVNU-

HCMlevel.Itistosomeextent

the bridge between the QA

CouncilandtheQAUnitsatins-

titutionallevel.CETQAisunder

the direct guidance of the pre-

sidentandvertically related to

the other units of VNU-HCM’s

QAsystem.Itcoordinates,faci-

litates and monitors the QA

practices of the member ins-

titutions and provides consul-

tancy for the QA Council for

exampleinmattersofstrategy.

Italsomakessurethatthedeci-

sionsmadeby theQACouncil

are implemented on the mem-

berinstitutionslevel.

TheQACouncilsetsthedirectionandstrategyforQApracticesforthewholesystem.TheQAUnitsof

thememberinstitutionsdeveloptheirstrategyinalignmentwiththeVNUCouncilandtheirowncont-

ext.Thequalityunitsatthefacultylevelarethenresponsiblefortheimplementation.CETQAannually

conductsinternalqualityassessmentsatprogrammeandinstitutionallevel.Ontheprogrammelevel

theassessment is basedon theAUN-QAcriteriawhileon the institutional level the criteria inuse

areissuedbytheMinistryofEducationandTraining(MOET).AQAhandbookwithguidelinesforQA

practiceisfurthercurrentlybeingissued.

NguyenMyNgoc(VNU-HCM,2015)

Figure 9 QAstructureatVietnamNationalUniversityHoChiMinhCity


100

4.4.2 Quality Management System of the Multimedia UniversityWhileVNU-HCMisapublicuniversity,theMultimediaUniversity(MMU)isaprivatelyrununiversityinMalay-

siaestablishedin1996withafocusonEngineering,IT,Multimedia,BusinessandLaw.Ithasover20,000stu-

dentsin9facultiesatthreecampuses.

The governance of aca-

demic Quality Assurance

(QA) in Multimedia Uni-

versity(MMU)isinaccord-

ance with the Malaysia

Qualification Framework

and Programme Stand-

ards of Malaysian Quali-

fications Agency (MQA).

Theoperatingprocessesin

key academic administra-

tive and supporting units,

such as the examination

andrecordsunitandlibrary,

areISOcertified.MMUadoptstheMQACodeofPrac-

tice forProgrammeAccreditation for internalQAsys-

temwiththeacademicqualitydimensionscategorised

into inputs,QAprocesses aswell as theultimateQA

goalsandobjectivestobereachedasillustratedinthe

figurebelow.

TheuniversityQA system is focused stronglyon indi-

vidual academic programme enhancement. The pro-

gramme performance review is conducted by the

faculty for each academic semester in terms of staff

achievement/development, student performance,

accreditationstatus,industrialcollaborationsorlinked

final year projects, graduate employability, entrepre-

neurshipetc.TheDemingcycleofPDCAisusedforexe-

cutingcontinuousquality improvement(CQI) foreach

academicqualitydimension.Qualityassurance instru-

ments and mechanisms are used to maintain and assure

qualityandPDCAallowstobringqualitytoahigherlev-

elandcontinuouslyenhanceit(seefigure11).

Figure 10 AcademicqualitydimensionsofMultimediaUniversity

Figure 11 Quality enhancement at MultimediaUniversity


101

Activeparticipationandfeedbackfrominternationalrenownedandestablishedexternalexaminers/

professors, industrial advisorypanels, andemployersarepursuedannually toadvise the faculty in

ensuringeachacademicprogrammeisconstantlyincorporatedwithup-to-dateacademiccontent,syl-

labusandbenchmarkedpractices.TheeffectivenessoftheseschemestoachievetheQAobjectivesare

examinedbyacomprehensiveinternalmaintenanceaudit(IMA),organisedbytheuniversityQAunit,

namelytheCentreforQualityAssuranceandAcademicExcellence(CQAAE).TheCQAAEisunderthe

universityStrategicandTransformationOfficeoverseenbythePresident.TheoutcomesoftheIMAare

reviewedtoformulateactionplanswhicharemonitoredunderprogrammeperformancereviewatthe

universitylevel.Theactionplansanddesiredtargetsareincorporatedintheannualassessmentofthe

faculty’sperformanceandtheDean’sKPIseventhoughQAisunderthepurviewoftheDeanandsup-

portedbytheDeputyDeanofAcademicAffairs.

OngDuu-Sheng(MMU,2014)

Chapter 5: Successful Quality Management Systems

102

Chapter 5

Successful Quality Management Systems When Does a System Live Up to its Purpose? Part I


103

5 Successful Quality Management Systems – When Does a System Live Up to its Purpose? Part I

This course book has outlined the basics about quality assurance in higher education and started to dis-

cuss main questions on how to implement a QMS. Our following four module course books will continue to

address the implementation of a QMS, closing the loop in Module 5 where we will again address the question

of implementation at the system level, especially focusing on the linkages of a QMS.

As a preliminary conclusion (part I), to be successful, a quality management system must on the one hand

address and meet the requirements, standards and goals set by the respective EQA system of the country

and/or region. Chapter 3.1 has outlined the importance of the external systems, ranging from making higher

education accountable to the topic of mobility and recognition and quality enhancement. This partial require-

ment for a QMS to “live up to its purpose” can be seen to be achieved upon successful accreditation, audit or

assessment etc., depending on the respective instrument of the EQA system.

On the other hand, the system must address and meet the institution’s own individual requirements, stand-

ards and goals which are in line with the own context and challenges and go beyond those of the EQA systems.

In order to reach this purpose, higher education institutions need to set their own transparent criteria of suc-

cess that can be verified through mechanisms and instruments. This second internal purpose is partially also

a goal of EQA systems in some countries which include a focus on enhancement.

These two sides of the coin emphasise a main requirement that a QMS has to comply with: finding the right

balance and exploit synergies between the external and internal context, between EQA and IQA. The stake-

holders of teaching and learning play an important role for both sides.

In order to design a system that lives up to its purpose we have tried to summarise what needs to be consid-

ered, and have shown how different possibilities, decisions and designs could look like: from the definition of

quality as a fundament (how can quality be defined?) and possible quality models (how can quality be con-

trolled, assured, enhanced and managed?) to the structures, roles and responsibilities (how can the system

be structured and implemented?).

Looking back at these steps, we have often emphasised considering your own context and we posed the ques-

tion whether quality and quality assurance concepts, models and instruments from management could be

implemented in higher education. Without being able to give you a general formula or answer for your specific

case, we want to again point out that the contextual variable is very important for the system to be effective.

The same applies to good practice examples from other higher education institutions; they too give no guaran-

tee of being successful in your institution, especially if the source institution is very different from one’s own.

Fulfil EQA?

Fulfil IQA?

EQA & IQA balance


104

We therefore pledge that quality assurance and management need to be designed and modelled inside the

single institutions, and not just adopted and implemented with models from outside. In this regard, Stensaker

(2007) has introduced the concept of translation which can be used as a maxim when designing and imple-

menting quality management. Westerheijden, Stensaker and Rosa (2007) depict it as follows:

“Translation suggests a more complicated process than the more traditional term of ‘implementa-

tion’. Implementation suggests a linear, mechanical process of making commands happen, while

translation has the image of an active process performed by an interpreter – and much may be

lost in translation, as the 2003 movie of that name showed. Successful translation is not just a

matter of replacing a word from one language with a word from another, but also must take

account of different grammar, syntax, and cultural nuances.”

(Westerheijden, Stensaker, & Rosa 2007, 6)

Quality is dynamic and so should your system be. HEIs at the initial stages of quality management might less

focus on quality enhancement and more on quality control and assurance. In this light, our exemplary main

structures that we have outlined (see Chapter 4.1.2), could be seen as being suitable for different stages of

your system. One option for new systems we have outlined, is to set it up strong ties to the senior manage-

ment until it is more mature, minimum standards are reached and faculties, departments and lecturers are

involved. Following that, a focus on quality enhancement could be set. A more suitable structural option in

that case could be the independent centre, which can offer support and staff development courses with a

stronger decentralised approach and less tight link to senior management.

Regardless of one’s own context and “quality stage”, higher education institutions need to find a balance

between centralisation and decentralisation. If we take Mintzberg’s Professional Bureaucracy organisational

type (see Chapter 4.1.1) to describe HEIs, a top-down approach is unlikely to work. A transparent and partic-

ipative approach is more adequate and likely to be successful and sustainable. A participative approach of all

the concerned stakeholders, would produce ownership and could nurture a so called quality culture in the

institution, at the level of faculties, departments and lecturers (Kohler 2012, 81). In this sense quality culture

is often seen to be the answer to many challenges (Harvey & Stensaker 2008, 438) while it remains unclear

however what it really is and how and if these answers can be reached. These questions and the implications

of quality culture for the system and daily work, will be further discussed in Module 5.

If we look at instruments like evaluation and accreditation there is a common understanding that they lead

to the learning of the involved faculties, departments, study programmes and lecturers. The self-assessment

Quality Culture

“Quality culture is a set of group values that guide how improvements are made to everyday working

practices and consequent outputs.”

Source: Harvey (2004-14). Continue reading online...

Principle of translation

Balance between

centralisation & decentrali-

sation

http://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/glossary/qualityculture.htm


105

part, for example, leads to changes the way the actors behave. Putting teaching and learning on the agenda

is the basis for quality improvement. A crucial phase is when the first successes have been achieved. Stand-

ing still and resting on one’s laurels by repeating the processes over and over does not add as much quality

improvement or accountability as the first “round” did. Routine, bureaucratisation and window dressing are a

big risk. Therefore, quality assurance systems need to bear this danger in mind and be designed to allow con-

stant change. (Schwarz & Westerheijden 2004a, 32)

The TrainIQA modules are conceived with the underlying idea of giving quality managers and their institutions

the necessary knowledge, skills, tools and procedures to elaborate and acquire their own view on quality

assurance and enhancement in order to develop their contribution for promoting (a) quality (culture) at their

respective institutions.

We hope this module course book gave you a broader insight into quality and quality management system in

higher education and that it made you eager for more. We wish you good luck in your quality endeavour and

are looking forward going part of the way together!


1. All in all, what are the main aspects that should be considered in the process of introducing and run-

ning a QMS for your own HEI? Reflect on what has been discussed in the module and summarise your

conclusions in a list.

References

Altbach, P. G. (2008). Globalization and forces for change in higher education. International Higher Education,

50, 2–4.

Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, L. E. (2009). Trends in global higher education: Tracking an academic

revolution. Paris: UNESCO.

Amaral, A., & Rosa, M. J. (2010). Recent trends in quality assurance. Quality in Higher Education, 16(1), 59–61.

Attard, A., Di Iorio, E., Geven, K., & Santa, R. (2010). Student centered learning. An insight into theory and

practice. Bucharest: ESU.

Ball, C. (1985). Fitness for purpose. Essays in higher education. Guildford: SRHE & NFER-Nelson.

Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning - a new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change:

The Magazine of Higher Learning, 27(6), 12–26.

Becket, N., & Brookes, M. (2008). Quality management practice in higher education - what quality are we

actually enhancing?. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 7(1), 40–54.

Bernhard, A. (2014). Quality assurance in an international higher education area - a case study approach and

comparative analysis. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

Bose, D. C. (2012). Principles of management and administration. Delhi: PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd.

Bucher, U. (2012). How a culture of excellence becomes reality - making the invisible visible. In Harvey, L.,

Kohler, J., Bucher, U., & Sursock, A. Best of the Bologna Handbook. Understanding Quality in Higher

Education 1 (94–103). Berlin: Raabe.

Campbell, C., & Rozsnyai, C. (2002). Papers on higher education. Quality assurance and the development of

course programmes. Bucharest: UNESCO.

Chua, C. (2004). Perception of Quality in Higher Education. AUQA Occasional Publications.

Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25.

Conti, T., Kondo Y., & Watson, G. H. (Eds.). (2003). Quality into the 21st century. Perspectives on quality and

competitiveness for sustained performance. Milwaukee: ASQ Quality Press.

Conway, T., Mackay, S., & Yorke, D. (1994). Strategic planning in higher education. International Journal of

Educational Management, 8(6), 29–36.

Coronado, R. B., & Antony, J. (2002). Critical success factors for the successful implementation of six sigma

projects in organisations. The TQM Magazine, 14(2), 92–99.

Curado, C. (2006). Organisational learning and organisational design. The Learning Organization, 13(1), 25–48.

Damme, D. Van (2001). Quality issues in the internationalisation of higher education. Higher Education, 41

(4), 415–441.

Damme, D. Van (2002). Trends and models in international quality assurance and accreditation in higher

education in relation to trade in education services. Washington: OECD.

Dill, D. (2010). Quality assurance in higher education: practices and issues. In McGaw, B., Baker, E., & Peterson,

P. (Eds.), The 3rd International Encyclopedia of Education (377–383). Oxford: Elsevier.

Enders, J., De Boer, H. F., & Westerheijden, D. F. (2011). Reform of higher education in europe. Rotterdam:

Sense Publishers.

References

106

References

ENQA, ESU, EUA, EURASHE, Education International, BUSINESSEUROPE, & EQAR. (2014). Standards and

guidelines for quality assurance in the european higher education area. Endorsed by the Bologna

follow-up group in September 2014. Subject to approval by the Ministerial Conference in May 2015.

Retrieved from https://revisionesg.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/esg-draft-endoresed-by-bfug.pdf

European Ministers of Education. (1999). The Bologna Declaration of 19 June 1999. Retrieved from http://

www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/documents/MDC/BOLOGNA_DECLARATION1.

pdf

Fisher, N. I., & Nair, V. N. (2009). Quality management and quality practice: Perspectives on their history and

their future. Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry, 25(1), 1–28.

Garvin, D. A. (1993). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review, 96(1), 78–91.

Green, D. (1994). What is quality in higher education?. Bristol: Taylor & Francis.

Harvey, L. (2004-14). Analytic Quality Glossary. Quality Research International. Retrieved from http://www.

qualityresearchinternational.com/glossary/

Harvey, L., & Green, D. (1993). Defining quality. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 18(1), 9–34.

Harvey, L. (2012). Understanding quality. In Harvey, L., Kohler, J., Bucher, U., & Sursock, A. Best of the Bologna

Handbook. Understanding Quality in Higher Education 1 (5–34). Berlin: Raabe.

Harvey, L., & Knight, P. T. (1996). Transforming higher education. Bury St Edmunds: St Edmundsbury Press.

Harvey, L., & Stensaker, B. (2008). Quality culture: Understandings, boundaries and linkages. European Journal

of Education, 43(4), 427–442.

Hinckley, C. M. (1997). Defining the best quality-control systems by design and inspection. Clinical Chemistry,

43(5), 873–879.

Horn, M. B., & Mackey, K. (2011). Moving from inputs to outputs to outcomes. The future of education policy.

San Mateo: Innosight Institute.

Hou, A. Y.- C. (2012). Mutual recognition of quality assurance decisions on higher education institutions in

three regions: A lesson for asia. Higher Education, 64(6), 911–926.

Humboldt, W. von (1809/10). Über die innere und äußere Organisation der höheren wissenschaftlichen

Anstalten in Berlin. In Markschies, C. (2010) Gründungstexte. Berlin: Humboldt Universität Berlin.

International Engineering Alliance. (2014). Washington Accord. Retrieved from http://www.ieagreements.

org/washington-accord/

Job, J., & Sriraman, B. (2013). A framework for quality assurance in globalization of higher education: A view

toward the future. Interchange, 43(2), 75–93.

Jongbloed, B. (2003). Marketisation in higher education, clark’s triangle and the essential ingredients of

markets. Higher Education Quarterly, 57(2), 110–135.

Kaufmann, B. (2009). Qualitätssicherungssysteme an Hochschulen - Maßnahmen und Effekte: Eine empirische

Studie. Bonn: Hochschulrektorenkonferenz.

King, A. (1993). From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College Teaching, 41(1), 30–35.

Knight, J. (2003). Internationalisation: Meaning and models. In Smout, M. (Ed.), Internationalisation and quality

in South African universities. Pretoria : South African Universities’ Vice-Chancellors’ Association.

107

https://revisionesg.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/esg-draft-endoresed-by-bfug.pdf

http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/documents/MDC/BOLOGNA_DECLARATION1.pdf



http://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/glossary/

http://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/glossary/

http://www.ieagreements.org/washington-accord/

http://www.ieagreements.org/washington-accord/

References

Kohler, J. (2012a). Standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the EHEA: Content and consequences,

pros and cons. In Harvey, L., Kohler, J., Bucher, U., & Sursock, A. Best of the Bologna Handbook.

Understanding Quality in Higher Education 1 (119–148). Berlin: Raabe.

Kohler, J. (2012b). Quality in higher education. In Harvey, L., Kohler, J., Bucher, U., & Sursock, A. Best of the

Bologna Handbook. Understanding Quality in Higher Education 1 (35–91). Berlin: Raabe.

Lawler, A., & Sillitoe, J. (2013). Facilitating ‘organisational learning’ in a ‘learning institution’. Journal of Higher

Education Policy and Management, 35(5), 495–500.

Leisyte, L., Westerheijden, D. F., Epping, E., Faber, M., & de Weert, E. (2013). Stakeholders and quality assurance

in higher education. Enschede: Center for Higher Education Policy Studies.

Martin, M., & Stella A. (2007). External quality assurance in higher education: Making choices. Paris: UNESCO.

Mintzberg, H. (1980). Structure in 5’s: A synthesis of the research on organization design. Management

Science, 26(3), 322–341.

Mishra, S. (2007). Quality assurance in higher education. An introduction. Bangalore: National Assessment

and Accreditation Council.

Neave, G. (1998). The evaluative state reconsidered. European Journal of Education, 33(3), 265–284.

Nicholson, K. (2011). Quality assurance in higher education: A review of the literature. Hamilton: McMaster

University. Retrieved from http://cll.mcmaster.ca/COU/pdf/Quality%20Assurance%20Literature%20

Review.pdf

Orton, J. D., & Weick, K. E. (1990). Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization. The Academy of

Management Review, 15(2), 203–223.

Oxford Dictionaries. (2014). Quality. In Oxford University Press: Oxford Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University

Press. Retrieved from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/quality

Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J. G., & Boydell, T. (1991). The learning company: A strategy for sustainable development.

London: McGraw-Hill.

Penna, R. M. (2011). The nonprofit outcomes toolbox: A complete guide to program effectiveness, performance

measurement, and results. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Piña, A. A. (2010). Online diploma mills: Implications for legitimate distance education. Distance Education,

31(1), 121–126.

Pirsig, R. M. (1999). Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance: An inquiry into values. New York: Random

House.

Pohlenz, P., & Mauermeister, S. (2013). Die European Standards and Guidelines als Referenzpunkt für die

Entwicklung von Qualitätsmanagementsystemen. In Benz, W., Kohler, J., & Landfried, K. (Eds.),

Handbuch Qualität in Studium und Lehre (1–26). Berlin: Raabe.

Pollitt, C. (1995). Justification by works or by faith? Evaluating the new public management. Evaluation, 1(2),

133–154.

Redding, P. (2005). The evolving interpretations of customers in higher education: Empowering the elusive.

International Journal of Consumer Studies, 29(5), 409–417.

Rosa, M. J., & Amaral, A. (2007). A self-assessment of higher education institutions form the perspective of the

EFQM Excellence Model. In Westerheijden D. F., Stensaker, B., & Rosa M. J. (Eds.), Quality assurance

in higher education: Trends in regulation, translation and transformation (181–207). Dordrecht:

Springer.

Rosa, M. J., Sarrico, C. S., & Amaral, A. (2012). Implementing quality management systems in higher education

institutions. In Savsar, M. (Ed.), Quality Assurance and Management (129–146). InTech.

108

http://cll.mcmaster.ca/COU/pdf/Quality%20Assurance%20Literature%20Review.pdf

http://cll.mcmaster.ca/COU/pdf/Quality%20Assurance%20Literature%20Review.pdf

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/quality

References

Rust, C. (2002). The impact of assessment on student learning how can the research literature practically help

to inform the development of departmental assessment strategies and learner-centred assessment

practices?. Active Learning in Higher Education, 3(2), 145–158.

Sallis, E. (2002). Total quality management in education (3rd ed.). New York/Abingdon: Routledge.

Sanyal, B. C., & Martin M. (2007). Quality assurance and the role of accreditation: An overview. In Global

University Network for Innovation (Ed.), Higher education in the world 2007. Accreditation for

quality assurance: What is at stake? (2nd ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Scheerens, J., Luyten, H., & van Ravens, J. (2011). Measuring educational quality by means of indicators.

In Scheerens J., Luyten, H., & Ravens, J. van (Eds.), Perspectives on educational quality (35–50).

SpringerBriefs in Education 1. Dordrecht: Springer.

Schroeder, R. G., Linderman, K., Liedtke, C., & Choo, A. S. (2008). Six sigma: Definition and underlying theory.

Journal of Operations Management, 26(4), 536–554.

Schuetze, H. G., & Slowey, M. (2002). Participation and exclusion: A comparative analysis of non-traditional

students and lifelong learners in higher education. Higher Education, 44(3-4), 309–327.

Schwarz, S., & Westerheijden D. F. (2004a). Accreditation in the framework of evaluation activities: A

comparative study in the european higher education area. In Schwarz, S., & Westerheijden D. F.

(Eds.), Accreditation and evaluation in the european higher education area, Vol. 5. Higher Education

Dynamics. Dordrecht: Springer.

Schwarz, S., & Westerheijden D. F. (2004b). Accreditation and evaluation in the european higher education

area. Higher Education Dynamics 5. Dordrecht: Springer.

Senior, B., & Fleming, J. (2006). Organizational change. Harlow: Pearson Education.

Shin, J. C., & Harman G. (2009). New challenges for higher education: Global and asia-pacific perspectives.

Asia Pacific Education Review, 10(1), 1–13.

Sokovic, M., Pavletic, D., & Kern Pipan, K. (2010). Quality improvement methodologies – PDCA cycle, RADAR

matrix, DMAIC and DFSS. Journal of Achievements in Materials and Manufacturing Engineering, 43

(1), 476–483.

Srikanthan, G., & Dalrymple J. (2003). Developing alternative perspectives for quality in higher education.

International Journal of Educational Management, 17(3), 126–136.

Srikanthan, G., & Dalrymple, J. (2002). Developing a holistic model for quality in higher education. Quality in

Higher Education, 8(3), 215–224.

Stage, F. K., Muller, P., Kinzie, J., & Simmons, A. (1998). Creating learning centered classrooms. What does

learning theory have to say? ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 26(4).

Steiger, J. S., Hammou, K. T., & Galib, M. H. (2014). An examination of the influence of organizational structure

types and management levels on knowledge management practices in organizations. International

Journal of Business and Management, 9(6), 43-57.

Stensaker, B. (2007). Quality as fashion: Exploring the translation of a management idea into higher education.

In Westerheijden, D. F., Stensaker, B., & Rosa, M. J. (Eds.), Quality assurance in higher education:

Trends in regulation, translation and transformation (99–118). Dodrecht: Springer Science & Business

Media.

Stufflebeam, D. L. (1971). The relevance of the CIPP evaluation model for educational accountability.” Journal

of Research and Development in Education 5(1), 19-25.

Stufflebeam, D. L. (2012). The CIPP evaluation model: Status, origin, development, use, and theory. In Alkin,

M.C. (Ed.), Evaluation roots: A wider perspective of theorists’ views and influences (243–260).

109

References

Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Sursock, A. (2012). European frameworks for quality. In Harvey, L., Kohler, J., Bucher, U., & Sursock, A. Best of

the Bologna Handbook. Understanding Quality in Higher Education 1 (105–118). Berlin: Raabe.

Sursock, A., & Vettori, O. (2012). Cultural brokers and multilinguists: New roles for quality assurance

professionals in the EHEA. (presented at the 7th European Quality Assurance Forum, Tallin, November

23).

Tam, M. (2001). Measuring quality and performance in higher education. Quality in Higher Education, 7(1),

47–54.

Trow, M. (1973). Problems in the transition from elite to mass higher education. (prepared for a converence by

the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris in June 1973).

Trow, M. (1996). Trust, markets and accountability in higher education: A comparative perspective. Berkeley:

Center for Studies in Higher Education.

Van Eekelen, I. M., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & Vermunt, J. D. (2005). Self-regulation in higher education teacher

learning. Higher Education, 50(3), 447–471.

Vlăsceanu, L., Grünberg, L., & Pârlea, D. (2007). Quality assurance and accreditation: A glossary of basic terms

and definitions. Bucharest: UNESCO-CEPES.

Watty, K. (2006). Want to know about quality in higher education? Ask an academic. Quality in Higher

Education, 12(3), 291–301.

Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly,

21(1), 1–19.

Westerheijden, D. F., Stensaker, B., & Rosa M. J. (Eds.). (2007). Quality assurance in higher education: Trends

in regulation, translation and transformation. Higher Education Dynamics 20. Dordrecht: Springer.

Whitchurch, C. (2008). Shifting identities and blurring boundaries: The emergence of third space professionals

in UK higher education. Higher Education Quarterly, 62(4), 377–396.

Woodhouse, D. (1999). Quality and quality assurance. In OECD: Quality and internationalisation in higher

education (29–40). Paris: OECD Publishing.

Woodhouse, D. (2012). A short history of quality. CAA Quality Series No. 2. Abu Dhabi: Commission for

Academic Accreditation.

Young, P. (2006). Out of balance: Lecturers’ perceptions of differential status and rewards in relation to

teaching and research. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(2), 191–202.

110

List of Tables

Table 1 Quality vs. Standard (Harvey 2012, 7) (own table) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Table 2 Stakeholder quality focus exemplary comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Table 3 Comparisonofoutput,outcomeandimpactinhighereducation . . . . . . . . . . 29

Table 4 Comparisonofeducationalparadigms(Barr&Tagg1995,16etseq.) (own table) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Table 5 Reasonsandmotivesforhighereducationinstitutionstocommittoquality and engage in quality assurance of teaching and learning – an overview (onthebasisof:Campbell&Rozsnyai2002;Schwarz&Westerheijden 2004a;Mishra2007;Altbach,Reisberg,&Rumbley2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Table 6 External assurance of academic quality (adapted from Dill 2010, 378) . . . . . 68

Table 7 Quality management models coming from industry and business (Becket&Brookes2008,44)(owntable) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Table 8 Steeringoptionsofqualityassurance(translatedfromKaufmann2009,26) (own table) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Table 9 Advantagesandchallengesofaunitunderseniormanagement (adaptedfromKaufmann2009,21etseq.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Table 10 Advantagesandchallengesofaunitunderadministration (adaptedfromKaufmann2009,20etseq.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Table 11 Advantagesandchallengesofanindependentcentre (adaptedfromKaufmann2009,19etseq.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Table 12 Possiblecoretasks,supportivetasksandspecialtopicsofinterestof quality management units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Table 13 Definitionofqualityandstandards(Harvey2012,10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Table 14 QualitymanagementmodelsappliedinHEIs(BecketandBrookes2008, 51etseq.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Table 15 QualitymanagementmodelsdevelopedforHE(BecketandBrookes2008, 52etseq.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

List of Tables

112

List of Figures

Figure 1 Abasicsytemmodelonthefunctioningofeducation (adaptedfromScheerens2011,36) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Figure 2 Process as a black box . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Figure 3 Differentiationbetweenexternalqualityassurance(EQA)and internalqualityassurance(IQA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Figure 4 Differentmechanismsofqualitymanagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Figure 5 Qualitycontrolprocessasusedbycraftsmenintheearly1900 (adapted from Hinckley 1997, 874) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Figure 6 Historyofqualitymanagement(adaptedfromZollondz2011,27) . . . . . . . . . 50

Figure 7 Coordinationsystems:thecrossingversustherounded (Jongbloed 2003, 130) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Figure 8 ThePDCAcycleofcontinuousimprovement(CCJohannesVietze) . . . . . . . . . 78

Figure 9 QAstructureatVietnamNationalUniversityHoChiMinhCity . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Figure 10 AcademicqualitydimensionsofMultimediaUniversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Figure 11 QualityenhancementatMultimediaUniversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

List of Figures

113

Annexes

114

Annexes

Quality Definition

Exceptional A traditional concept linked to the idea of ‘excellence’, usually operational-ised as exceptionnally high standards of academic achievement. Quality is achieved if the standards are surpassed.

Perfection or consistency Focuses on process and sets specifications that it aims to meet. Quality in this sense is summed up by the interrelated ideas of zero defects and get-ting things right first time.

Fitness for purpose Judges quality by the extent to which a product or service meets its stated purpose. The purpose may be customer-defined to meet requirements or (in education) institution-defined to reflect institutional mission (or course objectives).

Fitness of purpose Fitness of purpose evaluates whether the quality-related intentions of an organisation are adequate. It provides a check on fitness for purpose. As such, it is not a definition of quality per se.

Value for money Return on investment or expenditure is used to assess quality. At the heart of the value-for-money approach in education is the notion of accountabil-ity. Public services, including education, are expected to be accountable to the funders. Increasingly, students are also considering their own invest-ment in higher education in value-for-money terms.

Transformation Sees quality as a process of change, which in higher education adds value to students through their learning experience. Education is not a service for a customer but an ongoing process of transformation of the participant. This leads to two notions of transformative quality in education: enhancing and empowering the student or researcher.

Annex 1 – Definitions of Quality and Standards

Annexes

115

Standards Definition

Academic standards The demonstrated ability to meet specified level of academic attain-ment. For pedagogy, the ability of students to be able to do those things designated as appropriate at a given level of education. Usu-ally, the measured competence of an individual in attaining spec-ified (or implied) course aims and objectives, operationalised via performance on assessed pieces of work. For research, the ability to undertake effective scholarship or produce new knowledge, which is assessed via peer recognition.

Standards of competence Demonstration that a specified level of ability on a range of compe-tencies has been achieved. Competencies may include general trans-ferable skills required by employers; academic (‘higher level’) skills implicit or explicit in the attainment of degree status or in a post-grad-uation academic apprenticeship; particular abilities congruent with induction into a profession.

Service standards These are measures devised to assess identified elements of the service provided against specified benchmarks. Elements assessed include activities of service providers and facilities within which the service takes place. Benchmarks specified in ‘contracts’ such as stu-dent charters tend to be quantified and restricted to measurable items. Post hoc measurements of customer opinions (satisfaction) are used as indicators of service provision. Thus, service standards in higher education parallel consumer standards.

Organisational standards Attainment of formal recognition of systems to ensure effective management of organisational processes and clear dissemination of organisational practices.

Table 13 Definitionofqualityandstandards(Harvey2012,10)

Annexes

Model Adopted Author, Year Analysis

Modified (SERVQUAL)

Ford et al., 1999; Markovic,2006; Kwan and Ng, 1999;Abdullah,2006

Intense competition in HE requires assessment of custom-

er views and attention to management processes.

Customer satisfaction affected by perceived quality.

Priori of important attributes may not transfer across cul-

tures; therefore further research needed.

Performance indicators (PIs) tend to measure activity, not

education quality, and therefore need to address the stu-

dent experience.

EFQM McAdam and Welsh, 2000;Osseo-AsareJrandLongbot-tom,2002;Hidesetal.,2004;Tari,2006;Calvo-Moraetal.,2006

Integrated map of management issues valued and useful

to secure confidence of different stakeholders.

Useful as a basis of self-assessment.

Tests the relationship between enablers and results.

Implementation requires top-level commitment, focus on

customer delivery and commitment to medium and long-

term programmes.

Policy must be the reference point for organisation of

resources.

Dilemma of applying business principles/language to HEIs.

Three to five years before benefits may be evidenced.

Challenge regarding managerial skills in HE.

Greater benefit if EFQM and national HE control mecha-

nisms were integrated.

Balanced scorecard

Cullen et al., 2003, Chen etal.,2006

Focus on performance management and evaluation.

PIs linked to strategy and management; otherwise can be

dysfunctional.

Scorecard can be used to manage rather than simply mon-

itor performance.

Malcolm Baldridge award

ArifandSmiley,2004 Advantages in operational elements: strategic and budget

planning; careers; outreach; and information services.

Benefits may be immediate and long standing.

ISO 9000 ShutlerandCrawford,1998 Defines product of HE as learning of students (British

Standards Institute (BSI)).

Continuous improvement achievable through preventative

action.

Less scientific control in educational products than in man-

ufacturing.

Annex 2 – Summary of Quality Management Models Originating from Business and Industry

116

Annexes

Model Adopted Author, Year Analysis

Business process re-engineering

WelshandDey,2002;Sohailetal.,2006

Strategy for assessment of both internal and external

stakeholders.

Uses technology to underpin quality assurance and

enhancement.

Devolves some responsibility for assessment to the course

level.

Enables HEI to become improvement-driven through refo-

cusing core processes.

Improvements identified in productivity, service levels and

efficiency.

Cost-effective method for accountability and improvement

purposes.

TQM-relatedQualitymanagementframe-work(Widricketal.,2002);five-stepprogrammingmodel(MotwaniandKumar,1997);TQM(AlyandAkpovi,2001);serviceguarantees (LawrenceandMcCollough,2001);HoshinKanrimodel(RobertsandTennant,2003);continuousqualityimprove-ment(Roffe,1998);self-rat-ingscales(Pounder,1999);TQMinHE(SrikanthanandDalrym-ple,2002);QFD(Thakkaretal.,2006;HwarngandTeo,2001)

Encourages disciplined thinking about tangible and intan-

gible aspects of academic activities and operational

aspects required in design and delivery of courses.

Improvements identified in customer service, university

processes, staff and faculty morale, course quality and per-

sonnel hiring.

Involvement of students, faculty and funding/statutory

bodies recommended.

Much implementation of TQM in HEIs in the USA has been

in finance/administration services. Extension beyond these

to teaching is a major challenge.

TQM appropriate for service aspects, but a different

approach required for teaching and research.

Challenges lie in resistance to change and in lack of

resources, leadership and campus-wide strategic planning.

Difficulty in defining role of students as co-producers, con-

sumers or customers.

Other limitations relate to: difficulty in defining outputs;

challenges related to leadership skills; TQM requirement

for teamwork/customer involvement is not congruent

with autonomy of academic staff; people rather than pro-

cess orientation; level of acceptance of TQM principles;

bureaucratic structures; and complexity of application to

HE.

Table 14 QualitymanagementmodelsappliedinHEIs(BecketandBrookes2008,51etseq.)

117

Annexes

Model Author Model Overview

Model for quality management in higher education

SrikanthanandDalrymple(2002, 2003, 2004), Aus-tralia

Approach is based on evidence from educational lit-

erature.

Four methodologies: transformative; engagement

theory of programme quality; methods to develop

a university of learning; strategies for achieving a

responsive university.

In teaching and research, students are participants

and the focus is on their learning.

Implementation of 2002 model focusing on philoso-

phies and approaches to student learning and meth-

ods of engendering a dynamic collaboration around

student learning.

Recommends a move from the ritual of teaching to

focus on student learning, academic productivity

and organisation performance.

Radical change using student learning as the central

criterion.

Excellence model PiresdaRosaetal. (2001,2003),Portugal

Based on empirical research, nine criteria support-

ing self-analysis and acting as a source for quality

improvement and leading strategic development.

Quality management associated with evalua-

tion activities covering teaching and research and

regarded by participants as positive.

Academic award model Badri and Abdulla (2004),UAE

Concerned with teaching, research and servic-

es to develop a more explicit approach to faculty

rewards/awards.

Model includes criteria for diversification, course

development, material production, student evalu-

ation, course files, teaching portfolio and contribu-

tions to conferences and workshops.

Annex 3 – Summary of Quality Management Models Developed for Higher Education

118

Annexes


Model to assess quality of student experience and learning outcomes

Tam(2002,2006),HongKong

Assessment of quality in HE should be measured in

terms of student growth. This calls for attention to

student outcomes, including cognitive and non-cog-

nitive aspects of learning, skills and satisfaction with

university environment.

Investigates relationship between university experi-

ence and student outcomes as a means of determin-

ing a university’s success in meeting its educational

goals and proposes approach oriented to this.

Instrument designed to help understand the student

experience.

Multi-models of quality in education

ChengandTam(1997),HongKong

Identifies seven models of quality in education and

emphasises the complexity of pursuing educational

quality.

Effectiveness and quality are concepts used to

understand performance, so approach needs to be

comprehensive and take account of longer-term

goals.

Cross cultural issues require further investigation.

Performance measures for academic depart-ments

Al-TurkiandDuffuaa(2003),SaudiArabia

Adopts a systems approach and identifies perfor-

mance measures to evaluate productivity, efficiency,

effectiveness, internal structure, growth and devel-

opment.

Hierarchical performance measurement model is

based on outcome measures for each category –

input, process and outputs.

Internal audit ReidandAshelby(2002),UK

Identifies tangible benefits from internal audits,

such as significant cultural changes, which can rein-

force quality enhancement, create greater staff

involvement, as well as give benefits to the institu-

tions.

Considers programme management, development

and evaluation, staff development, assessment of

students, external examining processes, collabora-

tive provision and value added.

119


Internal audit BecketandBrookes,(2006),UK

Model to evaluate quality management approaches

in departments.

Six dimensions identified: internal/external perspec-

tive; qualitative/quantitative information; snapshot/

longitudinal timespan; quality dimension assessed;

system elements, and enhancement or assurance

focus.

Quality dimensions fra-mework

OwliaandAspinwall(1996),UK

30 different quality characteristics identified for HE,

using generalised dimensions defining quality drawn

from manufacturing/software and service methods.

Programme evaluation model

Mizikaci(2006),Romania Considers HE as a system (input, processes and

outputs) for programme evaluation and identifies

social, technical and management systems within

these.

Quality management framework

Grantetal.(2002,2004)Widricketal.(2002),USA

Identify dimensions of quality in HE – quality of

design, conformance and performance.

Quality of performance is least likely to be consid-

ered.

Subject quality assuran-ce system

MartensandProsser(1998),Australia

University-wide system of quality assurance to ena-

ble systematic review and enhancement of individ-

ual subjects, allowing for discipline-specific require-

ments.

The focus is on the improvement of student learn-

ing.

ISO-based TQM model BorahanandZiarati(2002),Turkey

Combine TQM, Malcolm Baldridge and ISO 9000

principles, drawing on USA and UK practices to iden-

tify quality criteria.

Building blocks for quality assurance and control

include: programme management and operations;

curriculum design content and organisation; teach-

ing, learning and assessment; student support and

guidance; and quality assurance and enhancement.

Five-phase TQM imple-mentation model

MotwaniandKumar(1997),USA

Identifies the issues which institutions need to con-

sider when implementing TQM in five phases: decid-

ing; preparing; starting; expanding or integrating;

and evaluating.

Table 15 QualitymanagementmodelsdevelopedforHE(BecketandBrookes2008,52etseq.)

Annexes

120

With financial support from the Supported by

Duisburg-Essen, zur Verfügung gestellt. › media › daad_de › pdfs_nicht_barrie... ·...

Documents

Transcript of Duisburg-Essen, zur Verfügung gestellt. › media › daad_de › pdfs_nicht_barrie... ·...